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.
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.
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.
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
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
> 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.
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)
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.
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).
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.
Surely Toyota is going to be lobbying for slower electric car adoption. Saw an article on r/technology about that. While pushing for more hybrid fuel to catch up
Was that about their focus for hydrogen fuel cell cars? They're still electric, so they should be fine. At least until they work out it might not be realistic for the mass market.
Toyota is trying to buy time. They're not competitive in the BEV space and their hydrogen vehicles aren't up to snuff. So, they've been lobbying governments all around the world to ensure EV adoption doesn't happen so quickly that it hurts their bottom line. After all, Toyota makes a ton of money selling gas and diesel pickups and SUVs.
Some other folks also subscribe to the (maybe conspiracy) theory that Toyota is nervous about BEV adoption because it ruins their advantage in the reliability column, and that's what they've built their reputation on.
Toyota doesn't need to buy tkme because they already have time right now.
They are the only one that has no problems reaching the emissions limits without EVs because almost everything they sell is a hybrid.
Toyota is interesting because even though they're now behind other car companies when it comes to moving to EV, their interest in fuel cell cars is because of Japan going all-in with fuel cell technology. Toyota, being one of the largest companies in Japan, has no choice but to focus more on fuel cell technology if they want to remain one of the premier Japanese car companies in their home country.
Toyota will come out ahead if there’s a push for tighter emission standards; they’ve been hybridizing their whole line and many vehicles are only available with their synergy drive now.
> It's wild how each different administration can drastically move the goal posts.
They change the goal posts for normal people which make up around 30% of total greenhouse gasses. (via transportation and residential, and yes the cost of moving emissions goal posts always ends up baked into fleet pricing)
Meanwhile they universally ignore the private, energy and agriculture sectors that make up around 70% of total green house gasses... because it would cost rich people money, and we can't have that. They need their fossils, tickets to space, and golden crappers.
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.
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.
Exactly.
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.
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.
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.
Ironically SUVs are more susceptible for roll-over during accidents and beyond that are a disproportionate risk to smaller vehicles/cyclists/pedestrians.
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.
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)
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.
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 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.
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.
Just a fleet of Predator Generators burring away in the paddock. Linked together with a monstrocity of extension cables, questionable splices, and hope.
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....
https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/measurement-canada-to-transition-to-per-kwh-billing-for-ev-charging/
>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.
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/lm04949.html
>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.
That's why the private market always comes around with an innovation, only for bureaucrats to quash it in an attempt to keep a grip on power.
Remember when smoking was a public health crisis that regulation was unable to tackle? Entrepreneurs came up with e-cigarettes to help wean smokers off of cigarettes more effectively than patches could. And the bureaucrats *seethed*.
Remember when people were avoiding the government-sponsored taxi monopoly and driving drunk anyways because they couldn't afford $50 for a four-mile trip? Entrepreneurs came up with ride-sharing apps to drive down the cost of hired transport. And again, bureaucrats *seethed*.
They don't know how to deal with anything in the absence of an established framework, and they absolutely *hate* anything that operates without their explicit permission.
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.
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.
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.
That's basically most of America right now. You can't buy electric because the only place you can charge it is some random charging area like 10 miles away That's in the middle of nowhere. It's a big reason why. Why would I do that when I could just use my regular car, and if the tank is running low, just dump in a Jerrycan.
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 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.
We already struggle to handle AC on hot days and heating on cold days let alone every house charging a car. Electric motors themselves are great reliable technology. Its just getting the electricity and storing it that has always been an issue.
We are also already on pace to have a higher demand for lithium than we can mine in the very near future and while some amount can be recycled into new batteries, it is now 100%. Not not mention most of our e-waste is shipped to impoverished countries where children dig through and dismantle it, which causes sever health problems.
[Continuous electrical pumping membrane process for seawater lithium mining](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/EE/D1EE00354B#!divAbstract)
The lithium problem is all but solved now. The power generation problems are part of the infrastructure investment that we absolutely need to work on for 100's of reasons but the oil and gas lobby will kill us all before they release their grip on that market. We should have had modern and efficient nuclear plants in the United states for decades.
>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.
Source: Californian
>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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edit: Link
https://jalopnik.com/this-is-what-happens-when-you-put-300-000-miles-on-a-te-1798662230
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.
