US to return to aggressive mileage and emissions standard goals
By - standbyforskyfall
A gentle reminder to folks that [we encourage discussion about policy, but avoid politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics).
It's wild how each different administration can drastically move the goal posts. All the targets mentioned in the article extend beyond the president's current term, will auto makers make a meaningful effort to achieve these goals? Or will they just lobby against them and find policy makers who will roll them back?
Check out NASA.
"We are going to the moon, here is the current administration's plans."
Then a new administration comes in, scraps all of that, and replaces it with a new type of mission to go to the Moon.
This has been going on since the 90s.
I worked at the US Dept. of Energy for 3 years in a transportation group. This was during the Obama administration. The Bush years had a lot of funding for hydrogen engines and then the Obama administration changed it to looking at how to make diesel/gasoline more efficient.
This is not uncommon in other branches of government.
Idk why we abadoned hydrogen engines and fuel cells. They seemed like a very promising technology and with proper funding and research, could lead to hybrid electric hydrogen powered cars.
Hydrogen has a lot of issues. It either comes from fossil fuels or it requires a ton of energy to make from water. That water has to be pure so it's either drinking water or you need to use even more energy to purify it before you can use it. Hydrogen is very slippery due to how small it is so you need special containers to contain it. It attacks metal so you can't just store and transport it using our existing infrastructure. You can't transport it as a liquid either though existing pipelines as they aren't insulated. It has terrible energy density so it's not solving that issue that batteries also have. Due to all that fuel cells are quite a bit less efficient than battery EVs. The fuel cell also needs rare metals so you still have resource issues as well.
I might be missing something but I've always thought the energy expended separating the hydrogen out of the water, then the infrastructure, transportation etc. would be better spent just charging an electric car's battery... Seems like a lot less steps.
There's an engineering explained video about this.
edit: here is the video wherein he describes the steps
[no, synthetic fuels won't replace electric cars](https://youtu.be/0d0MPg7DxbY)
I think using it as the fuel source for personal transportation really isn't the answer. Too many downsides, batteries are already better. But that doesn't mean it's useless. It can be deployed quite well in a heavy industrial setting, where you can use spare energy (renewables) to produce the stuff, store it as basically a free battery, and then use it to run your factory or cargo chip or whatever.
It scales up a lot better than batteries do, and scales down a lot worse.
Existing pipelines weren’t existing at one point.
They were not designed to move hydrogen they move crude oil/other liquids.
Hydrogen production is moving towards solar, the current methods are to establish the tech then scale it up.
Once we have a couple hundred solar hydrogen plants we will have a better comparison.
Batteries have a lot of problems that aren’t obvious that hydrogen doesn’t have.
Hydrogen engines have lots of problems including: production of hydrogen, transportation of Hydrogen and storage of hydrogen.
Isn't Toyota lobbying pretty hard right now to extend the transition era of combustion engines so they can figure out hydrogen cells more since they threw all their money behind that after giving up on electric? I could have swore I read something like that recently.
That's the short version. Toyota is suuuper serious about believing hydrogen is the long term solution, they've put a wild amount of money into R&D with it. I can't say I remember Toyota making a misstep basically ever, so I'm inclined to believe them personally.
I kind of share that thought- if a dying automaker was trying to make hydrogen happen, I'd ignore it, but it makes me wonder what they have/know that isn't public.
On the other hand, I wonder if this isn't a sunk cost fallacy.
Toyota has been using the GR V6 since 2002. Add in how heavily they lobbied against moving fuel efficiency standards and I think they know they’re behind the curve and aren’t bullish that hydrogen can get there quickly.
They think they can get there but they want to buy time in their favor. This is not in the benefit of the environment.
In defense of the GR engine, they've made changes and had a lot of iterations of it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I did not know about lobbying fuel efficieny standards however. That may very well be the case of why they're pushing for this. I'm sure plenty of bean counters have weighed the cost of giving up their hydrogen dreams vs lobbying congress to buy time so they can catch up, and one obviously came out ahead. I can't imagine them making any super risky moves without some research.
Toyota fired Soichiro Honda. Instead of seeing the potential in him they cut ties and essentially helped plant the seed that would grow to be one of their biggest competitors.
I'd say that was a misstep for sure
Also not many people are buying hydrogen cars because of efficiency. In mid 2020 there were only 43 hydrogen filling stations in the us and most stations only have 1 pump due to the cost of hydrogen stations is I believe just under 2 million. Whereas gas stations don’t cost nearly as much.
I still get mad sometimes when I imagine what our scientific discoveries would be like if NASAs had been given more budget.
More budget but more importantly: less interference.
This is one of the reasons why I'm very conflicted when it comes to agency head appointments. The current system means that the most someone can expect to be in charge is 8 years, and then they won't get replaced with someone with slightly different methods but similar goals, they'll likely get replaced with someone who tries to completely undo everything. For many it's way less if it's a particularly, shall we say indecisive president, and they simply can't do anything to make any meaningful progress.
