Ford Mustang Mach E Leak: Mustang goes Electric

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,874
I think you need to brush up on your knowledge of thermodynamics, particularly comparing the cycle for an internal combustion engine (Otto) vs your typical power plant. Most IC engines are around 25% efficient with much of their energy lost to heat, heat that is typically not put to any practical use other than for heating the interior during the winter. Power plants operate on more efficient cycles and can make better use of waste heat.
Coal and gas is about 35% efficient which is 10% more efficient than gas engines. 5% of that energy is lost through transmission lines. Oil-fired power plants get 28% efficiency (India) and they burn specifically petroleum, which is closer to gasoline.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,813
Coal and gas is about 35% efficient which is 10% more efficient than gas engines. 5% of that energy is lost through transmission lines. Oil-fired power plants get 28% efficiency (India) and they burn specifically petroleum, which is closer to gasoline.
Exactly.. This is why I don't agree with the rapid regulation to move everyone to EV's. If we aren't building a better energy production technology for the grid to support all of this, nothing is actually being accomplished. Further, it's as if they are ignoring the fact that passenger vehicle emissions are a literal drop in the bucket compared to shipping, the plastics industry, etc.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,778
Exactly.. This is why I don't agree with the rapid regulation to move everyone to EV's. If we aren't building a better energy production technology for the grid to support all of this, nothing is actually being accomplished. Further, it's as if they are ignoring the fact that passenger vehicle emissions are a literal drop in the bucket compared to shipping, the plastics industry, etc.

Keep in mind, entire populations (California) have been conditioned to believe that if they just use less water when they flush the toilet, they will solve the water availability problems they have. Don't mind that the vast majority of that water is used by commercial farming corporations harvesting the most water intensive crops on the planet in a desert - which all have exemptions from the rules. Once you condition a population to believe such things, anything additional - like EVs running on fairy farts - is not very hard.
 

kamxam

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
1,794
When they get cars that look like this in EV down to the point where you aren't paying for them for the next 20 years is what i'd like to see. :sneaky:
id-blue-c8-corvette-with-signature-sv307s-wheels-1.jpg

Just me though....

As for Nuclear power, for the most part it isn't the technology it's the PEOPLE who cause the problems. Chernobyl technicians Ignored warnings and danger signs and blew it up. The others, People tried to work around things and caused more problems. Even the So-Called safest things in the world can be dangerous if you have idiots handling them imho....
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,522
No. YOU read up. You don't get to dismiss the worst nuclear disasters in history just because they happened decades ago. "oh don't worry about those hideous disasters that still exist today. they happened long ago and don't matter anymore."

Finland didn't solve crap. If they did, people in Bikini Atoll would be able to eat locally grown food without risk, and the Navajo in New Mexico wouldn't be perpetually growing up with weird cancers and birth defects. Just another example of pro-nuclear's self serving interests at the expense of everyone else.

You clearly need to read up on modern reactor design and learn the difference between modern nuclear reactors, spent fuel processing and storage, and 1950s era thermonuclear bomb tests. If you can’t differentiate between an RBMK, a CANDU, and the Castle Bravo nuclear test, there really is no point in discussing this with you.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,522
Coal and gas is about 35% efficient which is 10% more efficient than gas engines. 5% of that energy is lost through transmission lines. Oil-fired power plants get 28% efficiency (India) and they burn specifically petroleum, which is closer to gasoline.

Ok, so it’s still more efficient than a gasoline engine, as I already said. Coal is also a lot less efficient than other power plant designs and is being phased out in a lot of places.

India’s power plant design doesn’t dictate whether or not EVs make sense for the entire planet anymore than China’s environmental standards dictate how we should make decisions regarding how we treat the planet.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,522
When they get cars that look like this in EV down to the point where you aren't paying for them for the next 20 years is what i'd like to see. :sneaky:
View attachment 401657
Just me though....

As for Nuclear power, for the most part it isn't the technology it's the PEOPLE who cause the problems. Chernobyl technicians Ignored warnings and danger signs and blew it up. The others, People tried to work around things and caused more problems. Even the So-Called safest things in the world can be dangerous if you have idiots handling them imho....