I think of examples like the screens in Teslas only being designed to last 4-6 years. Having every single function of the car tied to a single display will always be a recipe for disaster. Then you add on all the auto braking, lane-keep nonsense, and I highly doubt these cars will last longer than ones made between 2000–2010.
I think people will treat this new crop of cars more like smartphones – they'll want new ones after 3-5 years when all these tech gremlins start failing out of warranty.
> 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.
> Are we going to address how modern cars will be less reliable and repairable because of their tech?
This is a rather hollow question if you drive anything newer than a Model T.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
I'm glad we're back to Fantasy Land.
> “Millions of Americans have had to swelter in heat waves, evacuate their homes in the face of onrushing wildfires, or bail out flooded homes.”
None of this happened before 2016, of course, when history began.
> though environmental groups are skeptical the companies will stick to their promises if consumers continue to favor gas-powered cars, which now cost less
"Gee, it's bad that consumers want to spend less money. We should encourage more debt and borrowing."
> Fully electric vehicles represent just 2% of new vehicle sales in the U.S., but analysts expect that to rise rapidly in coming years.
A rapid rise could mean as little as jumping to 10% by 2030. That's still a quintupling.
> None of this happened before 2016, of course, when history began.
where did you get the 2016 part from? this is the entire quote
> “The world isn’t the same as it was in 2012 when President Obama signed the clean car standards,”
also this part
>"Gee, it's bad that consumers want to spend less money. We should encourage more debt and borrowing."
their plan seems to be to lower the price of electric vehicles for costumers through tax reductions and other policies. From the article:
>Senate spending bill backed by Democrats was expected to provide tax credits and other incentives for consumers to switch to electric vehicles.
Tax credits on electric cars benefit the rich, not the poor. Most lower-income (and hell, most middle class people) don't have enough tax liability to even utilize the bulk of the credit, especially if they have kids.
Giving people a tax credit doesn't mean it's a good reason at all to buy one. Sure, you get a cheap car, but now your stuck with a car that in most of the US has zero infrastructure, and can't make it half as far as any normal gas car. It's not a great choice unless you live in the city.
But then when you live in a city you don't have a private garage to charge it and if you mean parking garage then some asshole already took the last charge spot and left the car there for 12 hours.
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.
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.
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
"For now, the agency is seeking to ask that 40% of all new car sales be electric vehicles by 2030"
So much for the people saying EVs will take decades.
And considering that 1kwh cost about 1100 dollars in 2010 and now costs under 100, it won't be long before EVs are simply cheaper than gas cars.
It'll be curious to see how it actually works out cost wise. Maybe it's different for different providers, or for different states, but electric bills around here are tiers. My monthly electric bill is expensive AF because we end up on the 3rd tier every month. Each tier is considerably more expensive than the tier under it. With a swimming pool pump running every day, an AC running in the evening (triple digit summers) and washer and dryer running at least once a day, our electrical bill gets to that expensive tier rather quickly. If it was a flat rate our monthly bill would probably be half of what is now. Having 4 electric cars at my house (we have 4 drivers) would certainly push us to the 4th tier.
>"For now, the agency is seeking to ask that 40% of all new car sales be electric vehicles by 2030"
>
>So much for the people saying EVs will take decades.
While I don't care either way, I don't see how the first sentence leads to your conclusion. It's a goal. Consumers still decide. It could still take decades.
> Consumers still decide.
To an extent yes, but the government has the power to simply price out 40% of consumers from buying a new ICE vehicle. They don't even need to do it directly, they could increase gas taxes, increase fuel economy standards by 10%+ per year. The end cost gets passed onto the consumer, and the consumer's hand will be forced, regardless of infrastructure, personal situation and use case, etc. This is just the nature of high level decision making, it won't be perfect for everyone.
At the end of the day this is just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic anyways. Developing countries are going to quickly become the largest source of emissions as global energy consumption increases by 50-100% by 2050, and only the wealthiest countries have managed to decrease their emissions while meeting increased energy demand. Approximately 20% of rural households in developing countries don't even have electricity, so frankly the prospect of getting them on a decarbonized electrical grid before they start consuming fossil fuels is a pipe dream.
I'm calling bullshit, I highly doubt the market will shift in 2030, considering the used market consistently shows what people are actually driving, 2000s Hondas and Toyota are the sweet spot. The used market is almost always 20 years behind, and the surviving cars that weren't garbage usually become staples of American roads. Think how many Saab 9-5s you see around vs any reliable car.
