Stanford Economist: All Fossil-Fuel Vehicles Will Vanish in 8 Years

The only way this guy's predictions would be true is if the timeline was stretched to 100-200 years.
 
I have my doubts on the "all front', that being said I can easily see them replacing every generic run about "I don't give a fuck what I drive" car in that time. The strongest resistance to electric from most car enthusiasts is this concern that electric will put an end to all performance vehicles, but ultimately that just isn't true. Proper high end performance vehicles make up such a tiny fraction of the market that their net emissions really don't count for much in the grand scheme of things, the problem from an environmental stand point is the millions upon millions of generic white box cars like the Corolla, the base models of Civic and 95% of what the Koreans put out into the wild. Provided the range is there nobody is REALLY in their heart of hearts going to mourn these going electric.
 
These sames people and groups have been making similar claims for 50+ years and while their track record is horrible people still buy into their BS.

Every time society has caved to these idiots we've regretted it. They demanded we switch to plastic shopping bags because we were cutting down trees, a renewable resource, to make paper ones, so they got their way and now we have the problem created by huge masses of plastic grocery bags polluting everything, and those same people who demanded we use them now are saying we are evil and destroying the earth for using them!

They are also the ones who demanded Freon use be eliminated to save the ozone layer and pushed for requirements for a more expensive and harder to handle replacement be used.................................... which only after the laws were passed did we discover was actually worse for the ozone layer then Freon. Then of course these same people demanded we eliminate incandescent bulbs and replace them all with compact fluorescent light bulbs to save the environment and now scream about how those very bulbs they demanded we use are worse for the environment then the incandescent bulbs they replaced.

If we counted their predictions as batting averages they would actually have negative averages, yet every time these groups crawl out from under their rocks the media regurgitates everything they say as gospel and anyone who questions them is treated like an idiot "science denier."
 
twonunpackmule said:
Well, I'd suggest in future talks to refrain from citing Wikipedia. Instead, cite the course within.

Secondly, it's entirely possible for people to miss things happening outside of their country of origin.




I admit, I forgot my angle.
Click to expand...
Ignorance is no excuse.
 
prime2515102 said:
Oil prices won't collapse, the price of plastics will just skyrocket.
Click to expand...
If plastic production from oil was at the limit it would be driving the price of oil, not gasoline.
If over half of oil wasn't forced into gasoline and deisel, do you think the amount of plastic gained from a barrel of oil will still be the same.
I nowhere consume the amount of plastic as I do gasoline. Probably in the 5% range at worst.

Plastic may go up a bit, but it won't prevent the price collapse of oil. ggs.
 
jpm100 said:
If plastic production from oil was at the limit it would be driving the price of oil, not gasoline.
If over half of oil wasn't forced into gasoline and deisel, do you think the amount of plastic gained from a barrel of oil will still be the same.
I nowhere consume the amount of plastic as I do gasoline. Probably in the 5% range at worst.

Plastic may go up a bit, but it won't prevent the price collapse of oil. ggs.
Click to expand...

That's why the prices would skyrocket. There are two choices in business: low price, high volume, or high price, low volume. If the main chunk of business disappears, volume drops significantly, therefore the price will rise to compensate. There's no way they will not try to maintain their profit - as publicly traded corporations they are legally bound to do so (in the US anyway).

Of course, they could always go into the battery business...
 
mdburkey said:
What about all the people like me, who only replace their cars every 10-15 years?
I just bought a brand new car last year (replacing my 2001 model with over 200K miles on it) and plan to drive my new one until at least 2030.
Click to expand...

Still driving the 96 F150 I bought new, and just bought an 85 Jeep Cherokee three years ago( $500 cant beat it). When they have electric cars that I know will last 20 years with only about $2000 total repair costs in that time like my truck, then maybe I will switch.

I thought about buying a more fuel efficient car back when gasoline went to $4/gallon, but doing the math, with how much I drive per year. Going from 17mpg to 36mpg at $4/gallon gasoline, I would need to find a car with $80 per month payments to be able to pay it off with the fuel savings.