Chernobyl’s RBMK reactors also had fatal flaws in their design, which are not present in other reactors. Plus, they went cheap on the containment building, because it was the Soviet Union and they wanted to save money.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,522
Exactly.. This is why I don't agree with the rapid regulation to move everyone to EV's. If we aren't building a better energy production technology for the grid to support all of this, nothing is actually being accomplished. Further, it's as if they are ignoring the fact that passenger vehicle emissions are a literal drop in the bucket compared to shipping, the plastics industry, etc.

True, we shouldn’t bother trying to improve things. We should all adopt a defeatist attitude despite revolutionary solutions staring us right in the face. Ignoring challenges is how humanity has always advanced.

“We can’t put a man on the moon in 1969. We don’t even have a rocket for that, and rockets take a lot of time to research and build.”

- people in 1961 who definitely weren’t hired by NASA
 
Last edited:

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,813
True, we shouldn’t bother trying to improve things. We should all adopt a defeatist attitude despite revolutionary solutions staring us right in the face. Ignoring challenges is how humanity has always advanced.

“We can’t put a man on the moon in 1969. We don’t even have a rocket for that, and rockets take a lot of time to research and build.”

- people in 1961 who definitely weren’t hired by NASA
Not what I said at all. I believe the government should be supporting the move to EV, and building infrastructure for it.

My issue is that some of the regulations are going to far, and the economic impacts aren't good.
 

Superfly3176

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
4,770
We're looking to moving to an electric vehicle. My commute is over 65 miles per day. Gas continues to rise, and it costs me roughly $70/wk to get to work. Probably in the next few years we'll be due.
 

TrevorR

Gawd
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
810
Exactly.. This is why I don't agree with the rapid regulation to move everyone to EV's. If we aren't building a better energy production technology for the grid to support all of this, nothing is actually being accomplished. Further, it's as if they are ignoring the fact that passenger vehicle emissions are a literal drop in the bucket compared to shipping, the plastics industry, etc.

My knowledge is limited, but I once took a geology course in college and always remembered this analogy that was used:

Think of earth as a glass cup. All the “natural” co2 emissions fill up 3/4 of the glass cup. Corporations fill it up 1/4. So those two have caused max capacity with no room for further co2 emissions. One could argue that vehicles are causing the “tipping point” as that drop in the bucket is causing overflowing of the glass cup.

I love ice vehicles, I have two vehicles with a hulking v8 and am holding onto to them as long as possible. I just bought a 2021 Lexus LX570 last month because it’s the last year of the V8.

However, I do think we should continue to develop electric vehicles for the distant future. Strictly because many people seem to forget that oil is a finite resource..
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
4,005
We're looking to moving to an electric vehicle. My commute is over 65 miles per day. Gas continues to rise, and it costs me roughly $70/wk to get to work. Probably in the next few years we'll be due.
I did the math on the savings of fuel. If I only charge between 10PM and 6AM, I average 5.1 cents/kWh. Based off $3/gallon gas, it is 5 times cheaper per mile to use electric than gas to power my car. I drive about 6k miles a year now. It would only cost me $110 a year in electricity for those 6k miles. Also you can't forget that ICE cars extremely inefficient when idling where an electric car uses almost nothing. Maitenance on the electric cars is much less than ICE. You will also get less wear on your breaks with electric as you have regenerative breaking. My current car will likely be my last ICE car ever. I can count on one hand the number of times I have driven more than 200 miles in one day. If I ever have a need to do long distance road trips, I could always just rent an ICE car if I didn't want to deal with the charging.
 

sleepeeg3

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
5,112
It’s impossible for the grid to support replacing every vehicle with an EV unless we were building numerous nuclear plants across the US right now. Which we aren’t. Most EV fans are anti-nuclear energy as well. So good luck.

This is my core issue with EVs. There is zero plan in place for the shifting energy burden. You can’t just stand up a nuclear plant overnight either. It takes decades.
Yup. California facing future blackouts and energy shortfall already due to all those pipe dream solar/wind power plants they keep building. Now, they're building new dirty gas power plants to support them. That's because wind/solar cost 3x/6x more than conventional technologies. Too lazy to do the math? Look at California or Germany's soaring costs for a reality check.