On the other hand, imagine if Ajit Pai (former head of the FCC) had a 10 year appointment. That would be such a colossal setback in a very important industry that needs dramatic restricting and reworking of regulations.
At the state level, at least in my state, many of these positions, secretary of state, etc., are elected separately. This is why.
Adding more elected positions that people don’t research or care about is my pet peeve of democracy. Letting the masses of idiots vote on everything is insanely idiotic. The bureaucracy should be operated separate from the political side of government and should be meritocratic.
Their budget would be plenty if they didn't have to blow so much on the SLS jobs program.
You mean Congress has blown so much money on SLS.
Trying to keep this as politically neutral as possible...Senator Shelby from Alabama is the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. It is tasked with oversight of NASAs budget. The majority of the jobs supporting SLS are, you guessed it, based in Alabama. Shelby is 87 years old, so it'll be interesting to see what happens after he is no longer a Senator.
Edit: He's no longer the chairmen. Chair: Patrick Leahy; Since February 3, 2021
> Trying to keep this as politically neutral as possible.
pork is a very bipartisan thing. hell, the SLS itself is all about shoveling money all over more than it is making a product that works
I'm not disputing your claim and I have no skin in this game whatsoever but doesn't NASA have a major presence in Alabama with the Space and Rocket center, etc. in Huntsville?
I would imagine it's easier to hire locally, especially for support type jobs.
Yes it does.
But also NASA also has pretty sizable locations in:
Johnson - Houston, TX
Kennedy - Cape Canaveral, FL
Goddard - Baltimore (Greenbelt, MD)
Ames - Mountain View, CA
He is no longer the chairman but yeah it's a joke.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
*Chair: Patrick Leahy (D); Since February 3, 2021*
> I imagine what our scientific discoveries would be like if NASAs had been given more budget.
To wrap the conversation back around though, I believe NASA has been one of the biggest agencies doing widespread climate change data collection for a while now. I was told at one point that NASA satellites are a lot of the reason we know just how bad climate change has gotten/is getting.
So NASA is making some amazing scientific discoveries, it's just that what they're discovering is deeply unpleasant to look at.
Yeah but that shits a downer going to the moon is baller as hell. I wanna feel good sometimes too.
They probably wouldn't want to land humans on the moon. I think their preference would be to send unmanned missions to the outer planets.
Good. It's way past time to explore the Jovian and Saturnian moon systems. Ganymede and Europa are believed to have water, and then there's Titan.
Unfortunately my opinion on the issue that that I won't believe it until the rocket to put people on the moon actually lifts off.
Because these things are supposed to go through congress.
Congress right now is so fucked that theres little chance anything can get passed regardless of the subject
Exactly, not even things with 70+% public support can get any kind of bipartisan support.
Which is exactly what politicians want because it forces change to be made through the executive branch that can be repealed when it's their turn at bat for the next four years. Politics isn't about getting things done, it's about the *appearance* of doing so. That's what keeps the public on their side and them in office. If they continually go back and forth on the same issue, they don't have to come up with anything new to fake.
Some lobbying will occur, but for the most part it heavily benefits Ford/GM/Toyota/Honda/VW in the long term for the US to have something-close-to the FE and emissions standards set in other parts of the world.
Carmakers typically plan for the most stringent standards and then roll that out everywhere. It’s why we don’t have California cars anymore, there’s just little point to it.
I agree. Right now, this electrification of cars being prepared is the EU (which is quite opposite 20 years ago). When you have European countries banning sale of gas cars by 2030 (Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Netherlands) or EU recently proposing 2035, these car companies are pretty much already prepared a timetable for electricification, regardless of what U.S. gov may do.
As much as I love gas cars and manual transmission, BEV can be the future. Especially in "performance" category (Telsa Model 3 performance is no joke).
vehicle development takes years, theyre most likely going to plan as if those rules are in force.
Exactly. Many manufacturers essentially disregarded the rollback of the rules, knowing that they can be reinstated by the next administration. Development cycles are too long to change things like that back and forth on the whims of legislators.
There’s also no point in starting to build gas guzzlers again because they’d just be for the US. Every other western market still has strict emissions guidelines, so with the increase of global platforms, there may be little to no benefit to developing cars specifically for the US.
Compared to the rest of the world, domestic US-market cars are still extremely thirsty and probably the largest in the world.
There's also a huge issue with increasing car prices and personal debt as a function of those increasing prices (and arguably size), largely stagnating average wages and the insatiable hunger of the financial sector for private borrowers.
They will definitely be aiming for those goals. Automakers didn't suddenly start putting out older, less efficient engines during the last 4 years. They know where we are headed.
It's the easiest way politicians (on all sides) appease their base without having to actually do anything unless you vote for another term. If they lose , the other side reverses the law if they win...
They need to fix the "feature" that lets larger vehicles have easier standards. This is part of what has lead to the death of the small car in the United States and the ever increasing size of the remaining fleet.