Now if I could find a good used Nissan Leaf for about $6000 I might buy it just for the heck of it, but it definitely would not replace the Jeep for offroading )
 
Totally unlikely except possibly in places where governments mandate you must have an electric vehicle.
Ivory tower thinking, ignoring human behaviour and needs. Whilst it is likely in the next 20 years. Eight years is totally pie-in-the-sky.
 
Listen, Im ALL FOR renewable energy and next-generation vehicles.

But the idea that petroleum combustion engines will dissiappear ANY TIME IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE is just a pipe dream.

Plus, there is nothing more satisfying than the rumble of an old V8.
 
nutzo said:
We have a tiered rate structure.
Baseline is 16 cents, but the kwh amount is so low, anyone who owns a home will go over this amount. It then goes to 25 cents kwh, which is what any addition power to charge a car would cost. If I had a pool, or have a long summer heat wave, it can even go as high as 31 cents a kwh.

Using your example of the chevy volt and my electric rate, it comes out to $2.75 for 45 miles.

Gas is $2.83/gal, so it would cost me $3.18 to drive 45 miles in my Camry Hybrid (at 40 mpg). Slightly more, but it's a larger car than the volt.
If I drove a prius at 50 mpg my cost for gas would be $2.55, 20 cents LESS than a volt.

Of course I could spend a few thousand installing a 2nd meter and charging station in the house to get a lower nighttime rate, but between the added cost of the car and the meter, I'd likely be retired before I could break even.
Click to expand...

At your electricity rate you need to consider solar. It is going to break even for you way faster than you think unless your monthly power consumption is really low. Even then you can go with cheaper units. I think solar starts being better ROI around 15 cents per kwh nowadays unless you have shitty weather and are way north
 
Megalith said:
Only nostalgics will cling to the old habit of car ownership.
Click to expand...

Yes, and just like how the car AI's are apparently learning to drive from GTA5, we will just call our AI mechanic and have cars delievered to us in seconds.
 
8 years is fantasy.

It will happen eventually though.

The grid as it stands could not handle that kind of mass adoption, but there has been a lot of talk about micro-grids and more local power generation, which could help.
 
I am quite positive on the future of EVs, but this guy is out to lunch, or trolling. Unfortunately, it seems like everyone has sunk to trolling these days.

If he said, most new vehicles would be EVs within 20 years, that would be about right, and it would still be the biggest, fastest transportation revolution in history.

But it wouldn't be so absurd that everyone feels the need to point and ridicule, so we never would have noticed.
 
Armenius said:
Supposedly the next ZR1 is a hybrid. But I'm sure they're doing it for power add, not to save the planet.
Click to expand...

Mine is a 2001 C5. Best lines on a modern Corvette IMO, and it also holds significant sentimental value for me.
 
I will get an electric car when the car can meet these criteria

1. Must be able to carry 6 to 8 people
2. Have good range with Heat/AC on
3. Must have number 1 with room for groceries for said number of people.
4. Go through a foot of snow while meeting criteria 1-3.
5. Cost about the same as a comparable ICE vehicle.

Until then I will be keeping my 02 Ford Excursion and paying out 150+ a month for gas.
 
The whole 'transportation as a service' thing is a pipe dream made by urban idiots who know no world outside skyscrapers and subways. When you live in a community of 10 people at -30c temperature and your closest convenience store is a 100 miles away, there will be no service nor a possibility to use electric vehicles.
 
Rev Lemmon said:
I will get an electric car when the car can meet these criteria

1. Must be able to carry 6 to 8 people
2. Have good range with Heat/AC on
3. Must have number 1 with room for groceries for said number of people.
4. Go through a foot of snow while meeting criteria 1-3.
5. Cost about the same as a comparable ICE vehicle.

Until then I will be keeping my 02 Ford Excursion and paying out 150+ a month for gas.
Click to expand...

You forgot 6: Must be able to refuel in the time it takes you to stop for a coffee.
 
1 ton of lithium takes 24 months of prep time.

A single Nissan Leaf uses 9 pounds of the stuff.

Then there is the rare earth metals for the motor....

I can't see it working at a mass global scale.
 
Retronym said:
1 ton of lithium takes 24 months of prep time.

