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

Opti said:

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.

They don't, but in the brief last billion or so years, wind and sun have always been there, unlike that [sarcasm] never-ending source of crude oil [/sarcasm] that we dig up from a mile below the earth and dump its carbon into the atmosphere.  

You've also (again) cited invalid information.  The sun doesn't need to shine directly on it to make energy from it.  PV cells make electricity from LIGHT, not just direct sunlight.  Last time I checked, there is still light no matter how cloudy it gets.

I'll take the reliability of the sun rising every day over the finite supply of oil

As a response to your earlier post, I didn't contradict myself at all.  Right now, a slim majority (55%) is in favor of mandatory EVs up from only 4% and 11% as of about 5 years ago.  By the time we get to half of the cars on the road being EV (a very long time from now) that majority will be huge, and the people who resist EVs at that point will be a "widely non-existent" group.

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

No.  The lack of ICE vehicles that you perceive is not going to happen for decades.  And people won't be "forced" to do anything.  They'll choose it because it's the better choice for them.

The romanticization of old tech is real for people like you and me.  It's why I have a couple muscle cars and a fireplace in my house.  That doesn't mean I don't also own a modern furnace and an EFI daily driver. 

You consistently pervert things I say and fabricate problems before they can even exist.  It's like you're just trying to pick a fight.  I won't engage.  Respect you, but not going to spend my time on it anymore.

In reply to bobzilla :

It's easy to ignore or overlook stuff. I do it a lot.  Most people on this site are decent. Yes like any group of enthusiasts  some get carried away. I'm guilty of that too.  
      I'll forgive and forget because there is a whole lot more good than bad here.  
       Perfection isn't demanded here. And a little humor goes a very long way. I wish I could post the one about someone being wrong on the internet. 
   That broke me up.  

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Opti said:

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.

They don't, but in the brief last billion or so years, wind and sun have always been there, unlike that [sarcasm] never-ending source of crude oil [/sarcasm] that we dig up from a mile below the earth and dump its carbon into the atmosphere.  

You've also (again) cited invalid information.  The sun doesn't need to shine directly on it to make energy from it.  PV cells make electricity from LIGHT, not just direct sunlight.  Last time I checked, there is still light no matter how cloudy it gets.

I'll take the reliability of the sun rising every day over the finite supply of oil

As a response to your earlier post, I didn't contradict myself at all.  Right now, a slim majority (55%) is in favor of mandatory EVs up from only 4% and 11% as of about 5 years ago.  By the time we get to half of the cars on the road being EV (a very long time from now) that majority will be huge, and the people who resist EVs at that point will be a "widely non-existent" group.

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

No.  The lack of ICE vehicles that you perceive is not going to happen for decades.  And people won't be "forced" to do anything.  They'll choose it because it's the better choice for them.

The romanticization of old tech is real for people like you and me.  It's why I have a couple muscle cars and a fireplace in my house.  That doesn't mean I don't also own a modern furnace and an EFI daily driver. 

You consistently pervert things I say and fabricate problems before they can even exist.  It's like you're just trying to pick a fight.  I won't engage.  Respect you, but not going to spend my time on it anymore.

Can we be friends if I'll agree to drink a part of a beer?  

In reply to frenchyd :

No need.... but can I have some wine?  

bobzilla said:

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

[...]

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.

So you admit nobody called you a bad word- only "implied" it- AND I have to know a dictionary definition on top of that? Bob, this ain't highschool, we've been trying to show you what is and isn't bullE36 M3 about EV for pages and ya'll just refuse to accept it because of your identity politics.

I'll say it again- you're begging to be offended and called names, because then it makes you feel justified with your angry responses. You're not getting any of that from anyone, so now you have to invent offense so you can pretend you're right when in reality there's nuance here you're just refusing to admit to.

Opti said:

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.

We happen to agree no they don't yet work for everyone.    Those with tiny cash budgets and those unable  to look ahead. 
          Heck my wife and I are holding out for the coming low priced Tesla.  We don't need much range or  performance.   She has a bias against Chevy I  can't dislodge. So no Bolt  much as I think it's also an answer. 
     VW is pushing hard  and there my Bias prevents that solution  

    When good used EV's are 1/2 or less of the current prices do you think you'd be a potential buyer?  Or would you need the purchase price of an EV to be similar to the purchase price of a similar ICE  before that could happen? 

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Certainly!!   I've got a really nice German ice wine that's full bodied, fruity and finishes cleanly.