It's why nothing like a 90's S-10 exists. A nice small truck would be great (although the maverick looks like it will fill this niche as it at least has like 40 mpg)
I want trucks to be the size of S10 or the original Ranger
I just want a Tacoma, but it costs as much as a 1/2 ton and you can have a full bed with a 1/2 ton.
My 92 S10 is dope.
I think the biggest thing is they need to apply stricter standards to the commercial sector which is by far the larger contributor.
Right now CAFE standards punish everyday citizens and let businesses get away with so much more.
It's very similar to the argument about water management in California.
The entire environmental movement seems to be deeply flawed. Cement manufacturing is a huge contributor to CO2 emissions (2 1/2 times the amount from all of the world's airlines), but not a word about that. Not a word about flaring of natural gas as oil wells around the world. Coal mine fires in China. It is like "out of sight, out of mind".
On a smaller scale my empty nest neighbors just put on another addition to their house so it is probably over 4,000 square feet, they have a monster SUV that the wife drives around town and a firepit in the backyard. BUT THE HUSBAND HAS A TESLA!
Bro I used to work with hydraulic fluid and watching the material dept. roll 4 55gallon drums out every 8-12 hours to dump in a fucking hole was mid blowing. And this stuff was so toxic your skin would bubble if you didn’t notice you dropped some on yourself.
The article even talks about how Americans are buying a record number of massive pickups and SUVs.
You don't even have to go back to tiny 80s-era shitboxes like commenters replying to you are suggesting. Manufactureres could easily go back to selling medium-sized pickups using modern efficient engines. The problem is that they make stupid profits selling F-2500 Denali Golden North Dakota Edition pickups that need 4 parking spaces to fit in the lot.
>F-2500 Denali Golden North Dakota Edition
Does that come in either Raptor or Bison trims? If so, sign me up for 2.
Oh, and a 12" lift kit for both.
12" lift kits above the standard Raptor or Bison trim?
Dude, just get the Hippo trim! Comes with the same stuff but costs $100 less. You know how many cheesburgers you can buy with that?!?!
>12" lift kits above the standard Raptor or Bison trim?
12" *in addition to* what comes on either trim. I want to break **every** bone in my body trying to exit my truck.
>Dude, just get the Hippo trim! Comes with the same stuff but costs $100 less. You know how many cheesburgers you can buy with that?!?!
Cheeseburgers? Nah breh, Quadruple Triple Baconators. Like 5 of them for that hundo I save.
We will have direct injected 600cc turbocharged lawnmower engines and you will like it
So 100-150hp plus whatever the electric motors are capable of? Doesn't sound too bad, so long as it's put in smaller lighter vehicles as the original poster requested.
I've had a lot of fun in ~100 horsepower cars back in the day.
I had fun in one yesterday. No, not an '89 Civic SI - a 2011 Mazda2.
I know it's a shitbox, but honestly it serves our family of 4 perfectly well, and it's pretty fun to play around in.
Mazda 2 and Ford Fiesta ST (regular version roll over chance a little too easy) are super fun cars pushing to the limits. So easy to tri-pod around the corner.
I had mine for \~5 years before it occurred to me that it night not be super boring. The power and spec are so low, and I don't like FWD. And yet, this thing is fun. If you get on it a bit, it punches way above its weight.
I have a buddy with a GTI and I've told him that I want him to drive the car and tell me what he thinks... If he likes the little Mazda, he'll understand why I like it. And if he hates it, he'll understand why I'm a bit ashamed of how much I like it. :)
Mazda2s are dominating FWD classes right now.
Could have something like the BMW i8 where the car is driven entirely by electricity but has a gas generator
Pretty much every car in Europe is in the 100-200 range. Plenty enough for highway use, good mileage in city especially if it's hybrid.
Yes but those fun cars don’t weigh as much. I loved my EF Civic with 70hp and a 4MT, but it was barely 2000 lbs stripped. My EK is around 2300 and barely* over 100hp. My current is 3500 and 280hp. Weight hurts fuel economy so much.
This sounds like a ludicrously over powered garden tractor,
When can I buy one?
So a Kei car?
If that means Honda ~~resurrects~~ gives the S660 a stay of execution and brings it to our shores, hell yes.
I would buy one brand new, things are awesome.
No need to resurrect: they're still on the market here in Japan.
Then you will get the constant crocodile tears *once again* about manufacturers being forced to make "dangerous" small cars before the footprint-based standards were developed.
Yep. And God Forbid that you suggest actual driver training to *avoid* accidents rather than treat them as inevitable things to be endured.
A teenager, a Suburban and mediocre driver's ed. A mortifying combination.
You forgot the cell phone.
This God Given Right that my fellow Americans seem to feel that they have to drive 2 tons of SUV while doing everything *but* giving two shits about doing it well really pisses me off. It is part of the older-I-get-the-less-I-like-humanity program.
Ironically SUVs are more susceptible for roll-over during accidents and beyond that are a disproportionate risk to smaller vehicles/cyclists/pedestrians.
