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

In reply to NermalSnert (Forum Supporter) :

Exactly.  And if she wanted to, she never had to give up the horse and buggy because they were never outlawed.

 Hell I even drive around the Horse and Buggies thanks to a local Mennonite group. Come to think of it, many of the Mennonites prove most of these "GOBERNMET GONNA MAKE ME " arguments are completely wrong...

Chris_V said:

Boost_crazy, don't bother. You have people with zero experience arguing with people that have loads of experience. It's insane. I've been living with EVs for over a decade after studying them for most of a decade before that, and yet these idiots act like I'm lying about it. I'm tired of arguing with the same fools repeating the same misinformation borne out of ignorance and then they refuse to learn from those of us with experience. Typical MAGA crap in that actual knowledge is bad and should be shunned.

Pretty much. These last 4 pages got started because they didn't wanna admit nobody called anyone a troglodyte and Anthony literally has renewables taking up space in his head rent-free; they have to be offended to think they're right, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad or didn't lead to so much violence.

On the plus side of the """"Discussion"""": All Windmill Blades will soon be able to be recycled:

Until now, the wind industry has believed that turbine blade material calls for a new approach to design and manufacture to be either recyclable, or beyond this, circular, at end of life. Going forward, we can now view old epoxy-based blades as a source of raw material.

Once this new technology is implemented at scale, legacy blade material currently sitting in landfill, as well as blade material in active wind farms, can be disassembled and reused. This signals a new era for the wind industry, and accelerates our journey towards achieving circularity.

It's almost as if when humanity has a problem it needs to solve, it solves it

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

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. 

If this is true how come our grid is becoming increasingly unreliable and shortages are becoming more common

America's Power Grid Is Increasingly Unreliable - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-power-grid-is-increasingly-unreliable-11645196772

Opti said:

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.

The only things we disagree on are A) the timeline in which we think it will happen, and B) the level of impact it will actually have.

The same thing happened with me and OBD2.  I was in my 20s and a hardcore hotrodder at the time and I thought OBD2 was going to be awful, so I resisted.  Two years later I reluctantly bought an OBD2 vehicle because it was a viable choice.  It was a completely seamless transition.  You have this notion that people in 2030 are going to start scouring CL for the last possible ICE because they couldn't possibly afford to add a charging circuit to their house.  I have this notion that in 2080, people will be like "oh cool, someone's selling a vintage 95 Camaro.  I can park that next to the Tesla and the Leaf."

You're projecting your individual, current feelings about EVs on the future of humanity without regard to the fact that it might just be a non-issue.  You have people here who are journalists and have documented their decades-long history with EVs, studying them, driving them, researching them, and providing first-hand evidence that some of your assumptions are incorrect.  You're also projecting your individual current assumptions about the infrastructure without regard to the fact that the infrastructure doesn't have to stay the same, and is constantly evolving and improving.  But to assume that you'll have people dying in squalor and starvation because they can't afford an ICE or an EV is simply not something I foresee happening.  

This will be a very slow transition.  Yes there will be speed bumps.  Some areas of CA are already experiencing them, and unless TX gets their head out of their ass with their standalone grid, they'll have catastrophic failures as well.  But that won't be the case for most of the nation which is already prepared for more capacity than they need.

Just like when we first got cars, there were no gas stations.  So we invented gas stations.  When the internet became a "thing," we invented ISPs.  As we slowly add EVs, we'll upgrade our infrastructure.  If the infrastructure isn't ready yet in your area, stick with the 95 Camaro.  

In reply to Chris_V :

You say people arguing against this have no experience, but you actually have no idea. I'm not an EV fan and I have extensive EV experience.

People in this thread arguing against some of this also have extensive power generation experience.

You are the one assuming peoples experience level.

Also most of the people that think EV regulation is bad aren't saying they don't work for anyone, they are saying they dont work for everyone and don't solve what the regulation is trying to solve. If an EV works for you, I'm glad, doesn't mean that they work for everyone, or that mandating them is a good idea for everyone.

Opti said:

If an EV works for you, I'm glad, doesn't mean that they work for everyone, or that mandating them is a good idea for everyone.

Here it is again.

No one.
Is making you.
Buy an EV.

Minivans don't work for everyone.  Miatas don't work for everyone.  We have choices.  No one is forcing you to buy a minivan.  I don't know why there is this assumption that the sky is falling.

Opti, your viewpoint is based on your opinion.  The majority of Americans support all new sales being EV by 2030.  In a recent poll, even the majority of Texans support the notion.  The demographic that you discuss... the people who don't want an EV or the people for whom an EV isn't a good choice... I think that group of people widely doesn't exist.  I think you're assuming that there will be more people affected negatively by this than actually exist.