In reply to frenchyd :

So I live in the wilderness with no way to charge an EV and often travel to places over 100 miles from a gas station and more than that from a place to charge an EV.  That means I have a tiny cash budget and am unable to look ahead. 

I'm sure eventually EV infrastructure will mature but it's not yet reality for those of us who don't live in urban environments.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Opti said:

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.

They don't, but in the brief last billion or so years, wind and sun have always been there, unlike that [sarcasm] never-ending source of crude oil [/sarcasm] that we dig up from a mile below the earth and dump its carbon into the atmosphere.  

You've also (again) cited invalid information.  The sun doesn't need to shine directly on it to make energy from it.  PV cells make electricity from LIGHT, not just direct sunlight.  Last time I checked, there is still light no matter how cloudy it gets.

I'll take the reliability of the sun rising every day over the finite supply of oil

As a response to your earlier post, I didn't contradict myself at all.  Right now, a slim majority (55%) is in favor of mandatory EVs up from only 4% and 11% as of about 5 years ago.  By the time we get to half of the cars on the road being EV (a very long time from now) that majority will be huge, and the people who resist EVs at that point will be a "widely non-existent" group.

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

No.  The lack of ICE vehicles that you perceive is not going to happen for decades.  And people won't be "forced" to do anything.  They'll choose it because it's the better choice for them.

The romanticization of old tech is real for people like you and me.  It's why I have a couple muscle cars and a fireplace in my house.  That doesn't mean I don't also own a modern furnace and an EFI daily driver. 

You consistently pervert things I say and fabricate problems before they can even exist.  It's like you're just trying to pick a fight.  I won't engage.  Respect you, but not going to spend my time on it anymore.

Couple things. You conflate me saying I want to be able to run cars on fossil fuels until there is a viable alternative to me wanting to power the grid with fossil fuels. I never said anything about energy production with fossil fuels beyond vehicles. I do find it funny that you think EVs does anything to solve us emitting carbon into the air when the largest energy source we use to make the electricity to power the EVs is fossil fuels.

I didn't cite anything. Again you are putting words in my mouth, something you accuse me of. I said the sun doesnt always shine. I'm aware PV cells "work" in the shade. The problem is when you take a solar panel, an already inefficient energy source, and put it in the shade, efficiency drops even more. I guess I'll feel a little comfort that my solar panels are still working when in the shade, and I'll be able to turn a singular light bulb on but not my hvac system. I think this is something you specifically talked about earlier with fenchy, could have been someone else though.

Again you mention your poll. You never address the more recent one I posted, showing the plurality (47%) doesn't agree with a an EV mandate. I'll say again I'm willing to bet the recent energy uncertainty has led to some of the shift.

You also never answered my question on what you base your "feelings" on that we will reverse recent trend and actually start improving the grid. Maybe you can give me some specific examples of new things we are doing to reverse the downward trend.

If EVs will soon suite everyone's needs and they will voluntarily switch, why do we need a mandate?

parker said:

In reply to frenchyd :

So I live in the wilderness with no way to charge an EV and often travel to places over 100 miles from a gas station and more than that from a place to charge an EV.  That means I have a tiny cash budget and am unable to look ahead. 

I'm sure eventually EV infrastructure will mature but it's not yet reality for those of us who don't live in urban environments.

You're still using electricity to post on the internet

Opti said:

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?

$7.5bn funded in the infrastructure bill for electrical charging infrastructure... in addition to the $1.7bn in tax credits in the IRA. 

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

Opti said:

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?

$7.5bn funded in the infrastructure bill for electrical charging infrastructure... in addition to the $1.7bn in tax credits in the IRA. 

There ^^^.

There are my feelings.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

Opti said:

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?

$7.5bn funded in the infrastructure bill for electrical charging infrastructure... in addition to the $1.7bn in tax credits in the IRA. 

There ^^^.

There are my feelings.

I just hope I don't have to link a source as it's readily available in a google. 

(edit) may as well, it's on pg7 .. and there's a lot of other interesting things that are global political that I won't get into. https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/C4E1FAQGB9CGgYX7t1A/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1676557523587?e=1678320000&v=beta&t=K2hj4zgX_WAaRT2FDgA83srNghdeC7bW8zR5SMLLodQ

GIRTHQUAKE said:

parker said:

In reply to frenchyd :

So I live in the wilderness with no way to charge an EV and often travel to places over 100 miles from a gas station and more than that from a place to charge an EV.  That means I have a tiny cash budget and am unable to look ahead. 

I'm sure eventually EV infrastructure will mature but it's not yet reality for those of us who don't live in urban environments.