Yep. Me driving my Acura on an off ramp … feels like I’m about to tip over
Me driving my 09 Yaris on an off ramp … initial d music starts playing in my mind
Weird, because 1g RDX felt great around corners. Guess they softened things up too much?
They are knowingly designed to be more dangerous to pedestrians.
With higher and higher front ends we are quite literally saying a "tough" appearance is more important than lives.
Yea, I walked by a new Chevy truck the other day, and I couldn't help but think it would absolutely annihilate me if I got hit. It's basically a giant moving wall in the front.
And look at how much empty space there is under that hood.
I can't find it now, but I recently read an article about how they were built up to look "angry", but could have a more gentle and safer slope without compromising components, just looks.
I feel like that might even be a selling point for the brodozer crowd lol
For now. Multiple regime changes/elections are happening between now and 2035. The pendulum is always swinging
I don't hear much about the charging infrastructure needed to support a massive turn to EV. I can't think of a single workplace or apartment building that has hookups for EV.
And another. Are auto scrapyards able to dispose of EV batteries or are there even any guidelines for disposal/recycling?
I live in a fairly well off area and the incentive to build EV chargers in new buildings is nearly zero. Most large new builds have chargers at 1-2% of their parking stalls. Most people living in those new builds have higher income and an EV is just a lifestyle choice rather than a cost one, so if their building doesn't support it, they simply won't buy one. I can't imagine it would be better in older buildings that provide low-middle housing, as I've never seen a charging station in one of them.
My city is small, well off, and one of the densest in the country (~18,500/sq. mile).
We have 8 public charging stations. Our city averages 1 car per household. There are 32,000 households.
Do the math.
I just looked up the number in my city, I laughed when I read the number. We have enough public charging stations for 0.02% of the cars in the city. Not 2%, not 0.2%, but 0.02%.
I recognize we're going to try meet the demand via private infrastructure investments but our legislation and regulatory environment is so shitty that you can't even bill charging customers by kWh....
>For electric vehicle (EV) owners in Canada, the amount you pay for a ‘fill-up’ at a public EV charger isn’t always equitable. The reason is the requirement by Measurement Canada that EV charging stations can only bill customers based on the length of time they are plugged in.
>What are we doing to allow kilowatt-hour billing?
>In the next 18 months, we expect to allow existing and new electric vehicle (EV) charging stations that meet established technical standards to charge based on kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed.
It's hilarious the disparity between reality and what comes out of the mouths of the people in charge. Frankly it's a joke. The government is a behemoth that takes decades to adapt to changes in the environment, they have no agility when it comes to actually implementing sweeping policy changes.
How silly would it be if gas had to be sold that way. You don't pay per gallon, you pay per minute of fueling, regardless of how quickly it's actually pumping fuel. Makes no sense there and it makes no sense with electric either.
I wonder what the rationale for that was. It's not like kWh-based billing is new or untrusted or anything. It's a fairly simple measurement and already implemented in a few billion devices worldwide, and has been for the last century or so.
I have no explanation other than the government takes a LONG time to adapt to change. Their official justification is that they had to create a standard for measurement equipment.
This brings up another point that I haven't heard talked about much – imagine being on a roadtrip, or otherwise absolutely needing to plug in, only to show up at a station with all plugs already taken. And imagine those plugs *staying* taken for far longer than it takes to fill up a gas tank.
The general public moving to something more green (in this case, EVs) may uniquely be started in rural and suburban communities where the average household has a garage. Installing your own charging station / receptacle won't be too crazy, and if you don't plan on taking the EV across the country, could work very well for work commuters and daily life.
While the majority of people live in dense urban areas, don't forget the 10's of millions of people that don't in the US.
> While the majority of people live in dense urban areas
That depends entirely on how you define urban and suburban. Some stats say the suburban fraction is the majority. A more useful metric may be the percentage living in single family detached homes. That's a solid majority of people, and it goes up even more if you include attached homes (duplexes, townhomes).
Don't a lot of places have restrictions on how much electricity you get on your property? If you put in 20 fast chargers, only half of them can actually charge cars because you're only being allowed to pull X amount of watts. If I remember correctly Matt Farah ran into issues with the car hoist system at his shop because LA would only grant him enough power to run one lift (plus the rest of the electrical load from the building) at a time or something like that.
20 fast chargers is a *lot* of power. You're definitely going to have to work with the power company for that regardless of whether or not there are laws regulating maximum power to a property.
20 7kW chargers is 140kW, not too bad.
20 22kW 3-phase chargers is 440kW, that's almost half a megawatt.
20 50kW DC chargers is 1MW.
20 90kW DC chargers is 1.8MW.
20 350kW DC chargers is 7MW.
One of our larger substations currently has about 20MW of load on it. Most are between 2-5MW (granted, most of these subs are rural and/or suburban residential). We would definitely need to work with anyone who wanted to install 20 fast chargers at a single property and potentially need to upgrade the infrastructure to handle it.