A single Nissan Leaf uses 9 pounds of the stuff.

Then there is the rare earth metals for the motor....

I can't see it working at a mass global scale.
Click to expand...
You only need those materials one-time in the life of the car/battery and many of those elements/materials can be re-claimed when the car is disposed. Otherwise we'd have trouble with Aluminum already.
 
I take the old girl out every chance I get...I even burn lead additive so she stays happy...after all , I have to offset a dozen Prius'...or as they should be called... "Pius of shit"

DSCF5311.jpg
 
hahaha...everyone get on board with with the tree hugging , save the planet dumbasses...


"According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.
To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines."

"“For example a smart phone has 8 different rare earths in it. Everything from the material used in its memory to the red coloured pixels of its screen and the polish used on its glass. They are also fundamental ingredients in what we talk of as green energy industries, for example, wind turbines are one of the largest consumers of neodymium magnets,”

......the source of this "green miracle" ?...China...but then you green pea brains don't care about the collateral damage that your inane crusades cause

"From the air it looks like a huge lake, fed by many tributaries, but on the ground it turns out to be a murky expanse of water, in which no fish or algae can survive. The shore is coated with a black crust, so thick you can walk on it. Into this huge, 10 sq km tailings pond nearby factories discharge water loaded with chemicals used to process the 17 most sought after minerals in the world, collectively known as rare earths.

The town of Baotou, in Inner Mongolia, is the largest Chinese source of these strategic elements, essential to advanced technology, from smartphones to GPS receivers, but also to wind farms and, above all, electric cars. The minerals are mined at Bayan Obo, 120km farther north, then brought to Baotou for processing.

The concentration of rare earths in the ore is very low, so they must be separated and purified, using hydro-metallurgical techniques and acid baths. China accounts for 97% of global output of these precious substances, with two-thirds produced in Baotou.

The foul waters of the tailings pond contain all sorts of toxic chemicals, but also radioactive elements such as thorium which, if ingested, cause cancers of the pancreas and lungs, and leukaemia. "Before the factories were built, there were just fields here as far as the eye can see. In the place of this radioactive sludge, there were watermelons, aubergines and tomatoes," says Li Guirong with a sigh."

“The refinery on the other side of the lake is the largest rare earth plant on the planet and all the waste material from this process is dumped here. It is an ocean of black mud continually pumped out from a long line of plastic pipes,” he says,

This toxic waste was found to have radiation levels three times the background radiation level and was made up of a cocktail of acids, heavy metals, carcinogens and radioactive material used to process the 17 most sought after minerals in the world"
 
It took twice that time just to switch from analog to digital TV. Guy is delusional.
 
DukenukemX said:
He might be right about businesses adopting electric vehicles and not people. People hold onto cars for much longer, and if fuel prices drop then they'll hold them even longer. But as a business electric vehicles are attractive. For one, they don't break down as often. Just change tires and brakes and in 10 years replace the battery. Plus they can be easily converted to self driving, which means you can fire a good amount of your work force. The problem is they don't refuel very quickly, unless you find a super charge station or buy more vehicles where you recharge some and use some.

But people are certainly not going to switch to electric unless it's cheap and not stupid looking. Seems like everyone else but Tesla makes ugly electric cars.
Click to expand...

It wont be businesses adopting EV's.. it will be gubberment who is already stupidly doing so at our expense. The only time businesses buy into the EV stupidity are when gubberment (meaning we the taxpayer) "incentives" (see taxpayer $$$) make it viable for them to do so. Even Tesla who makes a not $hitty looking EV could not exist w/o the $7500 "subsidy" given to those who can afford to drive a $80k car and the hundreds of millions in $$ Tesla gets from the gubberment (see prior statement about we the taxpayer). Take away the gubberment $$ and the vast majority of green wet dreams (including Tesla) go away as they are simply not economically viable or "sustainable" to use a phrase the envioroweenies beat to a pulp.

solyndraimg_assist_custom-640x528.jpg


And to the "Save the earth" crowd pimping photos of air pollution in China... what do you suppose the ecological impact of processing the rare earth metals used in them solar panels, batteries and magnets in the windmills is? Odd I never see any of the "greens" pimping photos of the place where these materials are processed or mined in China...

