I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

dculberson said:

I find the fear for the infrastructure vastly overstated. We have electric lines, we have power plants, we just need to improve what's there and add some power plants which are a technology that's mature and able to be executed. Imagine if you will a moment this same conversation about gasoline cars prior to the widespread rollout of gas stations. I'm sure plenty of people griped about how you can't drive it more than x miles from home because there won't be gas. The task of building gas stations and refineries and digging for oil and building roads to carry tanker trucks on and building tanker trucks and etc etc etc is at least equivalent to - but in my opinion far more complex than - what electric cars face now. We're like 80% of the way done with what needs done, we just need more of it. It's ridiculous to act like there's just no way we can bridge that last tiny gap of X+1 when we already have done X.

I don't think anyone said it can't be done. As for me, all I said was it's not being done quickly enough for the proposed changeover. 

Another article:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/15/california-midwest-at-high-risk-of-electricity-shortages-nerc.html

I'm sure there will be a transition period like any other technology change. And I'm sure it will take longer than anyone on either the government side or the auto manufacturer side is claiming. But a five ten or twenty year delay is not a big deal in the larger picture. But it doesn't seem like a "it's going to take a few more years" statement when people dismiss the infrastructure as not ready. It will be, when it is, and that is coming.

I feel like those who are hesitant to adopt EVs are a lot like this ad from 100+ years ago.

The horse industry (which was proportionally as big as the car industry for its time) went to great lengths to seed dissent and campaign against cars.  I think the point (which I alluded to in the last EV thread last year) is that

- early 1900s, cars were tough to own because of frequent tire blowouts, no gas stations, no repair infrastructure, and terrible roads.  We found a way.
- 1940s - can't make new cars because there's a war going on. The public lost their minds, but it was a non-issue
- 1950s - gotta have seatbelts.  The public lost their minds for a year.
- 1960s - we need to have emissions requirements.  The public lost their minds
- 1970s - Oil embargo pushed CAFE requirements.  The public lost their minds.
- 1970s/80s - We need crash safety tests meaning it's no longer feasible to have a newly styled model every year.  The public lost their minds.
- 1980s - we need EFI which the public was afraid of for complexity/reliability reasons.
- 1990s - we need air bags which made everyone afraid their steering wheel would explode if they sneezed.  The public lost their minds
- 1990s - we need OBD2 which made everyone assume it was a government spying conspiracy and they lost their minds
 

The list goes on ad regurgitatum.  In every case, a minority of people lost their minds because they thought it would be the absolute death of the economy, the world, and the transportation infrastructure itself.  Also, in every case, NOTHING HAPPENED in the long run.  We still have cars.  In fact, we still have Model Ts, Fairlanes, Bel Airs, Hemis, and Sciroccos. 

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

And those that fall into your hesitant category just love being called troglodytes because they aren't jumping in the bandwagon fast enough. 
 

im just not seeing the "hesitants" making these same generalizations and doing their best to make anyone not agreeing with them look uneducated and backwards. Maybe I'm missing it but I know that I don't appreciate it much. 

In reply to dculberson :

In most metro areas it's already here.  
      Maybe not a gas station on every corners like in the 1950's  but it turns out not only did we not need those, the country couldn't support  them.  
  The same thing with convenience store in the 1980's.  They were really the old corner grocery story that  also sold gasoline.  
  But again we didn't need so many  and the country won't support that many.  
    No we don't have 110 outlets at every parking meter yet but the demand is there. Once it's there the city will put them in.  Politicians do understand how to take money from taxpayers.  Enjoy the peace for now.   

In reply to dculberson :

I find the fear for the infrastructure vastly overstated. We have electric lines, we have power plants, we just need to improve what's there and add some power plants which are a technology that's mature and able to be executed. Imagine if you will a moment this same conversation about gasoline cars prior to the widespread rollout of gas stations. I'm sure plenty of people griped about how you can't drive it more than x miles from home because there won't be gas. The task of building gas stations and refineries and digging for oil and building roads to carry tanker trucks on and building tanker trucks and etc etc etc is at least equivalent to - but in my opinion far more complex than - what electric cars face now. We're like 80% of the way done with what needs done, we just need more of it. It's ridiculous to act like there's just no way we can bridge that last tiny gap of X+1 when we already have done X.
 