California's problem is compounded by the "drought" caused by new water consumption in Nevada/Arizona. Less water, means reduced power production from the Hoover Dam. Also, the increased population from the millions of illegals in CA/NV/AZ that weren't counted in the census does not help either. Have my popcorn out ready to watch this trainwreck unfold!

Just another example of pro-nuclear's self serving interests at the expense of everyone else.
Sorry man, you don't have a leg to stand on. Alternatives to baseline power generation are coal/gas. These result in as many as 300000 deaths / year from air pollution (including radioactive particulates from coal). Total deaths from all major nuclear power plant disasters ever (Chernobyl, Fukushima) are less than 16000 - worst case scenario. Over 67 years of power generation, that amounts to 238 deaths/year or effectively 0 in the US. Nuclear currently powers 20% of the US and has been doing so safely likely before you and I were both alive. Future designs are even meltdown proof - time to end the opposition.

Nuclear is the cleanest, most cost effective power generation technology we have. Cheaper energy, means we have more money to put into EV/solar/wind development.
 
Last edited:

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,538
My knowledge is limited, but I once took a geology course in college and always remembered this analogy that was used:

Think of earth as a glass cup. All the “natural” co2 emissions fill up 3/4 of the glass cup. Corporations fill it up 1/4. So those two have caused max capacity with no room for further co2 emissions. One could argue that vehicles are causing the “tipping point” as that drop in the bucket is causing overflowing of the glass cup.

I love ice vehicles, I have two vehicles with a hulking v8 and am holding onto to them as long as possible. I just bought a 2021 Lexus LX570 last month because it’s the last year of the V8.

However, I do think we should continue to develop electric vehicles for the distant future. Strictly because many people seem to forget that oil is a finite resource..
I wouldn't call it "distant." We're at a tipping point where EVs are rapidly entering lineups, and where costs are about to drop sharply. Tesla wants to sell a $25K EV by 2023, and VW has its $24K ID.Life on the way (though not for the US) by 2025. That's not including the general downward pressure on EV prices, including mainstream models like the F-150 Lightning. Now, you're clearly doing well enough that you don't need to buy those particular cars, but they signal that the industry is about to electrify in a big way.
 

Endgame

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
789
That plan is already shot. Says by 2020 all new house appliances would be electric. Step 1 is failed already.

It's not "lack of will", it's just not feasible. The consumer isn't buying into it.

*Edit* Further reading even admits it's all a pipe dream.
The original plan was written in 2015, and got rid of all fossil fuels. No real reason couldn’t start today and still be done by 2030 - again there is nothing in the plan that isn’t technologically feasible.

The consumer can be convinced pretty easily with actual political will. Replace fossil fuel subsidies with electric subsidies - resulting prices take care of the rest.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,999
Coal and gas is about 35% efficient which is 10% more efficient than gas engines. 5% of that energy is lost through transmission lines. Oil-fired power plants get 28% efficiency (India) and they burn specifically petroleum, which is closer to gasoline.
Just over 40% for natural gas, and upwards of 60% if you add in waste heat recovery that further creates energy. I'm not going to go out on a limb at state "all natural gas is 60% efficient" or anything like that, but if people are going to continue to pound the ground saying that modern nuclear is better because of this technology that is never used, or that technology which was only tested but never put into massive scale production, then it's fair to say natural gas is quite a bit more efficient than gasoline engines plus lets not just look at the engine itself when discussing efficiency of turning fuel into USABLE energy you also need to take into account the energy needed to convert oil into gasoline, with natural gas plants there's largely no processing to get the fuel source.

Exactly.. This is why I don't agree with the rapid regulation to move everyone to EV's. If we aren't building a better energy production technology for the grid to support all of this, nothing is actually being accomplished. Further, it's as if they are ignoring the fact that passenger vehicle emissions are a literal drop in the bucket compared to shipping, the plastics industry, etc.
I'm not pushing my hand in to say I'm pro-EV, but I'm not sure I buy this statement. According to the EPA, https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions , transportation accounts for 29% of greenhouse gases with light duty vehicles making up 58% of that 29%, I'd hardly call that as a drop in the bucket.