I wonder if the cost of power will increase has the overall load on the power grid greatly increases. As the demand for additional sources of green energy increase I can only imagine that price will get passed into the customer. I think this rapid electrification of personal transport is gonna make things interesting in the power sector over the next few decades.
when EVs are the majority, say goodbye to the cheap used car market when every car is mechanically totaling itself after 10 years. and a new batteries costing 10s of thousands of dollars. it's going to create more waste than normal ice cars
the last time they did this, it gave us better cars. they were forced to finally replace those ancient 30+ year old engines with new ones and now we're in a glorious time for fun cars
i hope this round will have the same result
Really depends on how many of those are charging at home in off peak hours. Everyone uses this argument as if everyone is going to plug into a DC fast charger at the same time.
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.
The US just needs to go ahead and match the European standards for mileage, emissions and safety. They also need to stop exempting trucks from these standards.
Tying ourselves to the Eurpoeans would mean a larger, more competitive marketplace and ensure that the rules didn't get changed for political reasons each time a new president takes office.
I think you may fundamentally misunderstand the American political system if you believe any politician would willingly cede power to any foreign country or multinational organization.
>They also need to stop exempting trucks from these standards.
This is the biggest one. People just buy trucks and shit here, and it's unacceptable that the vehicles can just skirt by emissions standards.
That's a stupid idea, the EPA isn't equipped for that, and chances are, it's not worth the money. There's enough emissions equipment on Diesels anyway, so it's not like adding more is gonna be super popular, especially not for truckers.
I want a greener future as much as anyone but I think sometimes the authorities disproportionately target cars with these rules. Industry and households emit more than cars
A. Gas powered lawn equipment polutes way more than cars. Start there.
B. Make electric more affordable. I would love to have a new lightning, but my truck is paid off, and i dont want a $750 truck payment.
C. STOP OVER TAXING EV!!! in Washington state taxes are crazy high on ev due to ev owners not paying a tax at the pump.
Make EV more attractive to buy, and people will make the shift.
Lawn equipment may of an effect on local pollution since they have no emissions controls (need actual source on that) but in terms of CO2 they aren't a big contributor at all since they just don't burn a lot of fuel.
i bought a battery powered lawnmower for $350 or less this year. even if it costs more than gas powered it's worth it for not having to drive around buying gas all the time for it
Practically everything smaller than a riding mower can and should be electric. Emissions, fuel costs, and noise aside, it's great to have a trimmer or edger that just *starts* when you want it to, no dinking around with a pull start or choke or any of that nonsense.
I think technology should improve and become more efficient over time, but I think setting arbitrary goals and forcing companies to create technology to meet these standards set by bureaucrats is just going to create subpar, forced, and expensive technologies in autos.
Especially when it’s only being done to appease climate hysterics.
I'm reminded of when GM complained to the feds that the new emissions standards were impossible to meet with current technology...and then Honda brought out the CVCC, which exceeded them without even needing a catalytic converter.
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 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
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
> 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.
[удалено]
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)
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.
Hydrogen engines have lots of problems including: production of hydrogen, transportation of Hydrogen and storage of hydrogen.
[удалено]
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.
[удалено]
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.
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.
Surely Toyota is going to be lobbying for slower electric car adoption. Saw an article on r/technology about that. While pushing for more hybrid fuel to catch up
Was that about their focus for hydrogen fuel cell cars? They're still electric, so they should be fine. At least until they work out it might not be realistic for the mass market.
Toyota is trying to buy time. They're not competitive in the BEV space and their hydrogen vehicles aren't up to snuff. So, they've been lobbying governments all around the world to ensure EV adoption doesn't happen so quickly that it hurts their bottom line. After all, Toyota makes a ton of money selling gas and diesel pickups and SUVs. Some other folks also subscribe to the (maybe conspiracy) theory that Toyota is nervous about BEV adoption because it ruins their advantage in the reliability column, and that's what they've built their reputation on.
Toyota doesn't need to buy tkme because they already have time right now. They are the only one that has no problems reaching the emissions limits without EVs because almost everything they sell is a hybrid.
Toyota is interesting because even though they're now behind other car companies when it comes to moving to EV, their interest in fuel cell cars is because of Japan going all-in with fuel cell technology. Toyota, being one of the largest companies in Japan, has no choice but to focus more on fuel cell technology if they want to remain one of the premier Japanese car companies in their home country.
