When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Is Electric the Answer: NO when it comes to transportation.
Not enough generating capacity in the urban areas to make it work
No ability to construct new Nuclear plants (the only possible energy source) due to the unavailability of people with the skills to weld up the systems.
BAttery costs will only increease as resources for them dwindle, and the batteries themselves may be 5 year replacement items
Impossible to charge both personal cars and commercial vehicles at the same time due to the orders of power needed for commercial trucks in addition to cars.
And ultimately far too Environmentally destructive to the planet..
There’s a lot of examples of California and Europe clearly moving too fast and don’t realize the unintended consequences of trying to go cold turkey. Places like California tend to make bold fast moves, break things, and fix it later (or not at all) hence the population loss and shrinking political representation.
Meanwhile there’s plenty of low hanging fruit to reduce carbon. Politicians shouldn’t pick a technology. Just create the goals and let technology sort itself out. If a gas powered car is using carbon neutral fuels what difference does it make?
I didn't know what to put as the thread title, but just couldn't avoid posting this pic. No matter what engineers think, they can't forecast everything in their design. It takes time to reach the moon, even the second time. Personally, I feel another option like hydrogen is going to be the true answer on many levels as the viable alternative. In the meantime I'm loving my Game Changer.
The love affair with EV units will die about the time it needs a new battery. With current low capacity batteries costing $20,000 or more ppl will be very disappointed when they come to trade their 120,000 EV ride and the dealer pulls it on a scale to weight it! It'll be time for recycling, that is if there is a market for spent batteries unlike wind generator blades. Nope, not for me, especially the early units.
Like Batteries, Solar panels are also heavily degraded by high and low temperature. So when the need for air con / Heat is needed the panels are down to less than 25% of max capacity. Not counting degradation from clouds, or at night.
When we have found ways to produce electricity with reliable, sustainable and cheaply, then we can make a run at EV's.. All renewable methods don't fulfil those needs today.
If you think batteries are the answer, how many batteries would it take to run your local Hospital for a few days when renewables are not working?
My recommendation is to plow $$$ to find ways of cleaning up the ICE to produce less CO2.
Renewables? I think you meant Unreliables. Take it from a North Dakotan. Then its 20 below and we have only 8 hours of daylight solar panels are pointless and wind generators are shut down. Wind and solar currently are mostly unreliable when you most need them. As for the Co2 scare, lets all try and follow the science. Co2 is plant food and I kinda like plants
Twenty eight states have at least one commercial nuclear reactor!
Most U.S. Commercial nuclear power reactors are located east of the Mississippi River. Illinois has the most reactors than any other state (11 reactors at 6 plants), and at the end of 2021, it had the largest total nuclear net summer electricity generation capacity at about 11,582 megawatts (MW). The Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port Gibson, Mississippi, has the largest U.S. nuclear reactor with an electricity generating capacity of about 1,400 MW. The smallest operating reactors, each with a net summer generating capacity of 520 MW, are at the Prairie Island nuclear plant in Red Wing, Minnesota. Two new nuclear reactors are under construction in Georgia, each with a planned electricity generation capacity of about 1,100MW.
Note: Bill Gates' TerraPower aim to build its first advance nuclear reactor in a coal town in Wyoming. Half of the cost coming from the U.S. Government ($2 Billion). Berkshire Hathaway Energy owns Rocky Mountain power and will operate the plant.
Let’s not forget the SMRs too. Just ONE of those produces 2X entire energy needs of NY state in a much safer way than traditional reactors. The design has been approved and the first one is coming online out west in a few years.
I’m actually sitting at an energy industry conference as we speak. We covered several planning scenarios through 2050 today. Despite all of the “sky is falling” predictions by the anti-EV crowd, it’s unlikely that the EV ramp up will cause any capacity concerns. We already have excess capacity today. There will be transmission build-out required to get the energy where it needs to be. A lot of innovation going on in that space too including HV DC. Bottom line. Grid capacity is unlikely to constrain EV adoption.
Last edited by K2500Z71; Sep 29, 2022 at 09:22 AM.
There’s a lot of examples of California and Europe clearly moving too fast and don’t realize the unintended consequences of trying to go cold turkey. Places like California tend to make bold fast moves, break things, and fix it later (or not at all) hence the population loss and shrinking political representation.
Meanwhile there’s plenty of low hanging fruit to reduce carbon. Politicians shouldn’t pick a technology. Just create the goals and let technology sort itself out. If a gas powered car is using carbon neutral fuels what difference does it make?