My knowledge is limited, but I once took a geology course in college and always remembered this analogy that was used:

Think of earth as a glass cup. All the “natural” co2 emissions fill up 3/4 of the glass cup. Corporations fill it up 1/4. So those two have caused max capacity with no room for further co2 emissions. One could argue that vehicles are causing the “tipping point” as that drop in the bucket is causing overflowing of the glass cup.
Well not to discredit the one college geology course you took, I took one too though :) But "natural" CO2 emissions are largely carbon neutral, things get rid of CO2 and then other things absorb CO2. The BIG difference is that manmade CO2 is releasing CO2 that was locked up and removed millions of years ago, and low and behold it's also a great energy source but the fact of the matter is the stuff that absorbs CO2 isn't increasing anywhere close to fast enough to deal with what we're releasing... and if you're wondering about things like volcanoes, that is a true drop in the bucket compared to manmade emissions.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,813
Just over 40% for natural gas, and upwards of 60% if you add in waste heat recovery that further creates energy. I'm not going to go out on a limb at state "all natural gas is 60% efficient" or anything like that, but if people are going to continue to pound the ground saying that modern nuclear is better because of this technology that is never used, or that technology which was only tested but never put into massive scale production, then it's fair to say natural gas is quite a bit more efficient than gasoline engines plus lets not just look at the engine itself when discussing efficiency of turning fuel into USABLE energy you also need to take into account the energy needed to convert oil into gasoline, with natural gas plants there's largely no processing to get the fuel source.


I'm not pushing my hand in to say I'm pro-EV, but I'm not sure I buy this statement. According to the EPA, https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions , transportation accounts for 29% of greenhouse gases with light duty vehicles making up 58% of that 29%, I'd hardly call that as a drop in the bucket.


Well not to discredit the one college geology course you took, I took one too though :) But "natural" CO2 emissions are largely carbon neutral, things get rid of CO2 and then other things absorb CO2. The BIG difference is that manmade CO2 is releasing CO2 that was locked up and removed millions of years ago, and low and behold it's also a great energy source but the fact of the matter is the stuff that absorbs CO2 isn't increasing anywhere close to fast enough to deal with what we're releasing... and if you're wondering about things like volcanoes, that is a true drop in the bucket compared to manmade emissions.
So 15%. I think my statement is correct considering that electricity generation won’t even be by renewables anyways. You add on the economic impacts… doesn’t seem worth it to me.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
665
The consumer can be convinced pretty easily with actual political will. Replace fossil fuel subsidies with electric subsidies - resulting prices take care of the rest.
You have to convince the consumer to vote for those policies in the first place. Especially the hardcore radical ones that would be required to get rid of fossil fuels in less than a decade.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,222
You have to convince the consumer to vote for those policies in the first place. Especially the hardcore radical ones that would be required to get rid of fossil fuels in less than a decade.

It's not possible to get rid of fossils in 10 years. The money doesn't exist, the labor to build doesn't exist, and the raw materials to build out doesn't exist.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
665
It's not possible to get rid of fossils in 10 years. The money doesn't exist, the labor to build doesn't exist, and the raw materials to build out doesn't exist.
Oh that I know. Doesn't stop crackpot articles from claiming that if we wave a magic wand around it could happen. It's always "Oh, people just don't wanna"
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
10,277
It's not possible to get rid of fossils in 10 years. The money doesn't exist, the labor to build doesn't exist, and the raw materials to build out doesn't exist.

Where I live it's not even feasible to own one without a garage. You can install a street charger but you have to let anyone park there and use it.

I'm sure some jurisdiction in California will mandate it and it will be a gigantic cluster for everyone to see, and ICE will keep chugging on everywhere else.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
2,035
Where I live it's not even feasible to own one without a garage. You can install a street charger but you have to let anyone park there and use it.