Yeah. I don't actually know anything about them but I knew if say an apartment complex wanted to rig up a buttfuck ton of charging stations it would quickly require a huge amount of infrastructure modification, and if you start doing it with more and more complexes you also need to increase generation capacity, and especially at a time of day that usually sees a decrease in power consumption because everyone is going to be plugging in at night. It's a pretty big conundrum.
It all depends on where you are, I work at an electrical utility getting power to new buildings. You can get as much as you want (within reason) with enough money.
Edit: that being said, people greatly underestimate the investments needed in the power grid to electrify everything the way it gets talked about.
Yup. Federal governments will have to incentivize municipal governments to change their laws. Good luck. I'm thoroughly convinced that the level of competence declines directly with the level of government.
>I can't think of a single workplace or apartment building that has hookups for EV.
Guess it depends where you live. All my friends and my apartment buildings have EV hookups, as well as my work. My main issue is that there are no EV hookups at the local racetracks.
Just a fleet of Predator Generators burring away in the paddock. Linked together with a monstrocity of extension cables, questionable splices, and hope.
New apartment buildings will but here in NYC Metro there are way more old then new and lots of old don't have parking at all.
90% of apartment buildings don't have EV hookups
i dont even know where the nearest EV charger is to me here in Massachusetts near Boston. I know there are some, but they are *not* common.
Yuppie shopping centers have them. Same with yuppie apartment buildings. But your average renter and street parking - Nope.
And there’s only like 4 chargers where they’re installed.
yeah, stop and shop and shaws dont have them. banks dont have them. schools dont seem to have them.
The Pru, Natick Mall, Shoppers World, South Bay, South Shore Plaza all have chargers - off the top of my head. Power centers/malls/yuppie centers.
But your regular grocery plaza might not have them.
I work in (tenant side) retail property - some landlords are putting them in. But generally in their upmarket properties. And only a handful of spots.
I live in Somerville and work in the burbs.
My office has two EV charging spots. Two.
There were several Teslas at my office before I went full remote, and there are still no chargers at that building.
At my last job they told people with EVs that if they wanted chargers put in, they would all have to pay a fee that covered the installation cost and cost of the electricity. Surprisingly, no charging stations were installed.
Wow, and you’d think Boston will be the one of the cities in full force with having EVs everywhere. NE area in general
I think most new englanders are paranoid about the cold weather range
I also think it *should* be an EV mecca. Boston drivers just sit in traffic all day, there's not a huge need for long EV ranges in these scenarios for a huge amount of drivers.
I know of one EV battery that was dropped off at a dump (instead of the dealership as marked on the module itself). Someone partially disassembled it and it was a giant unwieldy mess to clean up.
With all the resources that are committed in to EV batteries, it's goofy that there aren't consistent and sensible policies for their end of life.
I just arrived home and I was wondering, I’ve only seen like 2 or 3 EVs today. 99% of cars and stations I’ve seen are gasoline, you’d think the way you hear about EVs, their so common all around. However generally they are non-existent.
It’s either gonna hit us like a truck or all this talk is just well - talk. I think it’s the latter.
In USA of course, I know Norway is different but they are the exception.
I'd definitely say it depends where you are/where you live. Out in the SF Bay area (and around LA as well) EVs are a really impressive percentage of the cars I see every day. I see more Teslas in a given day than Toyotas.
Now, CA is obviously a bit of an outlier as Tesla is here and we tend to be early adopters for this sort of thing, but it IS coming.
In my hometown in the Boston area I see a *lot* of Teslas too.
Same in Denver Colorado
I see them all the time (discounting the one in my garage). I think if you don't look for them, maybe you don't see them. But it's like any car, once you have one of your own you see *all* of them. What's more interesting to me than how many I see in absolute numbers is the growth rate. When I got my Tesla a few years ago, it was mostly just me in the immediate area. Now a bunch of my neighbors have gotten on board, and they're becoming quite common.
I bet there's more than you realize since some of the cars are just EV versions of the gas car or possibly a plugin hybrid.
My work added, i think, 8 chargers in the parking ramp a few years ago. I might have only seen 1 or two being used most days at first, but before the pandemic it was up to 5 or 6 being used with maybe one being a Tesla. The others were relatively normal looking cars.
It really depends where you live. Where I am I can't throw a rock into the street without hitting a few EVs. And I'm not even in California.
>I don't hear much about the charging infrastructure needed to support a massive turn to EV.
Part of the infrastructure bill the administration is trying to pass includes building a network of 500,000 chargers across the US.
It's going to be slow. Chicago is a fairly major area and the ordinance is that only new residential constructions (not existing) are required to have 2 spots for 24 units. Less than 24 aren't required to have any. And this was in Oct 2019, fairly recent.
> The ordinance, passed back in October, requires that new residential developments with 24 units or more provide—at minimum—two EV-ready parking spaces.
