Electric and ICE forever together?

[d1h]

Was told by a car salesperson that don't be fooled into thinking ICE Vehicles will not be manufactured anymore or sold after 2035. He said they will still be manufactured along with electric ones and you will have a choice which you want to purchase. Don't know if he was just feeding me a line or was giving me factual information.

[Grit_dog]

For the record, I’m not an “it can’t happen” detractor. I’m just not a blind new technology nut humper who does far more dreaming than facting. (Not a real word, I know, lol)

Oh and lol to “Tesla paid for the supercharger network with no assistance”. Well maybe he paid for some out of pocket but is now gettin right on the teat!

[JRscooby]

Grit dog wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

propchef wrote:

Yours as well.

Yes, there are two sides. You should check it out.

One problem is most discussions are limited to 2 sides, which totally blocks out some solutions that could "save the planet"
In how much of the world does the average meal travel thousands of miles between field and table?
And where else in world does most of workforce spend hour a day by themselves in a car going to/from work?

Good points!
And it’s amazing to think how many “things” or processes could be changed to be entirely more efficient from a “travel” standpoint. None of which rely on finding a “better” means of propulsion but moreso a more efficient means of production.
Nice thought, but until I can grow enough lettuce (the edible kind not the folding kind) in WA efficiently enough to compete with the folks growing it in Arizona. Or the US ranchers somehow become more efficient than those supplying McDonalds beef from Brazil or wherever the story said, generally the most “efficient” path has been carved.
And what “if” one only at local foods and didn’t commute? That sounds all warm n fuzzy and saving the planet type stuff.
What if 50% of people did that and reduced the need for air travel and cars and fast food restaurants? Well that’s a lot of industry that just went belly up and quit supporting a significant chunk of the population, financially. The employees.
Apply the same theory to a bunch of other stuff as well until one is literally surviving off of what is available locally.
Then you need less roads and infrastructure so Scooby couldn’t have earned a living delivering dirt and gravel.
And pretty soon, we’re all sitting around a campfire in animal skins waiting for something to run by to spear for dinner!

I will confess in my lifetime I have made money transporting things with questionable utility. Mid 70s, load swinging beef Ks, Co, or Iowa, to the east coast, wash out, load swinging beef (from Argentine at that time) back to Kansas for Mcdees. But Bell, last year I worked, loaded a load of dirt at a excavation site north Phoenix, delivered to parks department to a town in Texas. (Midland? Odessa? They wanted it to spread on little league infield. Packed, with little slope, rain won't soak in. Game can start as soon as stops)
As for growing food. If we, as a society would work on expanding the technology a lot of food could be grown inside. (Year round employment for many people) I don't know if the canine has yapped about it, but food production in much of the country (Fruits, nuts and veggies in southwest, wheat in Ks. And people are mad regulators reduce chances of dumping oil into water we have left) is at risk from climate change.

[ktmrfs]

Interesting how on many new technologies there are the sceptics who have 100's of reasons why it is a bad idea and can't possibly happen.

But "necessity is the mother of invention" and most of the time for technologies that start getting adopted, bingo, bango, bongo the "impossibilities" get solved and it takes off,

cell phones, personal computers, sat TV, personal high speed internet (faster than dial up), hyddraulic fracking for gas/oil, deep water drilling, even electricity to the farmers, I can remember as "can't be done".

yes there are many many issues for widespread EV adoption, they will get solved one at a time, over time. Some may need some "pushing" to get addressed, some may limit the rollout speed, but it will happen.

[Grit_dog]

JRscooby wrote:

propchef wrote:

Yours as well.

Yes, there are two sides. You should check it out.

One problem is most discussions are limited to 2 sides, which totally blocks out some solutions that could "save the planet"
In how much of the world does the average meal travel thousands of miles between field and table?
And where else in world does most of workforce spend hour a day by themselves in a car going to/from work?

Good points!
And it’s amazing to think how many “things” or processes could be changed to be entirely more efficient from a “travel” standpoint. None of which rely on finding a “better” means of propulsion but moreso a more efficient means of production.
Nice thought, but until I can grow enough lettuce (the edible kind not the folding kind) in WA efficiently enough to compete with the folks growing it in Arizona. Or the US ranchers somehow become more efficient than those supplying McDonalds beef from Brazil or wherever the story said, generally the most “efficient” path has been carved.
And what “if” one only at local foods and didn’t commute? That sounds all warm n fuzzy and saving the planet type stuff.
What if 50% of people did that and reduced the need for air travel and cars and fast food restaurants? Well that’s a lot of industry that just went belly up and quit supporting a significant chunk of the population, financially. The employees.
Apply the same theory to a bunch of other stuff as well until one is literally surviving off of what is available locally.
Then you need less roads and infrastructure so Scooby couldn’t have earned a living delivering dirt and gravel.
And pretty soon, we’re all sitting around a campfire in animal skins waiting for something to run by to spear for dinner!