I'm sure some jurisdiction in California will mandate it and it will be a gigantic cluster for everyone to see, and ICE will keep chugging on everywhere else.
I'm sure all those apartment complexes with hundreds of parking spots will be able to put in hundreds of charging stations! And it won't cost anything to dramatically upgrade the electric service to support them! And that electroboosters won't just insist that 150 cars can get by with a dozen chargers that people rotate in and out of throughout the day, because it's no big deal to come home mid-shift (or wake up at 3AM) to get a slot on a charger.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,222
I'm sure all those apartment complexes with hundreds of parking spots will be able to put in hundreds of charging stations! And it won't cost anything to dramatically upgrade the electric service to support them! And that electroboosters won't just insist that 150 cars can get by with a dozen chargers that people rotate in and out of throughout the day, because it's no big deal to come home mid-shift (or wake up at 3AM) to get a slot on a charger.

Well, air gap transformers are the obvious answer to that issue, but again, raw materials. And charging speed.
 

Randall Stephens

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
1,067
I'm sure all those apartment complexes with hundreds of parking spots will be able to put in hundreds of charging stations! And it won't cost anything to dramatically upgrade the electric service to support them! And that electroboosters won't just insist that 150 cars can get by with a dozen chargers that people rotate in and out of throughout the day, because it's no big deal to come home mid-shift (or wake up at 3AM) to get a slot on a charger.
I felt this same way until I sat and thought about it for a minute. People don’t drive their vehicles with full tanks. I’d wager a buck that most cars are less than half tank a lot of the time. I dont think that behavior will change a whole lot with EV and the non super enthusiastic public. I mean, look at how bad gas station lines are when a gas shortage hits or a hurricane is about to roll through. The gasoline fueling infrastructure isn’t built to cope with surge demand very well, I’m not sure we can expect the EV infrastructure to do any better.


As a more general note, to everyone, the internet is a toxic place already, let’s try to keep H civilized please.
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,521
I do find it amusing that people want to save the earf and go green by getting out from under the oil industry yet then turn around and will marry themselves to the electrical industry that is a government granted and controlled monopoly.

But like, the power costs will be cheaper! Until they raise your power rates, approved by local/state governments on top of local/state/fed taxes by the mile with tracking everywhere you go (gov will sell that data to companies or the car makers will). Various states have already raised car registration costs to make up for the lack of gasoline taxes collected.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,854
I finally pulled the trigger on on MACH-E after years of waiting on EV. It just made too much sense. Wife commutes every day about 40 miles each way even though the SUV is 25 miles a gallon this would still be way more efficient. Charging the car at home at nights and not ever pumping it and not worrying about most of the maintenance is no brainer. This is really after years of debating. Pulled the trigger on Mach-e GT early September. The last car is almost paid off and I don't drive much so I'll take that over and she can take the mustang. Will take advantage of the tax credits and already got the charge point station waiting to be installed. Calculated the savings in gas over the year and that alone made a huge difference for her commute.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,538
I do find it amusing that people want to save the earf and go green by getting out from under the oil industry yet then turn around and will marry themselves to the electrical industry that is a government granted and controlled monopoly.

But like, the power costs will be cheaper! Until they raise your power rates, approved by local/state governments on top of local/state/fed taxes by the mile with tracking everywhere you go (gov will sell that data to companies or the car makers will). Various states have already raised car registration costs to make up for the lack of gasoline taxes collected.
To start: solar power and home energy can reduce your dependency on the electrical grid, so there's a way out of corporatocracy where there isn't with ICE vehicles.

More importantly, though, you're making the classic "the solution isn't perfect, so let's chain ourselves to the status quo for all eternity" argument, with a dash of a straw man thrown in. Yes, we have to be sure the government doesn't track locations, and we'll likely have to accept that gas taxes will be offset elsewhere. But we can't screw over the climate just because we aren't fond of the local power company or higher utility bills — there are no do-overs if global warming runs amok. You may have to embrace the EV transition simply as the least harmful option rather than the ideal.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,813
To start: solar power and home energy can reduce your dependency on the electrical grid, so there's a way out of corporatocracy where there isn't with ICE vehicles.

