|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 24, 2021 0:20:37 GMT
The road runs both ways, though. Doesn't it? Contrary to the claim, nothing is sitting still, and nobody expects current infrastructure to meet the full demand. Infrastructure WILL need to be developed, and that is really the point of what is being discussed. Whether we are at 100% EV or just 20% EV in 14 years, infrastructure will need to be built to support it. Now from Toyota's statement, the author kind of took off on his own direction with a few unsupported statements to try to make a different point. Without supporting his statements a little better, he's not proving much, though. If someone is a true believe in that viewpoint, I guess proof will not be necessary, though, right? Yes it does. We had a Prius once. It was OK but not special. I think that EVs should be allowed to compete head-to-head ... no government subsidies ... and see who wins. Same for solar and wind ... on a non-emergency basis. Let the buyers decide and let the government stay out of it. Certain true believers seem intent on requiring everyone to do as they say. I partially agree. Shouldn't we also get rid of the oil subsidies while we're doing that? Bailouts for companies like GM and Ford?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 24, 2021 0:54:02 GMT
Yes it does. We had a Prius once. It was OK but not special. I think that EVs should be allowed to compete head-to-head ... no government subsidies ... and see who wins. Same for solar and wind ... on a non-emergency basis. Let the buyers decide and let the government stay out of it. Certain true believers seem intent on requiring everyone to do as they say. I partially agree. Shouldn't we also get rid of the oil subsidies while we're doing that? Bailouts for companies like GM and Ford? Yes we should. Only caveat I'd put on that would be based on foreign subsidized industries and national security. Tarrifs may be preferable to individual company subsidies. I believe that the government should pursue policies that preserve and enhance employment for Americans while encouraging productivity and product quality. Energy security is critical. The type of energy should be determined by market forces, not idealogy.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 24, 2021 1:02:29 GMT
The road runs both ways, though. Doesn't it? Contrary to the claim, nothing is sitting still, and nobody expects current infrastructure to meet the full demand. Infrastructure WILL need to be developed, and that is really the point of what is being discussed. Whether we are at 100% EV or just 20% EV in 14 years, infrastructure will need to be built to support it. Now from Toyota's statement, the author kind of took off on his own direction with a few unsupported statements to try to make a different point. Without supporting his statements a little better, he's not proving much, though. If someone is a true believe in that viewpoint, I guess proof will not be necessary, though, right? Yes it does. We had a Prius once. It was OK but not special. I think that EVs should be allowed to compete head-to-head ... no government subsidies ... and see who wins. Same for solar and wind ... on a non-emergency basis. Let the buyers decide and let the government stay out of it. Certain true believers seem intent on requiring everyone to do as they say. That is the problem. Mandates are never efficient use of resources.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 24, 2021 3:00:30 GMT
The oil companies pay a lot of revenue to all governments of the world. Much is made of subsidies to oil and companies what are they because we need some now.
The energy output of a windmill is something like a few barrels per day equivalent how can that be unsubsidized. No fool would invest.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 24, 2021 19:45:40 GMT
The oil companies pay a lot of revenue to all governments of the world. Much is made of subsidies to oil and companies what are they because we need some now. The energy output of a windmill is something like a few barrels per day equivalent how can that be unsubsidized. No fool would invest. The idea in most cases is one of internalizing externalities. Oil is used for cars, so we need infrastructure for cars. We would tax oil to build these roads, and also to build other infrastructure that depends on the oil. So what happens when gas-burning cars make up a lower percentage of the cars on the roads? I'm sure we'll see, but I'm certain that roads are not going to become cheaper, so something else will be taxed. The subsidies are a separate matter from internalizing externalities, though. I'm not really sure how you would compare a windmill energy output to a barrel of oil, to be honest. Only a relatively small percentage of the energy contained in a barrel of oil is usable, for starters, and I've never tried to dig into that comparison.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 24, 2021 20:15:54 GMT
There will be a separate meter for vehicle charging. Last proposal I read indicated a $0.05 per KW user tax which would replace current fuel taxes.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Mar 24, 2021 21:51:36 GMT
[/quote]? Bailouts for companies like GM and Ford?[/quote]
heres the thing the bail out keeps people in jobs .. what should happen is all upper management should be booted on the spot ..they are the ones that messed up ..keep the doors open and put in fresh blood ..
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 25, 2021 1:10:28 GMT
do agree with that, how deep do you slice carefully with this.
I prefer also the concept of new employment contracts where you choose who and then much less paid.