article-1350811-0CF36063000005DC-625_634x286-1.jpg


Ooohh.. but oil bad. yes the Stanford dolt who penned the article is an idiot. No shortage of idiots hiding in academia... no wonder most ex top level bamma administrations are now making a living there.

 
lcpiper said:
Shocks, springs, bushings ..... my electric window stopped working, AC needs recharged, there is actually a whole lot more to what breaks on an ICE car then just the drive train. We need to focus less on what's different and try to remember how much will remain in common.
Click to expand...
What you're listing aren't big issues. A failed engine, or a failed transmission are big issues. Almost anyway can replace shocks, springs, bushing and etc.
I am having another issue with your post, you can't fire the drivers....... shit will still happen and someone will still have to be with the vehicles when it does. Unless the self-driving EV is going to drive onto my lawn to read my meter, there will still be a meter-man. Even in business, the purpose of transportation remains transporting people. I'm not seeing any fewer people on the bus just because the "driver" isn't actually driving it. Maybe we'll get to the Johnny-Cab stage in some areas, but certainly not universally.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised we still have meter men honestly. The only job with driving that can't be easily replaced is jobs like UPS, FedEx delivery men. But long hauling and taxi services can be done without a human. Probably better off too.
And an issue I have with EVs in general. Parts of the country already have issues with demand for electricity, more demand sometimes lowers prices, but sometimes it raises them. A lesser demand for fossil fuels should lower prices meaning people have good reasons to keep those old ICE engine vehicles when it comes to operating costs.
Click to expand...
Electric vehicles aren't a 100% better option over fossil fuel. They have their advantages and disadvantages. But in terms of maintenance costs, and fuel costs, and electric vehicle is superior. Given that the cost of batteries goes down.
 
lcpiper said:
And an issue I have with EVs in general. Parts of the country already have issues with demand for electricity, more demand sometimes lowers prices, but sometimes it raises them. A lesser demand for fossil fuels should lower prices meaning people have good reasons to keep those old ICE engine vehicles when it comes to operating costs.
Click to expand...

This is one of the big problems with EV's Our grid is nowhere near capable of sustaining the energy needs should a large number of electric vehicles hit the road.

Part of this is can be offset by time of use billing, so EV users charge their vehicles during low demand hours, but if we see large scale EV adoption, something grid-wise is going to have to change, as that won't be enough.

I feel this is the biggest impediment to mass adoption of EV's.

Many mention charge times as an issue, but we are pretty close to solving that. Current Tesla supercharging stations operate at 480V at 120kw max per car, and can bring your battery from drained up to about 50% in ~20 minutes. This is obviously not currently competitive with filling up a gas car, but considering how quickly charge times have been shrinking, I feel like in the next couple of generations this will start to become a non-issue, possibly even in the 8 year timeframe the author mentions.
 
Killahurtz said:
I take the old girl out every chance I get...I even burn lead additive so she stays happy...after all , I have to offset a dozen Prius'...or as they should be called... "Pius of shit"

DSCF5311.jpg
Click to expand...


I always wonder why people like vehicles like this. Old, stinky, lacking in modern amenities, shit for handling by modern standards, loud and obnoxious, vibrations and other nonsese, and piss-poor safety standards.

Regardless of how fixed up and renovated, whenever I see a 70's era muscle car still in operation, I can't help but think to myself "what a beater".
 
It seems like this guy forgot a 0. If you told me that all cars would be self driving and electric in 80 years, I'd say that sounds about right. 8 years? Not going to happen.
 
Evil Scooter said:
solyndraimg_assist_custom-640x528.jpg
Click to expand...

You do realize that the reason Solyndra failed was because China was deeply subsidizing solar panel production. They correctly identified that this industry is going to be the future of energy, and wanted to kill off any companies in other countries by undercutting them using government subsidies, this way they could cancel the subsidies later, and have the market all to themselves for the rest of time. (sortof what Walmart does when they enter a new town. Undercut everyone else, drive them out of business, and then ramp up prices)

And we let them succeed. The Obama administration tried to step in and save the U.S. industry from China's trade manipulation, but he was never able to get the necessary funding from Congress to do so properly, so instead it became like everything else touched by congress. A half-assed budget starved attempt, doomed to failure.
 