More importantly, though, you're making the classic "the solution isn't perfect, so let's chain ourselves to the status quo for all eternity" argument, with a dash of a straw man thrown in. Yes, we have to be sure the government doesn't track locations, and we'll likely have to accept that gas taxes will be offset elsewhere. But we can't screw over the climate just because we aren't fond of the local power company or higher utility bills — there are no do-overs if global warming runs amok. You may have to embrace the EV transition simply as the least harmful option rather than the ideal.
I think if you've got the land/property, and live in an area where it makes economic sense - Go for it. I would. The issue I have are the regulations forcing all new vehicles sold to be EV in a decade. I just don't see how that's economically viable/possible without skyrocketing the grid prices in the process. The average person isn't living in a property where they can install solar to make it viable. They are 100% dependent off the grid, which is already overloaded in many areas. I also take issue with the fact that the current EV's aren't workable at all, and don't have replaceable battery packs, etc. The battery goes and the car is totaled. What we need is a way for the battery to be easily swapped, almost like you're filling the car up with fuel. That would fix the replacement issues, and the charging rate issues. Gas stations could just become battery swap stations. Through the software you could easily monitor how much someone impacted the durability/life of a battery, and also bill them for that at time of swap, beyond the electrical costs.

And again, replacing every vehicle in the US will have almost no impact concerning the global warming issue, whether you are all-in or not. It's just politicians ram-rodding bullshit on the average person because we don't have proper representation, while massive corporations can continue to output CO2 with near impunity. It's just a distraction by the politicians to appear to be doing something, when in reality it's doing so little that it may as well be nothing. In the end, the average person just gets more economic burden with nothing to show, and politicians will continue flying around in tax-payer funded jet liners on a weekly basis so they can talk about how they are 'helping fight climate change'. Imagine if the anti-whaling strategy amounted to just limiting what native peoples were hunting, and you didn't bother to stop the industrial whaling operations at all. That to me is what is happening right now.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
665
The average person isn't living in a property where they can install solar to make it viable.
Pretty much this. I live in Michigan with a 1k sq.ft house in the burbs. I did one of those solar planners and only the south side of the roof is viable. The payoff time was like 15-20 years or something insane like that. Then the cars themselves? Yeah there's about no used EV market around, unless you want something lame like a Leaf. Cost of new EV cars at the cheapest possible trims are still 35k+ for just the subtotal. That's simply too much for the average person to pay for.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,538
I think if you've got the land/property, and live in an area where it makes economic sense - Go for it. I would. The issue I have are the regulations forcing all new vehicles sold to be EV in a decade. I just don't see how that's economically viable/possible without skyrocketing the grid prices in the process. The average person isn't living in a property where they can install solar to make it viable. They are 100% dependent off the grid, which is already overloaded in many areas. I also take issue with the fact that the current EV's aren't workable at all, and don't have replaceable battery packs, etc. The battery goes and the car is totaled. What we need is a way for the battery to be easily swapped, almost like you're filling the car up with fuel. That would fix the replacement issues, and the charging rate issues. Gas stations could just become battery swap stations. Through the software you could easily monitor how much someone impacted the durability/life of a battery, and also bill them for that at time of swap, beyond the electrical costs.

And again, replacing every vehicle in the US will have almost no impact concerning the global warming issue, whether you are all-in or not. It's just politicians ram-rodding bullshit on the average person because we don't have proper representation, while massive corporations can continue to output CO2 with near impunity. It's just a distraction by the politicians to appear to be doing something, when in reality it's doing so little that it may as well be nothing. In the end, the average person just gets more economic burden with nothing to show, and politicians will continue flying around in tax-payer funded jet liners on a weekly basis so they can talk about how they are 'helping fight climate change'. Imagine if the anti-whaling strategy amounted to just limiting what native peoples were hunting, and you didn't bother to stop the industrial whaling operations at all. That to me is what is happening right now.
2030 would be a bit early, but even California and New York are aiming for 2035. That's plenty of time for a transition, just so long as everyone involved (government, automakers, power utilities, etc.) take it seriously. I don't know about making batteries swappable at stations, but I do think companies need to start addressing replacement and recycling of batteries in a more substantial way. For that matter, we need to make charging more practical for apartment dwellers and others who don't have their own garages.