It's not overstated. It's understated. To get to the scale that we are talking about, it's about replacing more than adding and upgrading. Adding to and upgrading the existing infrastructure will only get us so far. There is an incredible cost and time component involved. With 100% commitment it would take decades. Adding a few chargers here and there is easy. Adding enough to support a widespread change to EV's is a completely different animal, it doesn't really matter what is currently already existing- much of it would be replaced.
 

For comparisons sake, say you wanted to add a 30A receptacle to your home. No problem, most houses can support one dedicated 30 receptacle. Now say instead, you want to replace all of the 15A receptacles in your home with 30A receptacles. You already have a service, you already have wire. But now those need to be ripped out and replaced, a much bigger job than just adding on one 30A receptacle. That is where much of the infrastructure stands. 

On the power plant side, 60% of the power comes from fossil fuels. While running EV's off of fossil fuel generated electricity is still a net plus efficiency wise, I don't think that is the goal. So that means more renewables. Which are more cost effective, but require battery storage to balance the generation and usage. Which is very expensive. All of which is doable with sufficient time, money, and resources. But to be clear, we aren't bridging a last tiny gap, we are demolishing the bridge building a new one over a larger gap. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

And those that fall into your hesitant category just love being called troglodytes because they aren't jumping in the bandwagon fast enough. 
 

im just not seeing the "hesitants" making these same generalizations and doing their best to make anyone not agreeing with them look uneducated and backwards. Maybe I'm missing it but I know that I don't appreciate it much. 

Bro he's literally written paragraphs about how he doesn't have the funds to buy one. He never called anyone a trog. Read.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

The differences between horses and cars is not comparable to the differences between ICE cars and EV's. Comparing an animal to machine is not the same as comparing two similar machines that serve the same function. There is a also gap in your timeline. In the early 1900's, EV's were far more popular than ICE cars. It took quite a while for the infrastructure (and an electric starter) to make ICE cars feasible enough to overtake EV's. That infrastructure was added for a smaller population at a time when adding infrastructure was much simpler than it is today. There was also a substantial, tangible, immediate benefit to the population- they traded horses for cars. While trading an ICE car for an EV has benefits, they are no where near the horse for car trade equivalent for the average person. 

I'm in the hesitant to adopt an EV camp not because I'm anti EV, but because they don't yet build one/price one that makes sense for me at this time. I tried to make the Lightning work. Close, but not there yet for me. If I were in the market for a small car, the Bolt would be a serious consideration. But I'm not. There are plenty of ICE and hybrid cars that fill my needs currently. When the price/range/selection of EV's lines up with my needs, I'll switch. For this discussion, I'm not pro or anti EV, I'm just calling balls and strikes. 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

referring to anyone not wanting to be on the bandwagon right now as "losing their minds" and reiterating the same tropes over and over is no different than outright calling them troglodytes for not following along. READ. 

edit: I'm an only child, I'm not your berkeleying "bro"

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

you dont want to buy the ev today? you're losing your mind!

For all those calling anyone not dying to own an ev right this second backwards and losing their minds: Do they make a manual trans EV that goes 400 miles per charge, is fun to drive and costs $25k? No? Than I don't want it. Come talk to me when they do.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

And he also wrote a paragraph that compared people who are hesitant about adopting EV's to those that shunned cars in favor of horses. Troglodyte might be a bit of a stretch, since man has "only" been riding horses for about 5500 years. But that's a long time from a technological perspective, so I'd say it still fits despite the exaggeration. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

In reply to bobzilla :

Okay, then find the post where Curtis called someone a troglodyte and I'll retract my statement.

bobzilla said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

you dont want to buy the ev today? you're losing your mind!

For all those calling anyone not dying to own an ev right this second backwards and losing their minds: Do they make a manual trans EV that goes 400 miles per charge, is fun to drive and costs $25k? No? Than I don't want it. Come talk to me when they do.

It only costs 25k if you ignore the rest of its cost.  It's just scrap metal until you buy the fuel for it.  20 years of fuel    Is. $44,000  or about a tenth of that for an EV.

        Yes you can have whatever you want. I fought in a war to ensure that you have choices. 
 

In reply to frenchyd :

It only costs 25k if you ignore the rest of its cost.  It's just scrap metal until you buy the fuel for it.  20 years of fuel    Is. $44,000  or about a tenth of that for an EV.

        Yes you can have whatever you want. I fought in a war to ensure that you have choices. 
 