You're concerns are valid... if they were supported by data.  You're saying "what about THESE people," and these people are saying, "dude, it's chill.  Sign me up."

EV poll

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

You just said the only thing we disagree on is the timelines and level of impact. So effectively you are saying that yes everyone (minus the few that are capable) are going to have to move to EVs. But your next post is "not everyone has to." I'm not saying everyone as in every single person, I'm saying effectively everyone. It's like saying anyone can have a pre 1981 car, but there are only about 5 million left on the road, so no not anyone can have one, a select few people can have one. The point of the legislation is to remove ICEs As an option for the majority of Americans, and that's what's going to happen.

I'm not projecting my "current feelings" about the infrastructure outwards. I'm looking at recently historical data showing outages are increasing and reliability is down. Which means the grid is currently headed in the opposite direction it needs to. The idea that we will fix the grid and its not a problem is an idea based in feeling and conjecture not one based in recent history.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Here is a more recent poll showing the plurality doesn't support it, and their isn't a majority. I wonder if things like rising energy costs and power shortages have moved public opinion over the last year?

https://morningconsult.com/2022/08/31/state-california-ban-gas-powered-new-cars/

If EVs work for everyone how come you don't have one as your only vehicle?

EV trucks are garbage. There is massive population of people who EVs do not currently work for, lack of infrastructure, cost, grid reliability, range, charging options among hundreds of other reasons.

I don't say they don't work for anyone, they are awesome for a ton of people, but saying the population they don't work for doesn't exist is crazy

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

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.   

You act like there aren't virtual power plants running right now with RE and batteries.

Opti said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

So effectively you are saying that yes everyone (minus the few that are capable) are going to have to move to EVs. But your next post is "not everyone has to."

If EVs work for everyone how come you don't have one?

I am NOT saying that AT ALL.  Stop putting words in my mouth and read what I said.

I'm saying that people will actively CHOOSE to move to EVs when they want to based on what is available and what works for them.  Just like people chose to move to a Model T when it became a better choice for them than a horse.  Just like people moved to EFI when it became a better choice for them than a carburetor.  Just like people moved to natural gas furnaces when it became a better choice for them than a coal-fired stove.  Just like people chose to move to an iPhone when it became a better choice than their Blackberry.  Whether or not the government steered those choices is irrelevant.  

I also NEVER said that EVs work for everyone.  Again, you're putting words in my mouth.  In fact I'm saying the OPPOSITE.  EVs don't work for everyone, and that's fine BECAUSE THEY WILL STILL HAVE A CHOICE 100 YEARS FROM NOW.  Will it be an easy choice?  Will there still be enough ICEs for every single human?  No.  But is there still a 67 GTO for everyone?  No.  Is there still a Model A for everyone?  No.  You can still buy a coal-fired stove AND the coal to go in it.  Why doesn't everyone still have a coal stove?  Because they suck and they've been replaced with far better things.

I also spent two pages of replies to Frenchyd of why I don't have an EV yet.  Read.

There will be a point when EVs are a far better thing for each individual, and that point will be different for everyone... which is good, because we have a LONG time to transition.

Best part of EVs is that they are polarizing. 

Haha.

Best part of that pun is that I weighed the pluses and minuses before posting.

preach (dudeist priest) said:

Best part of EVs is that they are polarizing. 

Haha.

Best part of that pun is that I weighed the pluses and minuses before posting.

I got a real charge out of that.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

preach (dudeist priest) said:

Best part of EVs is that they are polarizing. 

Haha.

Best part of that pun is that I weighed the pluses and minuses before posting.

I got a real charge out of that.

My opinion still remains static.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Let me quote you

The only things we disagree on are A) the timeline in which we think it will happen, and B) the level of impact it will actually have.

this was in response to me saying the removal of new options will force the majority of americans into an EV and keeping an old ICE running will not be viable for them

 The demographic that you discuss... the people who don't want an EV or the people for whom an EV isn't a good choice... I think that group of people widely doesn't exist

here you are saying the population that evs doesn't work for or don't want then don't widely exist.

In your most recent post you say people will be able to choose ICEs for a hundred years, followed by saying there isn't currently a model T or GTO for everyone and admitting the scarcity and nonviability these cars have achieved in most cases way less than 100 years. Doesn't that seem a little contradictory to you?

That lack of viable ICE vehicles between 5 and 15 years after the ban will mean most people will be forced go EV.

Saying a couple of people will be able to get them and extrapolating that to a macro level is a weak argument. The whole point is to force people into EVs. If people qhere just going to freely choose EVs in a substantial manner, why ban IC?

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I also like to know what you base your "feelings" on that the grid will be improved, when it has been trending downwards?

What are we currently doing that's new (because what we were doing has has worse results) that gives you the belief the current trend will reverse?