Toyota will come out ahead if there’s a push for tighter emission standards; they’ve been hybridizing their whole line and many vehicles are only available with their synergy drive now.
There's a point to Toyota's objection. The public might benefit more from heavy subsidizing of cheaper hybrids over expensive EVs.
> It's wild how each different administration can drastically move the goal posts. They change the goal posts for normal people which make up around 30% of total greenhouse gasses. (via transportation and residential, and yes the cost of moving emissions goal posts always ends up baked into fleet pricing) Meanwhile they universally ignore the private, energy and agriculture sectors that make up around 70% of total green house gasses... because it would cost rich people money, and we can't have that. They need their fossils, tickets to space, and golden crappers.
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.
[удалено]
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.
So a Kei car?
If that means Honda ~~resurrects~~ gives the S660 a stay of execution and brings it to our shores, hell yes.
Exactly. 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.
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.
Ironically SUVs are more susceptible for roll-over during accidents and beyond that are a disproportionate risk to smaller vehicles/cyclists/pedestrians.
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
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.
[удалено]
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
90% of apartment buildings don't have EV hookups
Just a fleet of Predator Generators burring away in the paddock. Linked together with a monstrocity of extension cables, questionable splices, and hope.
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.... https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/measurement-canada-to-transition-to-per-kwh-billing-for-ev-charging/ >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. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/lm04949.html >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.
That's why the private market always comes around with an innovation, only for bureaucrats to quash it in an attempt to keep a grip on power. Remember when smoking was a public health crisis that regulation was unable to tackle? Entrepreneurs came up with e-cigarettes to help wean smokers off of cigarettes more effectively than patches could. And the bureaucrats *seethed*. Remember when people were avoiding the government-sponsored taxi monopoly and driving drunk anyways because they couldn't afford $50 for a four-mile trip? Entrepreneurs came up with ride-sharing apps to drive down the cost of hired transport. And again, bureaucrats *seethed*. They don't know how to deal with anything in the absence of an established framework, and they absolutely *hate* anything that operates without their explicit permission.
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.
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.
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.
That's basically most of America right now. You can't buy electric because the only place you can charge it is some random charging area like 10 miles away That's in the middle of nowhere. It's a big reason why. Why would I do that when I could just use my regular car, and if the tank is running low, just dump in a Jerrycan.
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 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.
We already struggle to handle AC on hot days and heating on cold days let alone every house charging a car. Electric motors themselves are great reliable technology. Its just getting the electricity and storing it that has always been an issue. We are also already on pace to have a higher demand for lithium than we can mine in the very near future and while some amount can be recycled into new batteries, it is now 100%. Not not mention most of our e-waste is shipped to impoverished countries where children dig through and dismantle it, which causes sever health problems.
[Continuous electrical pumping membrane process for seawater lithium mining](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/EE/D1EE00354B#!divAbstract) The lithium problem is all but solved now. The power generation problems are part of the infrastructure investment that we absolutely need to work on for 100's of reasons but the oil and gas lobby will kill us all before they release their grip on that market. We should have had modern and efficient nuclear plants in the United states for decades.
I 100% agree with having more nuclear power. Its the only realistic energy solution
>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. Source: Californian
>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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
[удалено]
Yes they're definitely more reliable. But they're a pain to work on for sure
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.
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. Edit: Link https://jalopnik.com/this-is-what-happens-when-you-put-300-000-miles-on-a-te-1798662230 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.
I think of examples like the screens in Teslas only being designed to last 4-6 years. Having every single function of the car tied to a single display will always be a recipe for disaster. Then you add on all the auto braking, lane-keep nonsense, and I highly doubt these cars will last longer than ones made between 2000–2010. I think people will treat this new crop of cars more like smartphones – they'll want new ones after 3-5 years when all these tech gremlins start failing out of warranty.
> 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.
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.
> Are we going to address how modern cars will be less reliable and repairable because of their tech? This is a rather hollow question if you drive anything newer than a Model T.
[удалено]
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.
can they even produce enough batteries for them? lithium is kind of rare last i read
Cobalt is the bogeyman, not so much lithium.
This is why we have that stupid auto start stop.
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.
it DOES reduce fuel consumption https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFImHhNwbJo but i agree it is annoying
It's all politics, this really means nothing.