I disagree that removing ICE vehicles won't have a tangible impact. The EPA noted that 29% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US circa 2019 stemmed from transportation — that was a larger individual share than electricity, industry or any other category. A healthy emissions reduction strategy includes all sectors, but EVs aren't a distraction in the slightest. Moreover, switching to EVs should offer immediate benefits like improved air quality and reduced noise pollution. I just don't see many downsides to a migration, so long as we address the sustainability of EV batteries (and we are).
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,813
2030 would be a bit early, but even California and New York are aiming for 2035. That's plenty of time for a transition, just so long as everyone involved (government, automakers, power utilities, etc.) take it seriously. I don't know about making batteries swappable at stations, but I do think companies need to start addressing replacement and recycling of batteries in a more substantial way. For that matter, we need to make charging more practical for apartment dwellers and others who don't have their own garages.

I disagree that removing ICE vehicles won't have a tangible impact. The EPA noted that 29% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US circa 2019 stemmed from transportation — that was a larger individual share than electricity, industry or any other category. A healthy emissions reduction strategy includes all sectors, but EVs aren't a distraction in the slightest. Moreover, switching to EVs should offer immediate benefits like improved air quality and reduced noise pollution. I just don't see many downsides to a migration, so long as we address the sustainability of EV batteries (and we are).
That’s all of transportation. See the post above. The math works to basically 15% for personal automobiles.

Given the energy crisis in CA, I highly doubt it will be solved in ten years as more burden is put on the grid, and no nuclear or fossil fuel plants are being built. That’s a complete pipe dream. It’s already impossible to build the nuclear plants by then, even if they started now, which they aren’t. If you move it to natgas plants, which they also aren’t building, it’s just shifting the burden elsewhere on the pie chart with very little payoff.

Again, I submit that all the economic burden is being put on the lower/middle class with these regulations, for almost no net-gain impact in helping the global warming problem. It’s just political theatre.
 
Last edited:

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
10,277
The EPA noted that 29% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US circa 2019 stemmed from transportation — that was a larger individual share than electricity, industry or any other category.

And if you switch all non-commercial transportation to electric I'll bet you'd drop that number down to, what, may 25 percent? Probably not even?

We can meet or exceed that with improving ICE engine efficiency and adding more hybrid/regeneration systems, I guarantee that.

Also, why should the US take the lead on this one? It's not like we're the problem.
 

Camberwell

Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
816
Also, why should the US take the lead on this one? It's not like we're the problem.
Not that you guys have be the lead per se since this is a global issue, but to say that you are not the problem is a bit disingenuous seeing as how by most metrics the US is the second biggest CO2 producer after China (although China is still twice what the US puts out to be fair):

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pollution-by-country

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/
 
Last edited:

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,538
That’s all of transportation. See the post above. The math works to basically 15% for personal automobiles.

Given the energy crisis in CA, I highly doubt it will be solved in ten years as more burden is put on the grid, and no nuclear or fossil fuel plants are being built. That’s a complete pipe dream. It’s already impossible to build the nuclear plants by then, even if they started now, which they aren’t. If you move it to natgas plants, which they also aren’t building, it’s just shifting the burden elsewhere on the pie chart with very little payoff.

Again, I submit that all the economic burden is being put on the lower/middle class with these regulations, for almost no net-gain impact in helping the global warming problem. It’s just political theatre.
That's still a substantial chunk of emissions. And like Camberwell said, the US is the second-largest CO2 emitter after China; cutting that 15 percent will mean something. There really needs to be a scramble to improve power capacity, but it doesn't have to come from conventional energy systems. California can afford to add more renewables, and there are new smaller-scale nuclear reactors that are both quicker to construct and make more sense in circumstances like this.

We do need to clamp down on industry and push utilities to ramp up capacity. But EVs are very much part of the solution.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,538
And if you switch all non-commercial transportation to electric I'll bet you'd drop that number down to, what, may 25 percent? Probably not even?