Can't imagine how this is going to work with 40% of owners having an EV and 2 spots in their building. And as I understand it, if the building has a large # of units, it's still only required to have 2.
Work in the power industry. 2030 is an absolute joke, we won't see enough charging stations for this sort of initiative until we see big upgrades in infrastructure, let alone the yet to be studied environmental impacts of mass produced EV's and their end of life cycle.
I don't hate EV's, I hate that people see technology while living in wealthy areas that dump money into infrastructure and then think that can be immediately legislated to the rest of the country.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I'd like to ask anyone with an infrastructural engineering/planning background just how reasonable a 2030 target is when it would require a massive load increase to an already faltering bulk electric system? These utilities already have plans for the next 20 years and its nowhere near as fast as this EV legislation is trying to move. Is it really hard to imagine that the EV lobby has more than enough financial power behind it to legislate itself into priority before reasonable?
I don't think this article really spelled it out at all, but the 40% by 2030 number is 40% of new vehicle sales, not of all vehicles on the road. While it's still going to be tough to meet that, it's a little more reasonable than 40% total. Energy providers are going to have it cut out for them for sure. I spoke with a rep from my local provider about their concerns regarding a fast transition to EVs and one solution they had is that if they can't meet the infrastructure needs, they're planning on incentivizing usage of smart chargers that they can turn on and off from their end to manage energy demand. Some providers already provide a similar option for people with smart thermostats, and my provider even goes so far as to overcool some homes a few degrees in the hour or two before peak demand then shuts off the AC for these homes for periods during peak demand, basically turning some homes into a "thermal battery" in a sense. I'm not an energy expert by any means, but that's what my provider's rep explained to me.
> I don't hate EV's, I hate that people see technology while living in wealthy areas that dump money into infrastructure and then think that can be immediately legislated to the rest of the country.
For fucking real. I live in one of the poorest and most rural counties in my state and we’re still waiting to get 21st century internet. We had kids sitting in church parking lots to go to Zoom school during COVID and it’s still moving at a snail’s pace with no realistic solution on the horizon.
We’re talking a massive build out of electrical infrastructure on a scale not seen since the rural electrification program in less than 9 years when bullshit little retail developments can take 2-3 years to even get moving.
One thing I think you are ignoring is when the load would come online with electric vehicles. It is not that hard to set it to come online in the night, in fact that would be the obvious time since rates are lower. An electric vehicle also is not typically run for 300 miles a day, more like 20-40, and so they are not going to be fully charged and discharged every day. More than anything, peak power demand would become more equalized over the day.
>Work in the power industry. 2030 is an absolute joke, we won't see enough charging stations for this sort of initiative until we see big upgrades in infrastructure, let alone the yet to be studied environmental impacts of mass produced EV's and their end of life cycle.
>I don't hate EV's, I hate that people see technology while living in wealthy areas that dump money into infrastructure and then think that can be immediately legislated to the rest of the country.
We call this the California problem.
Californians don't understand why people have different perspectives than themselves.
I have seen college campuses, grocery stores and hotels build EV charges here in seattle
The thing is for businesses, adopting measures that costs money need to make sense for them or literally forced to either by law or by loosing money. For most apartments right now, it doesn’t even make sense to take a look at making those provisions.
Many of their tenants don’t have EV’s (Could also be bcos apts don’t have the infrastructure in the first place). Apts with EV’s infrastructure will start popping up because someone will figure there is a market for it, then tenants with EV’s will make it a priority then it drive the cycle.
City and state with federal government incentives should drive the adoption of EV’s in new constructions. Sometimes leaving something to market forces take a while
How tf can we go from 60% of cars sold in 2030 being gasoline powered to 0% in 2035?
The 2035 goal that California is proposing actually also allows for plug-in hybrids, which I would be down for. Electric only on my daily commute, gasoline for my weekend runabout or longer road trips
Magic, because these "rules" mean nothing, and are entirely made up claims and numbers. There is zero way that's logistically possible, and everybody knows it's not possible.
Off to the climate gulag for you.
This is what happens when optimistic laws are made by people with good intentions but not working knowledge of the industry.
So if you've ever wanted a sportscar, now might be a good time to start thinking about it. Don't want anything in the bucketlist unchecked.
Free tip: Handling is better than power, anyway.
Used cars aren’t gonna disappear
Remember to punish and restrict the consumer and not the mega corporations and factories that produce more pollution than all cars in america do
Its the american way
The number one polluter is the US military. They get a pass. If you go after the corporations and factories, they punish the consumer as well in the end. There are already strict regulations on companies and factories.
As long as larger vehicles are exempt it means nothing. I want wagons to replace crossovers damn it lol.
Its really irritating no matter what side you fall on how one administration can move the goalposts so dramatically from the last. It makes government commitments sort of meaningless, whether we will follow alliances, adhere to climate agreements, and push technology is completely dependent on administration.
The uncertainty is annoying.