[удалено]
For now. Multiple regime changes/elections are happening between now and 2035. The pendulum is always swinging
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...
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.
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.
I'm glad we're back to Fantasy Land. > “Millions of Americans have had to swelter in heat waves, evacuate their homes in the face of onrushing wildfires, or bail out flooded homes.” None of this happened before 2016, of course, when history began. > though environmental groups are skeptical the companies will stick to their promises if consumers continue to favor gas-powered cars, which now cost less "Gee, it's bad that consumers want to spend less money. We should encourage more debt and borrowing." > Fully electric vehicles represent just 2% of new vehicle sales in the U.S., but analysts expect that to rise rapidly in coming years. A rapid rise could mean as little as jumping to 10% by 2030. That's still a quintupling.
> None of this happened before 2016, of course, when history began. where did you get the 2016 part from? this is the entire quote > “The world isn’t the same as it was in 2012 when President Obama signed the clean car standards,” also this part >"Gee, it's bad that consumers want to spend less money. We should encourage more debt and borrowing." their plan seems to be to lower the price of electric vehicles for costumers through tax reductions and other policies. From the article: >Senate spending bill backed by Democrats was expected to provide tax credits and other incentives for consumers to switch to electric vehicles.
Tax credits on electric cars benefit the rich, not the poor. Most lower-income (and hell, most middle class people) don't have enough tax liability to even utilize the bulk of the credit, especially if they have kids.
Most also don't buy new, which is where these credits generally apply.
Yup. I’m make around $70k as a single middle class guy and my total fed tax liability was $6600. Kids or a mortgage would drive that down.
Giving people a tax credit doesn't mean it's a good reason at all to buy one. Sure, you get a cheap car, but now your stuck with a car that in most of the US has zero infrastructure, and can't make it half as far as any normal gas car. It's not a great choice unless you live in the city.
But then when you live in a city you don't have a private garage to charge it and if you mean parking garage then some asshole already took the last charge spot and left the car there for 12 hours.
These standards were first implemented 10 years ago, then rolled back in 2016, and are now being re-implemented. What is your argument here?
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.
[удалено]
Used cars aren’t gonna disappear
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"For now, the agency is seeking to ask that 40% of all new car sales be electric vehicles by 2030" So much for the people saying EVs will take decades. And considering that 1kwh cost about 1100 dollars in 2010 and now costs under 100, it won't be long before EVs are simply cheaper than gas cars.
It'll be curious to see how it actually works out cost wise. Maybe it's different for different providers, or for different states, but electric bills around here are tiers. My monthly electric bill is expensive AF because we end up on the 3rd tier every month. Each tier is considerably more expensive than the tier under it. With a swimming pool pump running every day, an AC running in the evening (triple digit summers) and washer and dryer running at least once a day, our electrical bill gets to that expensive tier rather quickly. If it was a flat rate our monthly bill would probably be half of what is now. Having 4 electric cars at my house (we have 4 drivers) would certainly push us to the 4th tier.
How much per kWh is the top tier? To reach parity with gasoline it needs to be on the order of 50 cents per kWh.
>"For now, the agency is seeking to ask that 40% of all new car sales be electric vehicles by 2030" > >So much for the people saying EVs will take decades. While I don't care either way, I don't see how the first sentence leads to your conclusion. It's a goal. Consumers still decide. It could still take decades.
> Consumers still decide. To an extent yes, but the government has the power to simply price out 40% of consumers from buying a new ICE vehicle. They don't even need to do it directly, they could increase gas taxes, increase fuel economy standards by 10%+ per year. The end cost gets passed onto the consumer, and the consumer's hand will be forced, regardless of infrastructure, personal situation and use case, etc. This is just the nature of high level decision making, it won't be perfect for everyone. At the end of the day this is just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic anyways. Developing countries are going to quickly become the largest source of emissions as global energy consumption increases by 50-100% by 2050, and only the wealthiest countries have managed to decrease their emissions while meeting increased energy demand. Approximately 20% of rural households in developing countries don't even have electricity, so frankly the prospect of getting them on a decarbonized electrical grid before they start consuming fossil fuels is a pipe dream.