I agree with you on these statements ^^^^^. Even Elon Musk said that the new round of EV incentives are probably unnecessary at this point. In my opinion what Tesla did RIGHT was to make an EV that appealed to people, NOT because it was an EV, but because it was BETTER then other cars they were looking at. Of course not everyone likes the same things in a car, and my use of the word "BETTER" is subjective. Let me use myself as an example here. I bought my Tesla Model 3 over three years ago for the following reasons:
1. I loved the styling
2. I loved the speed (faster then virtually any other car in it's price range, instant acceleration, feels effortless)
3. I loved the low cost of operation (charge at home, way less mechanical parts then ICE, etc.)
4. I loved the way it handled (though it is much heavier then a typical sports car which adversely affects handling, it's low center of gravity due to the battery placement makes up for a lot of that and gives it new, yet still enjoyable handling characteristics for street driving)
5. I loved that it did all the above better than anything else in its price range including the Mercedes C250 sedan I was driving at the time.
I realize the above list is purely subjective. Please note that nothing having to do with "climate change" or "saving the environment" made my list. I bought the car because I liked it better then anything else in its "total cost of ownership" price range.
I am buying a new C8 HTC for virtually the same 5 reasons listed above, again, all subjective.
I don't want to buy a car that the government likes, I want to buy the car that I like, and that's the way it should be for everyone!! What TESLA has been successful at is making cars that a lot of people WANT to buy because they like it.
Unfortunately, right now you have government dictating what's right for you. So, if you're lucky and tend to agree with government's recommendations, then all is right with the world. But if you don't agree, then....
Hydrogen combustion engines looks like it may be the way should we look for an "answer". See Toyota and their work on hydrogen internal combustion...
Hydrogen is not GREEN.
We get it from taking natural gas, heating it with ELECTRICITY usually from coal or natural gas plants, then break it down into C02 and Hydrogen. What do we do with the CO2? We release it into the atmosphere. Ooops. Isn't that what we are trying to avoid?
Then if you burn Hydrogen you mix it with oxygen and burn it like any other fuel. Or you can put it in a fuel cell but you still need exotic materials.
Let’s not lose sight of where the electricity comes from to charge the majority of the EV batteries country-wide. It’s still primarily fossil fuel driven.
Ironically my company has just been awarded a nice contract by a major utility to upgrade a fossil fuel based unit. At the root of it was them increasing their renewables. They need the fossil plant to be upgraded to be available for the days when the renewables aren’t working or producing as they should. Add up the battery production from rare minerals etc as correctly covered earlier, and those that think EV’s solve anything climate-wise have been duped. And let’s not use Cali as the baseline. How’s that battery capacity at -25 in February in Boston? Or Minneapolis? 150 mile ranges? No thanks. But carry on, doesn’t impact my life.
We get it from taking natural gas, heating it with ELECTRICITY usually from coal or natural gas plants, then break it down into C02 and Hydrogen. What do we do with the CO2? We release it into the atmosphere. Ooops. Isn't that what we are trying to avoid?
Then if you burn Hydrogen you mix it with oxygen and burn it like any other fuel. Or you can put it in a fuel cell but you still need exotic materials.
Electrolysis can also be used to generate hydrogen. We currently choose to use natural gas because of cost.
No. An EV does the same thing as any other car. It’s like saying an Ecoboost F-150 is a “transformational shift” over a V8 F-150. You think you’re living in some game changing time period, but you’re not. You’re going do what you’ve done before, but maybe only feel slightly less guilty doing it. It’s like buying a diesel but quieter.
It’s the exact same explanation I offered. If it’s not popular, they have to cut the price even if it’s more expensive to make. The “transformational shift” wasn’t enough to make the Bolt popular because it’s not fast and it isn’t a truck. Most EVs are not really any faster than their ICE counterparts. People think “Tesla” when they think EV but totally forget about Bolt and Leaf, ID4, and C40 and all the ones that don’t really sell all that well.
Yes! Several. In fact I tried all summer to buy one. Only because I wanted to scratch the itch and gas prices shot up to $5. Now that tax credit got cut, prices went up, and gas prices dropped its become financially unfeasible and the drive experience alone wasn’t worth the upcharge. In fact the drive experience alone wasn’t even a factor as I found it rather boring and was only going after the efficiency aspect.
After reading every owners manual, every review, and every YouTube video for the past 4 months, I realized there’s a lot more cons than EV fanatics would like to talk about.
some common themes on every owners manual:
1) Dont charge to 100% often or you’ll reduce battery life
2) Dont store at 100% or you’ll reduce battery life
3) Don’t store at under 20% or you’ll reduce battery life.
4) Don’t fast charge frequently or you’ll reduce battery life.
5) Excessive heat reduces battery life
6) Fast charging is only good up to 80% then slows to a trickle for the next 20%
7) Cold or hot weather slows charging speeds
8) Range severely reduces in cold weather
Ok so maybe there’s some quirks to ownership to keep in mind and objectively not as convenient on a long trip as there’s some mission planning involved and maybe your battery won’t hold the same charge as the car ages depending on your driving habits, but they’re fun to drive right?