We can meet or exceed that with improving ICE engine efficiency and adding more hybrid/regeneration systems, I guarantee that.

Also, why should the US take the lead on this one? It's not like we're the problem.
To expand on what Camberwell said: one of the biggest problems in addressing climate change is the "no, you go first" mindset. Americans reluctant to do anything because they think China should reduce its emissions first; developing countries are reluctant to reduce emissions because they see Americans dragging their heels; and on the cycle goes.

The important point is to act. Full stop. Every little bit makes a difference; when you act, you give others less excuse to do nothing. Obviously you want a holistic effort whenever possible, but I'd rather risk knocking 'just' a few emissions points than doing nothing and suffering the full consequences.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,813
To expand on what Camberwell said: one of the biggest problems in addressing climate change is the "no, you go first" mindset. Americans reluctant to do anything because they think China should reduce its emissions first; developing countries are reluctant to reduce emissions because they see Americans dragging their heels; and on the cycle goes.

The important point is to act. Full stop. Every little bit makes a difference; when you act, you give others less excuse to do nothing. Obviously you want a holistic effort whenever possible, but I'd rather risk knocking 'just' a few emissions points than doing nothing and suffering the full consequences.
China will do nothing. The PRC doesn’t give a crap. They just need the west to kill themselves economically and they win. We could go 100% green and china would still be doing what they are doing. It’s naive to think otherwise. The PRC believes they are the master race and destined to rule the Earth. It’s just a matter of time for them.

That 15% gets us nothing BTW. It changes absolutely nothing besides economic burden for the lower/middle class. You want the average American to buy into this? That requires seeing people like John Kerry not flying around on planes weekly, and other elites making the sacrifice. However, they aren’t.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
665
and there are new smaller-scale nuclear reactors that are both quicker to construct and make more sense in circumstances like this.
This is the answer, but the same people who push EVs from an environmental angle also denounce nuclear as a whole. Instead we should somehow construct untold amounts of inefficient solar and wind, along with the energy storage required to even make it practical for grid use.
Nuclear first, then we can talk about revamping for electrical over fossils. Until that happens, it's all a massive pipe dream.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
4,005
China will do nothing. The PRC doesn’t give a crap. They just need the west to kill themselves economically and they win. We could go 100% green and china would still be doing what they are doing. It’s naive to think otherwise. The PRC believes they are the master race and destined to rule the Earth. It’s just a matter of time for them.

That 15% gets us nothing BTW. It changes absolutely nothing besides economic burden for the lower/middle class. You want the average American to buy into this? That requires seeing people like John Kerry not flying around on planes weekly, and other elites making the sacrifice. However, they aren’t.
15% is not nothing, it is 15%. Every little bit helps. People like you are part of the problem.

Hopefully the F-150 Lightning will be a game changer to get more people to move to EVs. Yes, EVs are expensive but all new cars are more expensive now. Sales of >$20k new cars have been decreasing for years now. Consumers are actually demanding more expensive cars with more expensive features, so manufactures are providing them.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,813
15% is not nothing, it is 15%. Every little bit helps. People like you are part of the problem.

Hopefully the F-150 Lightning will be a game changer to get more people to move to EVs. Yes, EVs are expensive but all new cars are more expensive now. Sales of >$20k new cars have been decreasing for years now. Consumers are actually demanding more expensive cars with more expensive features, so manufactures are providing them.
15% from the US is nothing if nothing else is done. You have to drop emissions far more drastically to make any dent in the rising temperature. Again, this is not a simple issue.

Further, dropping that 15% number by any decent amount isn’t even possible, as outlined earlier. Unless the plan is no one is allowed to drive a vehicle anymore. Which is what you’d have to do, along with many other things most people would never accept.

The numbers don’t lie. If you believe in global climate change and want to have any significant impact on it, these measures are meaningless. The sooner people accept that, the faster we can start actually fixing things. Until then, it’s political theatre.

By the way, I do take some offense to being called part of the problem. I live in a fairly neutral fashion. I don’t fly anymore. I’m not one of our politicians who fly so often that they’ve likely done more harm then I could do in 10 lifetimes.
 
Last edited:
Top