[free_radical]

nickthehunter wrote:

ktmrfs wrote:
dig out your calculator and lets use some actual data on EV sales. And EV sales are NOT 1% of the market, more like 5-7% and rising.

last year (2022) EV sales in the US were 850,000. Now let's assume 100% got a 7500 gov't credit. That comes to 6.3B, I'd say 20B on fossil fuel subsidies FAR exceeds 6.3B, not the other way around

While you got your calculator out, you might want to add in $7.5B for EV Charging and $7.0B for EV battery developmnt in the Inflation Reduction Act (Aug 16, 2022); and we ain't got to the Infrastructure and Investment Act (Nov 19, 2021) or the federal funded improvements to the electric grid (alot of which are necessitated in order to have EV charging).

100% credit is incorecto

Tesla buyers no longer qualify for tax credit ever since it built over 200 thousand vehicles.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/ev-tax-credit-electric-vehicle-tax-credit

Btw Tesla paid for their Supercharging network w their own money!

[theoldwizard1]

I am a retired automotive engineer. All of my fellow retired engineer and at least one "youngster" working designing EVs, predict no more than 25%-30% small/medium duty market penetration by 2030.

2 issues. Electric power generation and electric power distribution.

A FEW large cities may ban light duty ICE vehicles (or require that they carry multiple passenger) next decade !

[JRscooby]

propchef wrote:

Yours as well.

Yes, there are two sides. You should check it out.

One problem is most discussions are limited to 2 sides, which totally blocks out some solutions that could "save the planet"
In how much of the world does the average meal travel thousands of miles between field and table?
And where else in world does most of workforce spend hour a day by themselves in a car going to/from work?

[Grit_dog]

^Thank you for addressing the Cherry pickers. Cherries aren’t even in season right now!

[nickthehunter]

ktmrfs wrote:
dig out your calculator and lets use some actual data on EV sales. And EV sales are NOT 1% of the market, more like 5-7% and rising.

last year (2022) EV sales in the US were 850,000. Now let's assume 100% got a 7500 gov't credit. That comes to 6.3B, I'd say 20B on fossil fuel subsidies FAR exceeds 6.3B, not the other way around

While you got your calculator out, you might want to add in $7.5B for EV Charging and $7.0B for EV battery developmnt in the Inflation Reduction Act (Aug 16, 2022); and we ain't got to the Infrastructure and Investment Act (Nov 19, 2021) or the federal funded improvements to the electric grid (alot of which are necessitated in order to have EV charging).

[valhalla360]

ktmrfs wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:

2oldman wrote:
Fossil fuels still receive massive government subsidies.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute found that the US government alone spends $20 billion every year on direct fossil fuel subsidies. This has been going on for a LONG time.

$7500 per car exceeds $20B by a lot for only 1% of the market. Yes there are subsidies all over but per car sold massively favor ev.

Early on government literally fought ice and only because it was so much better did it become the standard. The subsidies are mostly about reliability of fuel supply...except when strategic reserves are sold for political purposes.

dig out your calculator and lets use some actual data on EV sales. And EV sales are NOT 1% of the market, more like 5-7% and rising.

last year (2022) EV sales in the US were 850,000. Now let's assume 100% got a 7500 gov't credit. That comes to 6.3B, I'd say 20B on fossil fuel subsidies FAR exceeds 6.3B, not the other way around

Still drastically more on a per vehicle basis.

[ktmrfs]

valhalla360 wrote:

2oldman wrote:
Fossil fuels still receive massive government subsidies.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute found that the US government alone spends $20 billion every year on direct fossil fuel subsidies. This has been going on for a LONG time.

$7500 per car exceeds $20B by a lot for only 1% of the market. Yes there are subsidies all over but per car sold massively favor ev.

Early on government literally fought ice and only because it was so much better did it become the standard. The subsidies are mostly about reliability of fuel supply...except when strategic reserves are sold for political purposes.

dig out your calculator and lets use some actual data on EV sales. And EV sales are NOT 1% of the market, more like 5-7% and rising.

last year (2022) EV sales in the US were 850,000. Now let's assume 100% got a 7500 gov't credit. That comes to 6.3B, I'd say 20B on fossil fuel subsidies FAR exceeds 6.3B, not the other way around

[valhalla360]

2oldman wrote:
Fossil fuels still receive massive government subsidies.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute found that the US government alone spends $20 billion every year on direct fossil fuel subsidies. This has been going on for a LONG time.

$7500 per car exceeds $20B by a lot for only 1% of the market. Yes there are subsidies all over but per car sold massively favor ev.

Early on government literally fought ice and only because it was so much better did it become the standard. The subsidies are mostly about reliability of fuel supply...except when strategic reserves are sold for political purposes.

[time2roll]

until the 800,000-liter oil spill off the Philippines is cleaned up

[propchef]

NamMedevac 70 wrote:

propchef wrote:

NamMedevac 70 wrote:
EV Battery Production Takes A Lot Of Energy And Generates Significant Emissions.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/10-dirty-truths-of-electric-cars-nobody-is-talking-about/ar-AA18nsCL?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=be168b7322424b76b730bc27887a1db5&ei=25

TopSpeed
TopSpeed
View Profile
10 Dirty Truths Of Electric Cars Nobody Is Talking About

Enjoy everyone!!!!!!

Right, because drilling for fossil fuels and the refinements of those fuels is clean and without excess energy use. Never any problems.

Actually, unlike many close minded people I like hearing and reading two different sides of a topic. Cheers to your travels

Yours as well.

Yes, there are two sides. You should check it out.