Somehow I think you missed the point, and got the point at the same time. 
 

Your numbers are off, by quite a bit for much of the population. 20 years is an odd choice. The average new car is kept for 8 years. Some people will realize savings, others won't. You can't claim a buyer will save money with an EV without the details. Which is what "EV's are the best choice" and "EV's aren't worth it" are both useless statements without the details. 

Saying the grids capacity problem is understated is a crazy statement.

Yes, it will have to be improved wether we adopt EVs or not, but it can't be dismissed as a trivial undertaking. It's massive.

The grid has problems dealing with today's energy requirements, very early in the stages of EV adoption. It is becoming increasingly unreliable.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-power-grid-is-increasingly-unreliable-11645196772

Regulation and "green energy" are largely making it an even bigger problem. "Green energy" isn't green or efficient.

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

No such thing as fossil fuel it's a misnomer.  The electrical generation power to convert to EVs doesn't currently exist.  We are in an energy crisis of stupidity.  It isn't going to improve via government mandates either.  
 

I know EVs will win in the end.  The path there should be through investment and innovation though.  In the meantime, enjoy the stupid.  It's gonna get bumpier.  
 

Fossil fuels rolls off the tongue much easier than "hydrocarbon-containing materials of biological origin occurring within Earth’s crust." I think it's going to be a long transition, with plug in hybrids occupying most of the market for a significant length of time. Even the strictest mandates allow for hybrids. The pure EV chunk will grow and then plateau a bit. Incentives will fall away, some early adopters will go back to hybrids. A lot will depend upon battery cost and resource availability. In the mean time, infrastructure will be built up over the coming decades. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

And those that fall into your hesitant category just love being called troglodytes because they aren't jumping in the bandwagon fast enough. 
 

im just not seeing the "hesitants" making these same generalizations and doing their best to make anyone not agreeing with them look uneducated and backwards. Maybe I'm missing it but I know that I don't appreciate it much. 

I think I was unclear.  There is nothing "troglodyte" about resistance.  Perhaps those automotive milestones were a non issue BECAUSE of the scrutiny that came from resistance.  I just feel that many of those milestones (and hopefully the EV milestone) have been proven non-destructive to the automotive industry.  It's just counterpoint.

Example:  Asbestos.  When we discovered that it can be very harmful/potentially fatal, we said "ban that E36 M3."  Resistance said, "hey, wait, before we do that, there is an impact to the economy and people's jobs are at stake."  Now that we're years into not using asbestos in certain applications, you don't hear some old, crusty Asbestos local 315 union worker complaining about how he lost his job, you hear that union worker being glad that his stage 1 lung cancer wasn't stage 4.

I could be totally wrong about EVs, I'm just saying that throughout history in thousands of situations, the resistance ended up embracing the new and moving on to resist the next thing.  I think your resistance is a valuable part of the balance.  My issue is that sometimes when a resistance-minded person is faced with credible intel that refutes the impetus for resistance, they resist the intel itself, which isn't always helpful.

You do you.  I'm cool.  Thanks for contributing.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

That's what the Borg said she they came to my house...LOL.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

No one is currently building infrastructure.  There is no glory in it, no money for it and the people leading the way wouldn't know infrastructure if a bridge fell on them.  I admire your faith on this one, but the existing infrastructure is being patched together beyond its intended lifespan.  You should try to meet some linemen.  Heck if you can do the job you can make $150k a year no degree needed.  
 

And as I've tried to teach you all before (and failed because no one can penetrate narrative) a power grid needs big machines spinning at a constant frequency to even exist.  No big turbines, no grid..  And no one wants to build those anymore.  That's one reason why we are entering an energy crisis of stupidity.  

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

No such thing as fossil fuel it's a misnomer.  The electrical generation power to convert to EVs doesn't currently exist.  We are in an energy crisis of stupidity.  It isn't going to improve via government mandates either.  
 

I know EVs will win in the end.  The path there should be through investment and innovation though.  In the meantime, enjoy the stupid.  It's gonna get bumpier.  
 

Fossil fuels rolls off the tongue much easier than "hydrocarbon-containing materials of biological origin occurring within Earth’s crust." I think it's going to be a long transition, with plug in hybrids occupying most of the market for a significant length of time. Even the strictest mandates allow for hybrids. The pure EV chunk will grow and then plateau a bit. Incentives will fall away, some early adopters will go back to hybrids. A lot will depend upon battery cost and resource availability. In the mean time, infrastructure will be built up over the coming decades. 