You're still using electricity to post on the internet

If you're that far from electric AND gasoline, then I don't see why EV vs ICE is even an discussion for you.  At least if you're in the boonies, an investment in some PV cells can put some juice in an EV, but you can't distill your own gasoline.

See also:  Horse and buggy (I'm kidding)

This is also exactly what we're talking about when we say "not right for some."  Until the infrastructure matures, it's not your time for an EV.  When it does, there will be more EVs.  Kinda magic how the market responds to demand.

In reply to Chris_V :

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 you complain about someone's ignorance, then end with the MAGA remark? While I disagree with Anthony's assessment, I understand his concerns. Adding a lot of renewable energy to the grid was definitely a legitimate concern. There are/were areas of the world that ran into issues due to the early and widespread adoption of PV power, with little forsight on the effects. They took reactive solutions rather than proactive. I think we are finally getting into the proactive part. Anthony is unconvinced. He might be right, but I'm more convinced by the utility that hired 100's of engineers and spent billions of dollars to connect a bunch of batteries to their grid, at least on the technological side. I'm unconvinced on the economic side. 

Typical MAGA crap? I'll try to respond in a non political manner, and just point out that the group you singled out- regardless of their political affiliation- represents nearly half our population. ANY group that size- including the opposing one-  will have it's share of brilliant people and those that are not so much. While it's easy to take beliefs at the far fringes and apply them broadly, it's intellectually dishonest. There are plenty of MAGA people with EV's and solar on their roofs. There are people with opposing views that commute in lifted trucks. Look at our group. We are a bunch of auto enthusiast that know more about cars than 99% of the population. We like to drive our cars in circles as fast as we can just to get back to to the same place we started. You would think that much of our opinions would align. Yet we have very diverse views. Let's try to stay on topic and make specific arguements. 

One more thing- math. 
 

There are currently just over 280M vehicles in the us. In the best of best years there was 20M new cars sold.  So if it was a 1:1 replacement, it would be 14 years for all of them to change. And that's not going to happen. 
 

And that doesn't include the new cars that are crashed out before they get moved into the used car market. 
 

So there will be used ICE cars for a very long time. 

A lot of people are taking things way out of context and refuse to understand a very simple point.

1) EVs do win in the end.  Everyone knows that.  
 

2).I said two things have to happen first.  2-1) Battery tech needs to improve (pretty good evidence this is occurring).  2-2) Grid improvements in capacity and stability are needed.  This is not happening. It's being prevented by political agendas.
 

I don't care if you disagree or like me.  Nothing stated to date refutes 2-1 or 2-2.  I don't care how upset that makes you or how upset it makes you with me.  It's irrelevant.

I also said mandates can't solve these issues.  Only investment and innovation will solve them.  The capability to resolve these issues exists.  The investment, manpower and sufficient number of knowledgeable people with authority do not exist.  
 

You can invest in charging stations for EVs all you want.  That doesn't address power generation or grid stability.

As usual a lot of anger is misplaced.  I'm not standing in anyones way.  I'd prefer to address the problems.  It takes people working together to do that.  That's just not possible in this day and age it seems.  As a result, I'm rapidly approaching IDGAF.  I have plenty of wine in my collection to see me through retirement. And I'm getting to where I don't care if everyone sits in the dark without food  in a nuclear wasteland because they choose and follow idiots.  That's the path we are on and denying it ain't gonna fix it.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

 I absolutely agree that comments of a political nature are wrong and especially wrong when it denagrates that group.  
      Now with regard  to Solar panels and the need for batteries.  I'm not sure  that is or will be a problem.  
   I see the massive numbers  of commercial wind generators  in my state.  The wind doesn't stop blowing when the sun goes down.  I think even geared wind generators can generate electricity in winds as low as 7 mph.   So for  power needs to be higher than  can be generated  from renewable sources  the wind would need to be less than 7 mph. But even if it's calm at ground level those wind generators are well above the tree line.  ( at least commercially viable ones). 
     At which point back up generation kicks in.  Nuclear, natural gas. Oil burners and coal last since that is the most expensive fuel with the longest start to generation times. 
       In my state I'm reasonably certain  coal is no longer used.  In fact North Dakota which does have a coal fired plant that powers some of the North  west portion of our state  is preparing a law suit about restraint of trade.  Since we are going to be refusing the power they generate.  
  That promises to be an interesting case regarding states rights.   Especially considering the current make up of the Supreme Court.  