10 or so years ago Dr Robert Zubrin took a break from designing rockets and his plans to colonize Mars and wrote an excellent book called "Energy Victory". He proposes replacing fossil fuel gasoline with methanol/ethanol/alcohol. I don't think when he wrote that book anyone would have foreseen the return of electric vehicles (this is right on the heels of "who killed the electric car" etc etc). Also this was back when gas was between $3-4 a gallon. I like the secondary plot point of the book, which is to produce our own fuel and stop throwing money at terrorist enabling nations.

According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible-fuel_vehicles_in_the_United_States , by 2014 half of the vehicles in America are flex fuel capable. But what happened to flex fuels? Oil/gas got cheap.

So OK, get rid of "gas" produced by crude oil in 8 years.... maybe doable. But unless some unforeseen battery technology marvel comes along, I don't see only electric cars in the next 20 years. I mean Teslas are great and all, but they're still $100k. Toys for rich people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Victory
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I always wonder why people like vehicles like this. Old, stinky, lacking in modern amenities, shit for handling by modern standards, loud and obnoxious, vibrations and other nonsese, and piss-poor safety standards.

Regardless of how fixed up and renovated, whenever I see a 70's era muscle car still in operation, I can't help but think to myself "what a beater".
Click to expand...

To each their own. I'll bet to that Vette owner you sound like one of the Pious drivers he's "offsetting". :p I feel the same way when I see one of the thousands of crap econo boxes on the street, and I drive one of em to work every day. Like plain oatmeal.. bleh.

Myself I got tired of putting lead additives in the tank and put some hardend seats in my heads to handle the sh*t no lead.. ethanol (don't get me started on this brand of eco-stupidity) blended fuel. Other than that the only objectionable thing I can find in his post is the branding on the hood letters....

IMG_2516_zpspfh1q8al.jpg


old Fords are much better suited for those purposes.

;)
 
Burticus said:
10 or so years ago Dr Robert Zubrin wrote an excellent book called "Energy Victory". He proposes replacing fossil fuel gasoline with methanol/ethanol/alcohol. I don't think when he wrote that book anyone would have foreseen the return of electric vehicles (this is right on the heels of "who killed the electric car" etc etc). Also this was back when gas was between $3-4 a gallon. I like the secondary plot point of the book, which is to produce our own fuel and stop throwing money at terrorist enabling nations.

According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible-fuel_vehicles_in_the_United_States , by 2014 half of the vehicles in America are flex fuel capable. But what happened to flex fuels? Oil/gas got cheap.

So OK, get rid of "gas" produced by crude oil in 8 years.... maybe doable. But unless some unforeseen battery technology marvel comes along, I don't see only electric cars in the next 20 years. I mean Teslas are great and all, but they're still $100k. Toys for rich people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Victory
Click to expand...


The problem with Ethanol is that we are doing Ethanol in this country increadibly stupidly. Corn is an AWFUL crop to make Ethanol from.

They do it very successfully in Brazil using sugar cane, as sugar cane has a very high simple sugar content. Corn has a relatively low simple sugar content and you need to break down its complex starches in order to ferment them. This is highly inefficient process.

What we should be doing is using other crops. Sugar cane can be grown in some places in the U.S., but not everywhere. Sugar beets are a good alternative, and they will grow almost anywhere in the U.S. With much higher concentrations of sugar they will be much more efficient to turn into Ethanol.

This will probably never happen though, unless we somehow kill the stupid farm bill from continuously being renewed. It contains way too many corn subsidies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
I think we're all forgetting one major factor here. The Apple car. The smart phone existed long before the iPhone was created, but it took the iPhone to push for sales. And people vacuum them up faster than banks can pull the money out. If Apple creates a car you can bet people will buy them like crazy, just because it has the Apple logo on it. Which would start an arms race in the auto industry for electric cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top