I guess I agree with your progression.  
  The Wright Brothers started flying around the turn of the century and it wasn't until the later 1930's  that a  real passenger plane started taking  even 2% of the train traffic. 
  Same with cars in general.  From the French "ammo wagon". Until cars were 2% of horse traffic. We are talking about 100+ years. 
    In retrospect it's pretty "easy" to show how things developed and why.  But that doesn't change the time it actually took.  

Opti said:

Saying the grids capacity problem is understated is a crazy statement.

Yes, it will have to be improved wether we adopt EVs or not, but it can't be dismissed as a trivial undertaking. It's massive.

The grid has problems dealing with today's energy requirements, very early in the stages of EV adoption. It is becoming increasingly unreliable.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-power-grid-is-increasingly-unreliable-11645196772

Regulation and "green energy" are largely making it an even bigger problem. "Green energy" isn't green or efficient.

 

Local generation = local consumption. 
   Solar, wind, hydro,  fuel fired. 
  Transit losses are real.  If you have a giant plant burning some fuel  in Wyoming  by the time it gets used up  more  of it will just be lost  than used.  
     If you bring that fuel to an urban area more will be used ( and money earned )  but the by product of converting that fuel with do more damage  than if it's burned in Wyoming. 
    People have to breathe. If the stuff they breathe  is filled with toxics, poisons, and foulness  some good and innocent people will pay a severe price.  

bobzilla said:

In reply to Chris_V :

I've seen more than a few. But I'm sure its all lies. 

Which ones have you seen,? Early Volts with 16kWh batteries that have a 35 mile range (2000 cycles on that is 70k electric miles before needing battery replacement) or early Leafs with non thermally managed batteries that have similar timeframes before needing (cheap) replacement batteries? Or early compliance cars with short ranges that ALSO have lower overall lifespans due to smaller battery capacity and thus more charge cycles for their lifetimes?

Here's a Bolt at nearly 200k miles that still has full range left:

z31maniac said:

frenchyd said:

Chris_V said:

bobzilla said: 11 years that ev may be needing a $2500 battery change. That changes the math yet again.

Modern thermally controlled batteries have ~2000 charge cycles before they are degraded to the point it's really noticeable (but still plenty useful for stationary storage. BTW, Teslas are showing that they lose about 10% of range from degradation in the first 5 years, then it tapers off after that, with many of the earlier versions hitting over 300k miles in taxi service). 2000 charge cycles on a car with 250 miles of range is 500,000 miles before needing a battery. By that point the car will be toast around it anyhow.

Getting tired of the fear of battery replacements out of warranty.

It's ironic that GM did the right thing by replacing all the batteries free under warranty.   Acting like a proper corporation should.  
  Yet those who are not ready to face the future distort that into the idea  that lithium  batteries are as fragile  as lead acid.  
      While nobody is forcing  people to buy  EV's  and there are still mostly ICE cars around.    Some are acting like they are on the way to the guillotine rather than being offered a chance to spend less money on transportation.   
  Even ICE devotes should welcome EV's.  The more EV's the less competition  for gasoline.   The lower the demand, prices should drop, right?  Free market and all that!   

No one is acting like they are going to be killed regarding the change to EV's. Leave the hyperbole somewhere else. 

Many, including myself, realize the current electricity and charging infrastructure isn't being built out quickly enough to coincide with how quickly many governments across the globe want to make the change. Aside from their not being enough chargers, many that aren't Tesla, are frequently non-functioning. 

One of many articles on the subject vs just making things up:
https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/17/23308612/ev-charging-broken-unreliable-survey-jd-power

Here's me charging my first Bolt on one of my monthly trips to eastern CT from here in Baltimore (700 miles round trip). Not an issue.

As i said, back when I got it in 2020, I couldn't drive it to my brother in law's home in Tennessee as the charging infrastructure was not built out there. By 2022, that was easy to do. Here's my wife in the new car on a trip down to her brother's home in TN last month. Lots of charging opportunities on that trip now (900 miles round trip). It's just not as bad as critics like you think it is. And it's getting better every single week.

Why do people with no experience keep arguing with those that HAVE experience? I've been studying EVs since 2006 and driving electric since 2013. You?