GIRTHQUAKE said:

parker said:

In reply to frenchyd :

So I live in the wilderness with no way to charge an EV and often travel to places over 100 miles from a gas station and more than that from a place to charge an EV.  That means I have a tiny cash budget and am unable to look ahead. 

I'm sure eventually EV infrastructure will mature but it's not yet reality for those of us who don't live in urban environments.

You're still using electricity to post on the internet

Didn't say I don't have electricity.  I have solar panels and battery backup.  I would cost about $40,000 to install a system with enough grunt to charge an EV in 2 days.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

A lot of people are taking things way out of context and refuse to understand a very simple point.

1) EVs do win in the end.  Everyone knows that.  
 

2).I said two things have to happen first.  2-1) Battery tech needs to improve (pretty good evidence this is occurring).  2-2) Grid improvements in capacity and stability are needed.  This is not happening. It's being prevented by political agendas.
 

I don't care if you disagree or like me.  Nothing stated to date refutes 2-1 or 2-2.  I don't care how upset that makes you or how upset it makes you with me.  It's irrelevant.

I also said mandates can't solve these issues.  Only investment and innovation will solve them.  The capability to resolve these issues exists.  The investment, manpower and sufficient number of knowledgeable people with authority do not exist.  
 

You can invest in charging stations for EVs all you want.  That doesn't address power generation or grid stability.

As usual a lot of anger is misplaced.  I'm not standing in anyones way.  I'd prefer to address the problems.  It takes people working together to do that.  That's just not possible in this day and age it seems.  As a result, I'm rapidly approaching IDGAF.  I have plenty of wine in my collection to see me through retirement. And I'm getting to where I don't care if everyone sits in the dark without food  in a nuclear wasteland because they choose and follow idiots.  That's the path we are on and denying it ain't gonna fix it.

Regarding your points.  My only objection is that commercial ventures tend to have self interest reasons for resolving  problems.  Utilities are in the end commercial. 
 Yes there may be multiple layers of government involved.   Yet not every politician is brain dead. ( in either party)  Frustrating as politics is, by and large most especially at the state and local level accept that they won't be governor  or president  and practice the art of compromise.    You can't have it all this year but next year you'll get more of what is actually needed.  
      As a more whimsical question. We all know the force of air generated by Semi's and  other vehicles. Why not have spiral wind generators in the center lane?    Wind generated by vehicles   In both directions would create electricity   To be used in recharging EV's?   

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I agree, but many manufacturers are claiming to be all EV by 2030 or 2035.  That's just not realistic unless they want to give up about 60% of the global market share.

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

Opti said:

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?

$7.5bn funded in the infrastructure bill for electrical charging infrastructure... in addition to the $1.7bn in tax credits in the IRA. 

Putting in charging stations doesn't help the reliability or energy shortages in the electrical grid.

You may be referring to the 110b (IIRC) investment in our "energy infrastructure" in the infrastructure bill.

This sounds essentially like what we have been doing, since we've been spending 30 or 40b every year for last decade on this, all the while shortages are more common and reliability is down. I was asking for specifics things we've changed or are doing differently to correct the problem. More money for the same E36 M3 doesn't fix the problem

More money without fixing the problem is pretty much the govts standard practice. See DC school spending vs results.

parker said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I agree, but many manufacturers are claiming to be all EV by 2030 or 2035.  That's just not realistic unless they want to give up about 60% of the global market share.

They could also claim to be 100% buggy whips by 2035.

That is their direction statement, which may be part goalpost and it may be part investor bait.

I know I wouldn't want to invest in a company that saw no desire to adopt new technologies.  That is how dying companies work: status quo until the ship finally runs aground.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

There is a difference in not adopting new technology and abandoning a viable marker. You can adopt EVs and continue to make ICE. It's what Toyota is recommending.

Before you mentioned 12 years and how long that is for cars. I've been thinking about that, it might get you 1 or 2 model changes over 12 years. Sometimes that's a completely different car, other times it's slight improvements. Do we think EVs will be significantly better in 12 years or only marginally better. I'm on the fence, I think they will be way more common but I'm not sure if they will make a large leap in that time period and be viable for most people or if they will only be marginally better.

In reply to Opti :

I don't disagree that it makes little sense to abandon a market.  I am pointing out that what they say they are going to do, and what they actually are going to do, are not necessarily the same thing 

But they may have other motives for making the boast, like drumming up investor money, or attracting worker talents.

BTW - Imagine Ford 16-18 years ago saying that in 12 years they would stop selling cars in North America except for the Mustang.  Nobody would believe it was a good idea, that is a huge mistake, cars are a huge market...