[AlexFL]

Originally Posted by chassis

EVs are total lifecycle carbon unfavorable vs ICE.

From digging and refining lithium to producing electricity to charge to end of life and recycling (???) EVs are no bueno vs ICE.

And EVs are 30% less cost for carmakers to assemble.

Carmakers want EVs. BMW CEO is playing both sides of the court to keep his options open.

This plus the neodymium-rich magnets used in EV motors. And China completely controls world’s neodymium supply.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by AlexFL

Yes. All those Teslas need to be charged up and 60% of US electricity is being generated from fossil fuels.

All the more reason for states to switch over to natural gas and renewables etc. The fault isn't the EV, the fault is in the policy. What's nice about the EV is that we can change where the energy comes from. With a ICE only vehicle, you can't, it's ALL fossil fuels.

Plus:
You don't have to fill a large tanker truck with fuel drive it to the gas station.
You can charge at home if you have solar.
Centralized power plants are easier to regulate pollution than tens of millions of individual power plants in every single car.


Downsides:
State policies might not be friendly to natural gas and renewables because of ties to the coal and oil industry
Not everyone can charge at home
Power grid needs upgrades to meet demand

Food for thought:
When the ICE was invented, everyone thought there was no way to have enough gas stations to fuel cars and that the ICE would be limited to populated urban areas. Rural areas would not have the infrastructure to fuel cars. The oil industry would not have the resources to meet demand. How wrong we were.

[AlexFL]

Originally Posted by AlexFL

…and he is 100% correct, even though this sketchy viking dude disagrees.

Originally Posted by jmg

All the more reason for states to switch over to natural gas and renewables etc. The fault isn't the EV, the fault is in the policy. What's nice about the EV is that we can change where the energy comes from. With a ICE only vehicle, you can't, it's ALL fossil fuels.

Plus:
You don't have to fill a large tanker truck with fuel drive it to the gas station.
You can charge at home if you have solar.
Centralized power plants are easier to regulate pollution than tens of millions of individual power plants in every single car.


Downsides:
State policies might not be friendly to natural gas and renewables because of ties to the coal and oil industry
Not everyone can charge at home
Power grid needs upgrades to meet demand

Food for thought:
When the ICE was invented, everyone thought there was no way to have enough gas stations to fuel cars and that the ICE would be limited to populated urban areas. Rural areas would not have the infrastructure to fuel cars. The oil industry would not have the resources to meet demand. How wrong we were.

All correct. And this is exactly what Zipse said. Do not force EVs on people by banning the ICE cars as long as the EV infrastructure is not in place. Everyone agrees that EVs are the future but before banning ICE cars, make sure that a) EVs are charged using 100% renewable energy, b) do not use rare earth metals in their engines, c) lithium is not procured via forced labor and is completely recycled, and more.

[FCX5]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Tesla is a niche company that people like and find nifty. It’s just something fun. It’s not a practical type vehicle for the vast majority of Americans. Governments are absolutely forcing companies to go EV especially European governments. I cannot even believe you said that. It’s governments mandating it otherwise auto manufacturers wouldn’t be doing it because people don’t want it. Wanting to buy something fun and different like a Tesla is vastly different than the entire continent switching from ice to EV. It’s going to be an infrastructure catastrophe if they keep forcing it. You know it and I know it and everyone else knows it.

Same sort of arguments were made for Apple - niche company with niche products. All luxury cars are niche products. Nissan and Stellantis are examples or companies not interested in EV. BMW is making EVs because they believe it will increase their market cap not because the govt is forcing them.

[FCX5]

Originally Posted by chassis

EVs are total lifecycle carbon unfavorable vs ICE.

From digging and refining lithium to producing electricity to charge to end of life and recycling (???) EVs are no bueno vs ICE.

And EVs are 30% less cost for carmakers to assemble.

Carmakers want EVs. BMW CEO is playing both sides of the court to keep his options open.

This ☝️

[jmg]

Originally Posted by AlexFL

All correct. And this is exactly what Zipse said. Do not force EVs on people by banning the ICE cars as long as the EV infrastructure is not in place. Everyone agrees that EVs are the future but before banning ICE cars, make sure that a) EVs are charged using 100% renewable energy, b) do not use rare earth metals in their engines, c) lithium is not procured via forced labor and is completely recycled, and more.

Unfortunately because of our economic and, by proxy, political ties to oil and coal, it's almost impossible to switch our cars over to EV without changes in government policy. Big oil and coal will go so far as to push an anti-climate change agenda, especially to a political ideology that supports small government because they mesh well together. The political ideology sees no need for big government policy because coal and oil says there is no threat. This relationship works so well that one cannot tell if the tail is wagging the dog. It's no wonder why the argument of the EV is nearly divided between party lines.