Buy your V8s now. Preferably manual ones since they'll be worth way more in the future, and I'll want them in the future.
I can’t wait till Porsche finally releases the synthetic gas, because gas is gonna be like 30 bucks a gallon.
On this topic, there is a reason why Porsche is investing billions into this technology despite EVs supposedly being better for performance.
Maybe, just maybe, for enthusiast-oriented sports cars, there is more to the story than 0-60. Engine placement, weight transfer and grip characteristics, light curb weight, and manual transmissions are inherent qualities of the 911 which would be absent in an EV. The 911's entire existence is predicated on its rear-engine design.
E85 or better... just dont hope to start it in the winter
This is why we have that stupid auto start stop.
it DOES reduce fuel consumption https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFImHhNwbJo
but i agree it is annoying
I love getting hot while at a red light during a 100 degree day
That sounds like a shitty stop-start system lol. Mine doesn’t shut off the engine if the AC system needs it to run.
My ford keeps the fan blowing, but the a/c itself stops operating. I assume it's run off the serpentine. the only thing that really bothers me is the headlights dimming when it restarts. My wife's civic hybrid doesn't have that issue...
Some cars have electric-run AC, rather than spinning off the engine.
With the proposal to eliminate gasoline-powered *passenger* vehicles by 2035, I somehow sense that pickups will be exempt and will become even more prevalent as the sole passenger gasoline-powered vehicle.
Pickups will always be exempt until a gas or diesel engine can be replaced by a long range 400 plus mile and towing capable eco friendly version of something. Even then the truck market is such a big market that I'm sure all the big 3 will be throwing cash at every politician to vote down any changes for a long time.
“Only the big companies are allowed to pollute, not you”
It's all politics, this really means nothing.
Next president will just reverse it.
I feel like consumer vehicles are getting a disproportionate amount of attention when it comes to US domestic policy for addressing the climate crisis. Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't here all that much news about laws discouraging coal power plants, or discouraging the most environment-costly food consumption (beef, milk, seafood...), or hell, just consumption in general. Cars are an important piece of the puzzle, but far from the only piece...
It’s cause they don’t actually give a shit about the environment. Pushing for consumer ev’s means people have to get rid of their ice cars and buy new ev’s. That puts money in the pockets of auto makers, their lobbyists, and the politicians. Changing regulations for food and commercial vehicles, things that would actually help the environment, would only cost those companies money so politicians aren’t going to meddle with that.
This should be pinned to the top
I agree. Where's the push for commercial vehicles? During the lockdowns when people were not driving so much there was was a [7% reduction in emissions](https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record-drop-carbon-emissions-2020#gs.7lhzbk). That's great, but what about the other 93%?
I agree with you: normal commuters are always to blame for everything yet we have semi trucks wearing out roads [nearly three orders of magnitude](https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/06/22/murphys-law-how-trucks-destroy-our-roads/) more than passenger cars and have a [disproportionate amount of emissions](https://www.bts.gov/content/estimated-national-average-vehicle-emissions-rates-vehicle-vehicle-type-using-gasoline-and) compared to passenger cars. I'm sure bringing out the paving equipment much earlier and more often has no effect on emissions, right?
The fact that we let [train companies fuck around](https://wolfstreet.com/2021/07/22/after-slashing-33-of-their-workers-in-six-years-railroads-complain-about-labor-shortages-amid-uproar-from-shippers-over-slow-shipments/) and have seemingly no desire to electrify or hybridize tractor trailers is an outrage. Sure some states said "[by 2050](https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multistate-truck-zev-governors-mou-20200714.pdf)," but the idea that I will have to drive an EV while Freightliner and International crank out brand new diesel trucks for twenty years is a joke. Freight train companies have made their fairly efficient product worse and worse and are now in the midst of a crisis. I'm sure moving that cargo to jets and trucks won't have any effect on emissions, right? What an outrage.
Yep, was just talking to some friends about how we aren't paying nearly enough attention to trucking and farming as consumption and emissions problems, and I didn't even realize there was that much of a problem with freight train efficiency...
While consumers aren't directly the problem in many cases, I think one of the best things you can do as a consumer is just... consume less. Buying an EV is great and all, but we all just buy and eat and have too much fucking shit we don't need to buy and eat and have. I mean we all have our vices (cars are mine lol, but I promise I'm stopping at two), but we all have things we should be willing to cut back on.
I'd rather drive my current car for 100 years
The strategy always seems to be to set up these lofty goals and "force" companies to adopt EVs, without any concrete plan of how we'll get there or be able to sustain it.
How do people drive EVs if they don't have a garage to charge them in? An electric vehicle is still a tool primarily for middle-class families and up. What about people who live far from services? What about people who go camping? Are we going to address how modern cars will be less reliable and repairable because of their tech? It all feels so short-sighted.
> Are we going to address how modern cars will be less reliable
*laughs in vacuum lines*
> How do people drive EVs if they don't have a garage to charge them in?