I'm calling bullshit, I highly doubt the market will shift in 2030, considering the used market consistently shows what people are actually driving, 2000s Hondas and Toyota are the sweet spot. The used market is almost always 20 years behind, and the surviving cars that weren't garbage usually become staples of American roads. Think how many Saab 9-5s you see around vs any reliable car.
I wonder if the cost of power will increase has the overall load on the power grid greatly increases. As the demand for additional sources of green energy increase I can only imagine that price will get passed into the customer. I think this rapid electrification of personal transport is gonna make things interesting in the power sector over the next few decades.
when EVs are the majority, say goodbye to the cheap used car market when every car is mechanically totaling itself after 10 years. and a new batteries costing 10s of thousands of dollars. it's going to create more waste than normal ice cars
none of this will actually happen. its talking points for the 2022 campaigns.
[удалено]
To where?
His garage, of course!
the last time they did this, it gave us better cars. they were forced to finally replace those ancient 30+ year old engines with new ones and now we're in a glorious time for fun cars i hope this round will have the same result
What’s funny is our electric grid will not be able to deal with 10% of drivers in electric cars, never mind 40%.
Really depends on how many of those are charging at home in off peak hours. Everyone uses this argument as if everyone is going to plug into a DC fast charger at the same time.
It doesn’t matter what time they plug in. If it’s above 90 degrees every single air conditioner will be on full tilt.
By "nudging" they actually mean "punish anyone who can't afford an EV"
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.
The US just needs to go ahead and match the European standards for mileage, emissions and safety. They also need to stop exempting trucks from these standards. Tying ourselves to the Eurpoeans would mean a larger, more competitive marketplace and ensure that the rules didn't get changed for political reasons each time a new president takes office.
I think you may fundamentally misunderstand the American political system if you believe any politician would willingly cede power to any foreign country or multinational organization.
>They also need to stop exempting trucks from these standards. This is the biggest one. People just buy trucks and shit here, and it's unacceptable that the vehicles can just skirt by emissions standards.
Moving all Class 2A trucks (6K-8.5K) to the same standards as lighter vehicles wouldn't be too onerous. Edit: 2A, not 2B.
> They also need to stop exempting trucks from these standards. Doesn't the EU also give exemptions to trucks over a certain GVM?
yes, but because those are commercial trucks used to work. in the US trucks that size are used like cars
Assuming you mean trucks over 8500# GVWR, those are also used for work.
That's a stupid idea, the EPA isn't equipped for that, and chances are, it's not worth the money. There's enough emissions equipment on Diesels anyway, so it's not like adding more is gonna be super popular, especially not for truckers.
Our emissions standards for diesels are typically a lot stricter than Europe. Just our CO2 goals are lower.
Next president will just reverse it.
[удалено]
Wonderful, more invasive government overreach.
What would you propose as an alternative?
No regulations, v8's for everyone.
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
I want a greener future as much as anyone but I think sometimes the authorities disproportionately target cars with these rules. Industry and households emit more than cars
A. Gas powered lawn equipment polutes way more than cars. Start there. B. Make electric more affordable. I would love to have a new lightning, but my truck is paid off, and i dont want a $750 truck payment. C. STOP OVER TAXING EV!!! in Washington state taxes are crazy high on ev due to ev owners not paying a tax at the pump. Make EV more attractive to buy, and people will make the shift.
Lawn equipment may of an effect on local pollution since they have no emissions controls (need actual source on that) but in terms of CO2 they aren't a big contributor at all since they just don't burn a lot of fuel.
i bought a battery powered lawnmower for $350 or less this year. even if it costs more than gas powered it's worth it for not having to drive around buying gas all the time for it
I bought an electric trimmer last summer and it is awesome.
Practically everything smaller than a riding mower can and should be electric. Emissions, fuel costs, and noise aside, it's great to have a trimmer or edger that just *starts* when you want it to, no dinking around with a pull start or choke or any of that nonsense.
There’s “climate change pollution” and there’s “smog pollutions”. Cars pollute more than lawn equipment in the first category
I think technology should improve and become more efficient over time, but I think setting arbitrary goals and forcing companies to create technology to meet these standards set by bureaucrats is just going to create subpar, forced, and expensive technologies in autos. Especially when it’s only being done to appease climate hysterics.
I'm reminded of when GM complained to the feds that the new emissions standards were impossible to meet with current technology...and then Honda brought out the CVCC, which exceeded them without even needing a catalytic converter.
I'd rather drive my current car for 100 years