So with oil and coal lobbying against government bills and policies to upgrade the infrastructure or use cleaner or renewable energy sources in certain states, and a political party arguing against government influence, there is a huge obstacle for said changes. Not only that, they will use the self-created reliance on coal as an argument against the EV! It's self perpetuating.

With these obstacles firmly set in place, there is very little incentive to adapt the things you listed. It's simply not enough. We want coal and oil because we have everything in place to getting it easy.

The banning of ICE on the manufacturer's side is the only real solution to an immovable object meeting an unstoppable force. One has to give or nothing happens.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chassis

EVs are total lifecycle carbon unfavorable vs ICE.

From digging and refining lithium to producing electricity to charge to end of life and recycling (???) EVs are no bueno vs ICE.

And EVs are 30% less cost for carmakers to assemble.

Carmakers want EVs. BMW CEO is playing both sides of the court to keep his options open.

Everyone forgets that it wasn't easy to get oil either. No one thought the automobile would be accessible because we would have to drill for oil, refine it, then transport it to stations around the world for cars to have a usable range to get from A to B and fuel stations all between.

You could almost substitute "oil" for "lithium" here. We even have the dilemma of end of life. It's either a used battery, or dirty emissions. It's the same problem with different details.

The REAL problem is we don't like the inconvenience of change.

[chassis]

Originally Posted by jmg

Everyone forgets that it wasn't easy to get oil either. No one thought the automobile would be accessible because we would have to drill for oil, refine it, then transport it to stations around the world for cars to have a usable range to get from A to B and fuel stations all between.

You could almost substitute "oil" for "lithium" here. We even have the dilemma of end of life. It's either a used battery, or dirty emissions. It's the same problem with different details.

The REAL problem is we don't like the inconvenience of change.

Yeah but supporters of EV say they are good for the world. They aren't.

Carmakers want EVs for the higher per-unit profit. That's all.

[FCX5]

Originally Posted by chassis

Yeah but supporters of EV say they are good for the world. They aren't.

Carmakers want EVs for the higher per-unit profit. That's all.

Agreed. People forget that ICE cars were supposed to reduce pollution in urban areas from all the horse dung and disease they caused. EV is just another tech evolution and it's success will be based on economics. Like you said, it costs 30% less and one can argue that, that gap will continue to increase. It's what Tesla or even other EV companies are showing. Tesla would not have been able to scale as well as they did if they were a traditional ICE company.

If one wants to push for renewals, then the problem is in the energy production, not cars.

My 2 cents….

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chassis

Yeah but supporters of EV say they are good for the world. They aren't.

Carmakers want EVs for the higher per-unit profit. That's all.

They are good in that the energy you put into it is flexible. You can use hydro, solar, wind, natural gas, coal, nuclear etc... So while not ALL regions can be 100% clean, at least we have that option to eventually do it or come very close to it.

With an ICE, however, you're locked into fossil fuels.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by jmg

All the more reason for states to switch over to natural gas and renewables etc. The fault isn't the EV, the fault is in the policy. What's nice about the EV is that we can change where the energy comes from. With a ICE only vehicle, you can't, it's ALL fossil fuels.

Plus:
You don't have to fill a large tanker truck with fuel drive it to the gas station.
You can charge at home if you have solar.
Centralized power plants are easier to regulate pollution than tens of millions of individual power plants in every single car.


Downsides:
State policies might not be friendly to natural gas and renewables because of ties to the coal and oil industry
Not everyone can charge at home
Power grid needs upgrades to meet demand

Food for thought:
When the ICE was invented, everyone thought there was no way to have enough gas stations to fuel cars and that the ICE would be limited to populated urban areas. Rural areas would not have the infrastructure to fuel cars. The oil industry would not have the resources to meet demand. How wrong we were.

We have been building gas stations for 120 years. They want to switch to EV in the next 20 years. How are you going to build enough charging stations everywhere with enough parking space so everyone with an EV can pull in there for 20 minutes to an hour to charge their car? Good luck with that. Yes many people that own homes can charge their cars at home and that will definitely help but we still have tens of millions of people that live in apartments and condos. What are you going to do with them? I’m not saying we won’t accomplish this because capitalists will always figure out a way to fix government screwup‘s but it still will take time and it won’t be easy and most importantly it’s not necessary. That’s the whole point.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by FCX5

If one wants to push for renewals, then the problem is in the energy production, not cars.

My 2 cents….

correct, and the way to push for renewables is to create demand. If the demand is the ICE, then the logical step is to regulate the manufacturers to make EVs instead. Now you have demand for energy. Businesses are now incentivized to sell that energy to the consumer, and you get infrastructure improvements, gas stations becoming fast charging stations, chargers being installed in apartments or public streets, innovation in battery and charging technology which will eventually lead to 5 minute charges.