Not really. With the exception of Tesla, most EVs typically run 7 second 0-60 times unless you opt for all wheel drive (which generally cost around $5k upcharge and reduces range) then you usually get about 5 second 0-60 times for around $55 to $60k. Tesla’s are quicker, hold better resell (with some caveats) but are long in the tooth and fairly spartan while pushing entry level C8 prices. Like any other car, if it’s not fast or have some other gimmicks going on, it’s just another appliance.
But what about efficiency?
At my energy prices the best EVs are good for about $.04 a mile (this doesn’t include charging losses or take into account winter inefficiencies). Their hybrid counterparts are also good for about $.04 a mile at todays gas prices and are about $10k cheaper. Neither are fun to drive but to be fair neither are their gas counterparts. Insurance cost are higher. With the exception of Tesla, none of the residuals bode well for resell. We’re talking sub 50% residuals in 36 months. Trying to save money can cost you a lot in an EV. That’s where tax credits come in but even before they got chopped it’s hard to justify. In places like California with chronic $6 gas maybe the math shakes out better.
As for EV trucks on paper they seem great. The Lightning fixes all that’s not great about an F-150 but towing range is only good for about 90 miles and if you did happen to find a charger it won’t be a pull through. So kinda useless as a truck also.
So those are cons, what about the pros?
1) quieter propulsion
2) no gas station visits
3) no oil changes
It’s a much shorter list.
Towing with my Ford Lightning EV Pickup was a TOTAL DISASTER!
There’s a reason rockets use hydrogen and not giant battery packs.
Certainly one reason is that liquid hydrogen is very energy dense. But another reason is that since NASA is not given a long term budget, they are dependent on the current crop of politicians for funding. And hydrogen production happens in a lot of states, so if NASA uses hydrogen (as opposed to various other chemical propellants) the politicians can tell their constituents they're helping the economy.
As noted above, producing hydrogen can be very energy intensive. It also takes a lot of energy to compress gaseous hydrogen to a liquid. Uncompressed, the gas has an energy density that is too low for transportation (or rocketry) use.
Also, liquid hydrogen leaks very easily. Witness the recent Artemis launch scrub when attempts to fix a leak failed.
None of this is to say that hydrogen can't or shouldn't be used a a vehicle fuel; just that everything has trade-offs.
My main EV fears stem from the direction manufacturers are headed with these boutique features and monthly subcriptions. I also believe that they are headed towards lease only options once they gain significant market share as they will need to get the battery packs back for recycling. Either for necessity or by EPA force.
I don't buy new cars whatsover. I have been buying cheap but nice 8-12 year old vehicles that have 10 or more years of service left in them for quite some time now. I just don't see this as an option in the next decade or two.
Let's get back to the reason we're being told to go electric. CO2 in the atmosphere.
According to National Geographic in MANY articles, the U.S. RIGHT NOW has enough trees to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by our (U.S.) fossil fuels cars. I get that CO2 is created by other things like power plants, but just what the hell is the government trying to feed us with their "climate crisis" crap? It's politics, and not a crisis. The problem can be solved with science.
Yes, science shows us that there is indeed a dramatic increase in CO2 in recent years, and yes, we need to address it. Banning gas powered cars is NOT the answer. Banning rampant deforestation is a big part of the answer.
Perhaps we convince Brazil not to clearcut the Amazon forest. If they don't listen, we apply more leverage. They're killing planet. My C8 is NOT.
And I don't thing EVs are inevitable, despite what politicians tell us.
Last edited by thebroz1138; Sep 29, 2022 at 04:51 PM.
Reason: forgot something
And I don't thing EVs are inevitable, despite what politicians tell us.
Well they probably will be whether or not anyone believes in climate change or not. Here’s why. EV technology has broken the “barrier to entry” in the auto market. It’s easier than ever to enter the market with EV technology. Who would have ever thought that the Vietnamese could have entered the market with competitive products in a single digit number of years.
Legacy automakers will scramble to keep up.
EV technology makes it easier to enter the market with a better product at lower total cost.
Nonetheless, there will be ICE vehicles on the market for a long time for those who want them (unless you live in a state that bans them). Stellantis (Chrysler) just introduced a new inline turbo 6 this year. I expect that will be on the market for at least 10 years to recoup the development costs.
If someone doesn’t want an EV, they’ll have choices for years to come. For those that do, the choices will continue to expand rapidly.
Edit: Back to C8… GM will need to keep the C8 competitive from a performance perspective and that will likely require electrification. An ICE Corvette will be a tough sell when mainstream electric sedans can outperform it.
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.
It'll be time for recycling, that is if there is a market for spent batteries unlike wind generator blades. Nope, not for me, especially the early units.