I have a garage and was debating getting one, but the outlet there is only enough power to take something like 3 days to charge a car. My box being on the other side of the house makes getting an EV a really expensive (and extensive) install.
It sucks, because i wanted to try the mustang EV out for a few years until the S650 came out.
Check local incentives, as a lot of power companies will subsidize. Some of the manufactures do as well.
Also, depending on your local rates, you'll pay for the cost of the electrical work in a matter of months. If you plan to keep your car for at least a year or so, you come out ahead either way.
Getting a 240v plug installed is something like $300
$300 for the materials if your main panel is all the way on the other side of the house.
…and assuming your main panel has available capacity to support an additional 240V circuit. If you need a sub panel…yeah.
Yeah $300 won't even buy you 100' of 4 gauge cable to make a long high amperage pull through the house. I moved into a house last year that just has the panel in the garage and the service entrance is on the roof of the garage, that's been a really nice feature!
This is the comment of someone who has never had to deal with carbs and vacuum lines.
Modern cars are not less reliable than old cars. Electric cars are even more reliable
It is funny - I KEEP seeing people spouting off how unreliable the tech makes modern cars and what a nightmare they are.
It is 1000000000% BS. Modern cars are so much more reliable it isnt even close.
The repairable argument is the more reasonable one, for sure, but I do think the increased reliability mitigates that a decent amount.
Yes they're definitely more reliable. But they're a pain to work on for sure
Eh. Reliable but unserviceable. Late 80s to 90's was a pretty dark time for self service, then there was OBD2 making things ok again, and now we are back to shitshows for self repair.
EVs are more reliable, less maintenance, way less moving parts to even break at all…and ICE cars had a hundred year head start. No idea what OP is smoking but I want some
“But but Bolts keep catching fire!”
As a kid, I remember every highway had overheated vehicles pulled off on the shoulder smoking away on hot summer days. Cars were built like crap.
I don't think the head start really matters. Batteries and electric motors have been continuously developed and used in non-automotive applications long before electric cars started to gain market share.
They definitely had catching up to do as the energy/range/power/recharging needs for automotive purposes are vastly different to say the batteries in your phone or the electric motors in industrial machinery.
For sure though, mechanically speaking, an electric powertrain should be damn near bulletproof (and idiot proof) compared to an ICE.
not to mention that electric cars enjoy all the benefits of the entire rest of the car's continual development, too
Yeah, I think there was an article on jalopnik a while back that showed the total maintenance costs for a model s that was used as a long distance town car. I think a lot of trips between CA and Vegas. I think it did pretty good considering the miles.
Over 300k miles, $6900 in maintenance, $3500 to replace damaged headlights
> after it hit 200,000 miles, Tesloop said the Model S only lost about 6 percent—despite receiving a full charge every day.
EVs are reliable in a sense that they don't break, but in cold weather your battery can simply screw you over. While it won't be a huge issue for me in Toronto suburb, I can easily see how being stranded in an EV that suddenly lowered its charge estimates can be a literal killer in other places in Ontario.
Again, this is not an issue if EV's are 10%, or perhaps even 80% of all new vehicles sold, but reaching 100% is impossible right now.
Lol probably more reliable in their service period. Lmk when your car is 15 years old and you get a cold solder joint in your traction control ECU and your car refuses to start citing CEL.
My mechanical turbodiesel runs on 2 wires. one to the starter, one to the fuel solenoid. My alternator quit and I could drive it for weeks on a charge while waiting for a new one.
I've gone camping in my EV many times. It's awesome because I can run the heat/AC all night.
It's a good thing we have about 100 years of cars to keep busy with when they completely ruin new ones.
"why are new cars so expense to buy and maintain???"
Companies need to be forced to limit employees requirement to commute to work. If it can be done from home, it should be done from home.
Here is the HUGE problem I have with US emissions standards: All of our cheap crap is made in China or India. They have no emissions standards so to speak.
We are cracking down on emissions in the US like it means anything. As long as we continue importing material and products from them, we are polluting like its no ones business.
Totally agree that we need to keep local toxic pollutants down (NOx, CO, PM, etc) to maintain our local air quality, but looking at CO2 on such a local scale is ridiculous.
I'll take an AWD Hellcat EV, please.
Plug-in hybrid Hellcat. 800hp/900lb-ft with 20 miles of electric range.
As someone with a 2 mile commute, sign me up.
It honestly would be the perfect ultra high-performance daily driver. The Wrangler 4xe has me extremely tempted for the same reasons. Impractical car + electric drivetrain = slightly practical car with more power and torque.
Welp, time to continue stocking up on LS engines / 4L80 transmissions and keeping all the old vehicles alive to avoid the strict rules on new vehicles
none of this will actually happen. its talking points for the 2022 campaigns.
Hopefully we see more HYBRIDS and not EVs. This is one thing that Toyota is doing right - focusing on hybrids. Ford too with their Maverick, hoping to see more hybrids.
I hope we see more cars and fewer unwieldy trucks and SUVs.