In 1913 the first gas station was built. Before that, people got gas from stores. Imagine that. One gas station in the whole world. Now they are everywhere.

Eventually, a recharging stop will be as convenient as a fuel stop, except.... no need for underground tanks, so charge stations might even be more plentiful. You can already charge your car going to the grocery store, you can't refuel at the grocery store.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by FCX5

Same sort of arguments were made for Apple - niche company with niche products. All luxury cars are niche products. Nissan and Stellantis are examples or companies not interested in EV. BMW is making EVs because they believe it will increase their market cap not because the govt is forcing them.

Brother do you even read what’s going on in Europe? Of course the German government is making them do it. The EU is making them do it. I mean this respectfully when I ask you this, are you serious? Are you truly serious at what you just said or are you just messing with me? Government is not forcing them?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Patton250

We have been building gas stations for 120 years. They want to switch to EV in the next 20 years. How are you going to build enough charging stations everywhere with enough parking space so everyone with an EV can pull in there for 20 minutes to an hour to charge their car?

The same way we built gas stations.
Charge times will decrease to 5-10 minutes in years, not decades.

Originally Posted by Patton250

I’m not saying we won’t accomplish this because capitalists will always figure out a way to fix government screwup‘s but it still will take time and it won’t be easy

No said it would be. Building gas stations wasn't either.

Originally Posted by Patton250

and most importantly it’s not necessary.

Who said that? I addressed this earlier, and I don't want this to get political, but you gotta look at who's saying this and why it's almost divided between party lines. Nothing happens by chance, this is all about $$$.

[chassis]

Originally Posted by jmg

They are good in that the energy you put into it is flexible. You can use hydro, solar, wind, natural gas, coal, nuclear etc... So while not ALL regions can be 100% clean, at least we have that option to eventually do it or come very close to it.

With an ICE, however, you're locked into fossil fuels.

Right. But the entire analysis says EVs = no bueno for Mother Earth.

Carmakers want more money in their pockets. Governments are helping that to happen.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chassis

Right. But the entire analysis says EVs = no bueno for Mother Earth.

Carmakers want more money in their pockets. Governments are helping that to happen.

What's the analysis based off though? The current infrastructure and technology, or the potential from a flexible energy source?

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by jmg

The same way we built gas stations.
Charge times will decrease to 5-10 minutes in years, not decades.




No said it would be. Building gas stations wasn't either.




Who said that? I addressed this earlier, and I don't want this to get political, but you gotta look at who's saying this and why it's almost divided between party lines. Nothing happens by chance, this is all about $$$.

I’ll tell you what I’ll do my friend. I’m sure we’ll all be on this forum 10 years from now. If 10 years to now you can fully charge any electric vehicle in under 10 minutes of pulling in on zero charge I will fly to any city you are in and take you to the best steakhouse in that city. But if not, and it still takes an hour to charge a vehicle to only 50% and nothing has changed then you have to do the same for me. Are you on? Because I’m telling you it ain’t gonna happen. Now that doesn’t mean electric car sales won’t go up. I think they will. And honestly I think they’re pretty cool. They don’t they definitely have a place in our society and out perfect first certain family members in certain circumstances. I still believe at the end of the day capitalism will win over government intervention in this as it always does. The consumer will dictate what’s needed and electric vehicles definitely have a place in that just not a dominance.


Who said what? It’s not necessary? You and I both know that the environmental toll is higher from EV vehicles. A gentleman explained above. Mining for the materials, disposal of batteries, charging of the batteries and the energy it takes all have an equal or more environmental impact (And that’s still a minimum compared to other sources on the earth) than fuel-efficient cars with catalytic converter‘s on them. You’re right this is about the money and it has nothing to do with the environment. Once again I’ll say this. Those who are dead serious and actually believe this stuff actually act on it. I will give you an example. My senior year in high school the English teacher was a hard-core environmentalist. This was in the 1980s. The man was thoroughly convinced the world was coming to an end at man’s hand because we were destroying the environment. He lived off grid with solar panels used Rainwater to shower with and for his bathrooms and he rode his bicycle to the high school every day. Now I disagreed with everything that man believed but I had respect for him because he acted upon what he believes. It’s very difficult to take environmental alarmist seriously that hang out on a luxury muscle car forum and drive the most gas guzzling vehicles in existence second only to pick up trucks.. Just saying.

Having said that I enjoy the conversation with you. You are very reasonable and polite in your discourse. I appreciate that.