If your going to accuse people of basing things on feelings, you should have receipts

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Opti said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

So effectively you are saying that yes everyone (minus the few that are capable) are going to have to move to EVs. But your next post is "not everyone has to."

If EVs work for everyone how come you don't have one?

I am NOT saying that AT ALL.  Stop putting words in my mouth and read what I said.

I'm saying that people will actively CHOOSE to move to EVs when they want to based on what is available and what works for them.  Just like people chose to move to a Model T when it became a better choice for them than a horse.  Just like people moved to EFI when it became a better choice for them than a carburetor.  Just like people moved to natural gas furnaces when it became a better choice for them than a coal-fired stove.  Just like people chose to move to an iPhone when it became a better choice than their Blackberry.  Whether or not the government steered those choices is irrelevant.  

I also NEVER said that EVs work for everyone.  Again, you're putting words in my mouth.  In fact I'm saying the OPPOSITE.  EVs don't work for everyone, and that's fine BECAUSE THEY WILL STILL HAVE A CHOICE 100 YEARS FROM NOW.  Will it be an easy choice?  Will there still be enough ICEs for every single human?  No.  But is there still a 67 GTO for everyone?  No.  Is there still a Model A for everyone?  No.  You can still buy a coal-fired stove AND the coal to go in it.  Why doesn't everyone still have a coal stove?  Because they suck and they've been replaced with far better things.

I also spent two pages of replies to Frenchyd of why I don't have an EV yet.  Read.

There will be a point when EVs are a far better thing for each individual, and that point will be different for everyone... which is good, because we have a LONG time to transition.

Yes a $500 (ICE) car will fit your situation if you look short term and ignore the fuel it takes to run them.  
  I agree a lot of people with that perspective will stick with ICE.  
  But if you don't drive more than 250 miles per day ( 90,000 a year) and you look longer term say 10- 20 years  the economics will point you towards EV's.   ( (fuel for those 90,000 miles will cost about $14,000) 

        But.  Tesla is coming out in the next year or two with the lower priced EV hopefully in the $20-30,000  range.    
      They actually are setting it up now.  
  The Giga press that punches out 1/2  of the model 3 car is already here.  That eliminates  600 robots.  
They can already make 1000 cars a day. 
     The newest version is going to punch out the whole car at once.  Saving even more time.  
  The inspiration for that is the Hot wheels. 
 Curtis I understand the time value of money. Plus the need to minimize your nut.  ( overhead). 
     On a low income it's vital to look longer term. If 10  years of buying gas is going to cost you $22,000   Is it likely to be cheaper or more expensive in the future? 
   Either way,  that's what an ICE will cost to fuel for the next decade
       
      Then what?  How long do you expect to live?   Well let's assume that's how long you'll be buying fuel. 
             

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

And you have no clue how your projects effect grid power factor, hence grid stability.  But they're great?  Maybe they are, maybe they are not.  

Chris_V said:

Boost_crazy, don't bother. You have people with zero experience arguing with people that have loads of experience. It's insane. I've been living with EVs for over a decade after studying them for most of a decade before that, and yet these idiots act like I'm lying about it. I'm tired of arguing with the same fools repeating the same misinformation borne out of ignorance and then they refuse to learn from those of us with experience. Typical MAGA crap in that actual knowledge is bad and should be shunned.

So buying electric cars makes you an expert on electric grid stability.  Awesome!  I totally agree, you're right and no one else has a clue.  And what does this have to do with your last sentence?  Project much?

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchy energy cost is rising that in certain places it is more expensive to fuel an EV than a ICE.

Your also not accounting for the cost of energy of that same period. I'm not saying gasoline prices aren't volatile but energy is worse right now, add in the decreased reliability of the grid and increase In shortages and the argument becomes more than just cost

https://www.carscoops.com/2023/01/falling-gas-prices-mean-a-mid-level-ev-can-be-more-expensive-to-operate/

As much as I like Tesla I also won't rely on their "future" products. The model 3 was supposed to be 35K and now it's like 43K starting. The cyber truck has been so long people where thinking it was vaporware (I know news have finally come out). I hope they do come out with a cheap EV that's actually good, but I'll wait til they do.

We should focus first on reasonably priced, clean and efficient energy and a reliable and robust infrastructure. The manufacturers should continue to improve EVs where consumers widely voluntarily adopt them.

We are currently forcing manufacturers and consumers hands, without the foundation to support this. If EVs worked for everyone, everyone would by them

A quick look into how this is still going on..,

One big thing to remind people- the EV mandated isn't for just BEVs. It also includes most forms of HEVs- meaning that ICEs will still be around for some time. 
 