[FCX5]

Originally Posted by Patton250

Brother do you even read what’s going on in Europe? Of course the German government is making them do it. The EU is making them do it. I mean this respectfully when I ask you this, are you serious? Are you truly serious at what you just said or are you just messing with me? Government is not forcing them?

seriously. The auto companies have so much clout with the German govt. that if it was not in their interest it would not happen (if they say the govt is forcing them to do it, it's probably because they are expecting some sort of incentive from the govt). You can just Google it since there are so many links. LOL. Rather than saying 'are you serious', I suggest you do a little analysis first. I don't know what you do for a living, but technology has a way of progressing. There is a reason that for most EV owners (like me) the first thing you overcome is range anxiety. We have both ICE and EV and at this point, both have their advantages.

It's about profits. Even gas companies will jump in because it'll be in their interest.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/...-11012789?op=1

[FrankMstein]

It's amazing with all the internets worth of information (LOL information) today and people still believe some of the same things as they did when the car/ICE came out. For that fact, when the wheel was invented someone probably said who want's that!
Governments and businesses work just as corruptly and smell an opportunity today just as they did then. Infrastructure will get built. BTW glad we actually have an infrastructure bill now, hopefully congress will actually appropriate the money...correctly??? Industry will create new ways to deal with the battery disposal and bla bla bla... I for one want hot swappable batteries rather than charging stations.

Do you guys even have any idea how many different battery technologies there are out there? The industry is super fluid now. Choosing which direction to go with your tech sector of your portfolio is like a game of darts! If the government funded fusion projects would ever stay afloat I'm hoping we have fusion reactors in a car some day! How is that for a thread!?! LOL Sure, hydrogen is cool and all but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellarator Almost same thing as a Tokamak - see below.

And this just out moments ago:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/uk/nu...ntl/index.html

[FCX5]

Originally Posted by FrankMstein

It's amazing with all the internets worth of information (LOL information) today and people still believe some of the same things as they did when the car/ICE came out. For that fact, when the wheel was invented someone probably said who want's that!
Governments and businesses work just as corruptly and smell an opportunity today just as they did then. Infrastructure will get built. BTW glad we actually have an infrastructure bill now, hopefully congress will actually appropriate the money...correctly??? Industry will create new ways to deal with the battery disposal and bla bla bla... I for one want hot swappable batteries rather than charging stations.

Do you guys even have any idea how many different battery technologies there are out there? The industry is super fluid now. Choosing which direction to go with your tech sector of your portfolio is like a game of darts! If the government funded fusion projects would ever stay afloat I'm hoping we have fusion reactors in a car some day! How is that for a thread!?! LOL Sure, hydrogen is cool and all but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellarator Almost same thing as a Tokamak - see below.

And this just out moments ago:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/uk/nu...ntl/index.html

This was just 15 years ago for context. Similar types of reasons

https://www.theregister.com/2006/12/...one_will_fail/

Is the govt forcing BMW to spend millions on advertising their iX and i4 in the Super Bowl?

Just connect the dots my friends…

[paquet]

I may be misinformed on this (and welcome being enlightened), but everytime I see the EV case pushed, I ask 'what about the infrastructure to power it?'

To that, I never get a concrete response. For instance, I don't see any new nuclear plants being built out either in the US / Canada - it's all pie in the sky 'we'll figure out something in the future' living on the hope of the future.
And the future does hold many wondrous things, but it would be prudent to start planning rather than leave it to chance or lack of direction.

All that makes me rather skeptical of the motives of the parties involved ..

[FrankMstein]

Originally Posted by packet

I may be misinformed on this (and welcome being enlightened), but everytime I see the EV case pushed, I ask 'what about the infrastructure to power it?'

To that, I never get a concrete response. For instance, I don't see any new nuclear plants being built out either in the US / Canada - it's all pie in the sky 'we'll figure out something in the future' living on the hope of the future.
And the future does hold many wondrous things, but it would be prudent to start planning rather than leave it to chance or lack of direction.

All that makes me rather skeptical of the motives of the parties involved ..

Clean Energy Transmission
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal’s more than $65 billion investment is the largest investment in clean energy transmission and the electric grid in American history. It upgrades our power infrastructure, including by building thousands of miles of new, resilient transmission lines to facilitate the expansion of renewable energy. It creates a new Grid Deployment Authority, invests in research and development for advanced transmission and electricity distribution technologies, and promotes smart grid technologies that deliver flexibility and resilience. It also invests in demonstration projects and research hubs for next generation technologies like advanced nuclear reactors, carbon capture, and clean hydrogen.

Until congress appropriates the money for specifics (ie: pork) it won't get done. This is why voting and representing the people is important not just representing their portfolio/special/crazy (Q) interests.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ental-justice/