In reply to Opti :

I'm sure that ICE fuel will remain  available long after I become a crispy critter.  
     But look at the extraordinary places they are going to get it. And the damage that does to those societies .  One word,  Venezuela. 
      Yet sun and wind  are everywhere. Plus it comes to your house in a form you use. Rather than you have to go get it after it's delivered to your local station,  after converting it to gasoline, after it's shipped to the refinery from the North Atlantic or wherever.   
       The grids?   They are plenty strong enough to ship electricity all over the country.   OK so some bad guys wanted to start trouble and shot up a transformer station.   The temporary solution around here is to put up nets so shooters can't see.  They will build concrete walls  this spring to make them harder to attack. 
      Demand is high. Because they drained the Colorado river.  In Southern California the demand is high?   Really.  They do know about solar panels.   Toss them on everybodies roof and a lot of  the problem goes away.  More wind generators will further help.    Nuclear   power plants. Or natural gas as standby.       It's not a problem.  It's just some utilities see it as an opportunity.   Politicians are simply going to have to step up  and protect the population at the expense of a major contributor to Re election.  

Attributing our dwindling reliability to one instance of someone shooting up a transformer station is a ridiculous over simplification of the problem.

By the way the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. They are also pretty much the least power dense energy sources widely used today, also not very efficient compared to the alternatives.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

Pretty much. These last 4 pages got started because they didn't wanna admit nobody called anyone a troglodyte and Anthony literally has renewables taking up space in his head rent-free; they have to be offended to think they're right, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad or didn't lead to so much violence.

 

OK, lets look at that shall we?  

Troglodyte definitions:

A troglodyte is someone who is backward, old-fashioned, or has outmoded beliefs. This is the definition that is most commonly used today. FROM HERE

Insulting word for someone who is stupid or silly. FROM HERE

a person unacquainted with affairs of the world. a person of degraded, primitive, or brutal character. FROM HERE

So lets take a look shall we? Now Curtis has already came forward to explain that it was not meant to be an insult nor come across as such, but fro his post on page 13:

In every case, a minority of people lost their minds because they thought it would be the absolute death of the economy, the world, and the transportation infrastructure itself. 

 Because they were old-fashioned or had out moded beliefs. They were afraid of he change and new things outside their norm. Then there's the entire list of things:

- early 1900s, cars were tough to own because of frequent tire blowouts, no gas stations, no repair infrastructure, and terrible roads.  We found a way.
- 1940s - can't make new cars because there's a war going on. The public lost their minds, but it was a non-issue
- 1950s - gotta have seatbelts.  The public lost their minds for a year.
- 1960s - we need to have emissions requirements.  The public lost their minds
- 1970s - Oil embargo pushed CAFE requirements.  The public lost their minds.
- 1970s/80s - We need crash safety tests meaning it's no longer feasible to have a newly styled model every year.  The public lost their minds.
- 1980s - we need EFI which the public was afraid of for complexity/reliability reasons.
- 1990s - we need air bags which made everyone afraid their steering wheel would explode if they sneezed.  The public lost their minds
- 1990s - we need OBD2 which made everyone assume it was a government spying conspiracy and they lost their minds

"Losing their minds" would be another way to say "acting silly", which again fits the definition. 

From there we get more fun.

Chris_V said:

Listen, I get that you don't understand what's going on around you and that change is scary. But for pete's sake, listen and learn from those who actually live it.

 

So here we have the "Stupid" and "unaquainted with the world" right there. 

Chris_V said:

So you didn't even read the post you were responding to. Got it. Charge cycles versus range is the difference. At the same charge cycles a short range EV or hybrid will need to have the battery replaced MUCH sooner, for the reasons stated. But you can't seem to grasp that, can you? Same with everything else about EVs. You really have zero clue.

Ahh... our lovely Chris V who loves to E36 M3 on everyone always. Now we are back to calling people stupid as well. Again, one of our definitions here, not just the fact that he's being a dick. 

Chris_V said:

Boost_crazy, don't bother. You have people with zero experience arguing with people that have loads of experience. It's insane. I've been living with EVs for over a decade after studying them for most of a decade before that, and yet these idiots act like I'm lying about it. I'm tired of arguing with the same fools repeating the same misinformation borne out of ignorance and then they refuse to learn from those of us with experience. Typical MAGA crap in that actual knowledge is bad and should be shunned.

ah.... here's one of my favorites. I mean this post is full of fun. Idiots, name calling, political comments and all of it done to be as dickish as possible. Hell, that last line alone should have gotten this post erased but no.... it's still allowed. I'm no saint but you wanna play the "who's the bigger dick" I'm your huckleberry.

So back to you girthy, while you are technically correct that the word "troglodyte" was not used explicitly, it's pretty obvious it's being referenced. We are using all the synonyms here and flat out calling people idiots, dumb etc. 

Now I'm done. People can't be nice and choose to be the biggest dick they can be? Fine. Have fun.