Many are passengers on the machine and have the capability.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 25, 2021 1:20:38 GMT
? Bailouts for companies like GM and Ford?[/quote] heres the thing the bail out keeps people in jobs .. what should happen is all upper management should be booted on the spot ..they are the ones that messed up ..keep the doors open and put in fresh blood .. [/quote] People at Tesla are working, too. They also need to be in jobs. Yes, people in upper management messed up. What happened to them? All I hear is back-porch talk about that. I don't have any real information about what happened to them. If car companies mess up again and miss the new disruption, then they'll be back, but with GM announcing they are going to be all-electric by 2035, it seems they are expecting a disruption, and they're not wanting to get left behind again. That's really what I see happening with people of our generation - we're missing the disruptions. I actually want to make another post about that, though, and leave this post focused where it is.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 25, 2021 1:47:41 GMT
Slightly related:
I wonder if Elon has shelved plans to move operations to Texas after their recent power problems?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 25, 2021 1:54:24 GMT
There is a sappy old cartoon that I actually love about an old man and woman sitting by the fire and reminiscing about their young years. At one point in their memories, the man (young at that point) bought a car and took the woman on a date in their early model car. It was going well until the car broke down, at which time the woman (young at that point) exclaimed "Ah, get a horse!" That's exactly where I see our generation right now with this kind of critical talk. We're talking about 2035 - 14 years from now. At that time, if I'm still above the grass, I'll be well up into my 70s. Many more of my classmates and friends will have passed on. As insane as this sounds to me, our two eldest kids will be in their early 50s, and I won't have any kids younger than 40. Four of my grandkids will be college age. I hope to be retired and have travelled a lot more with my lady, and I hope she's still with me. It won't be our world then - it will be theirs. So the first point is: For us to sit here and talk about what people will want at that time is silly. My kids want very different things in the world than I did when I was young. (Remember it was my eldest son who convinced me about EVs). I don't see anything wrong with what they want, but I recognize there are some challenges to be overcome for them to get there. That's what they're talking about, and our generation is the ones sitting back telling them they can't do it, and many of the reasons we give are just showing our ages. New houses that are built these days are built with the capacity to put in car chargers. When we talk about how many chargers are needed like it's some unachievable number, it's missing things like that. There is not a 1:1 relationship to number of gas pumps to number of fast chargers specifically because most cars will be charged at home most of the time - not fast chargers. The last house I lived in in California was built to be able to install two vehicle chargers. In my current house, I had three NEMA 14-50 plugs installed specifically so three cars could charge there. Our neighborhood needs new electrical lines just so these towering evergreens don't fall on the lines and knock out power out every time we get a good wind storm around here, so it's something that is going to have to be done anyway - we might as well plan for the disruption. 3/4 standards current exist for vehicle charging, and far from what people have said about it not being successful without a single standard, they are beginning to accommodate more than one vehicle type, with the exception of Tesla. EVGo currently has Tesla connectors in their stations, and almost all of them have J1772, and Tesla has an adapter they ship with their own car to allow them to use J1772 if necessary. However; Tesla's current supercharger network is the best one out there. They may not be in the future, but it doesn't worry me. Electrify America's biggest investor is Volkswagen, and their network continues to be built out by hundreds each year. Tesla's network continues to be built out by hundreds each year. Look here for the 5 largest non-Tesla charging networks currently in the US: www.mirrorreview.com/top-5-electric-vehicle-charging-networks/Of course things are being rebuilt. Of course there are challenges. But 15 years ago most retailers didn't believe that some startup internet book seller would disrupt retail the way Amazon has, and many of those brick and mortar stores are gone because they missed it. Amazon became a disruptor in Tech as well, but Microsoft, Google, and some others saw what was coming and changed course to be disruptors instead of out-of-business. Many others, such as Oracle, didn't catch on as quick, and they dropped from prominence quickly. My guess is that in the future, there will be more than one fuel type that is used in cars. Because I have so much emotional investment in hydrogen fuel cells, I hope it is one of them, but it must be more efficient and less costly to compete. I've read many other concepts (one of them just using compressed air - I kid you not), and the battery electrical vehicle is ahead of all of them right now. It may not stay there, but it's there, now. I work with a lot of very bright millennial engineers and scientists. You can stop laughing at them - there are MANY who are VERY bright and capable, and they're NOT naïve like they're always portrayed. These things are the problems they want to take on. My bet is on them much more than a bunch of us old farts sitting around nay-saying. I'm still relevant, but if I become just another old fart sitting around nay-saying, I won't be relevant until that desired retirement date. Yes, government got involved in some places. Government also got involved when TV transmission was going SD to HD. I griped about that at the time, but in retrospect, I think it brought something better about. In this case, cities like Los Angeles, while they have come a long ways since the 1970s still have a long ways to go to get their air healthy. In a case like this, I think government entities may need to step in with a few goals, and some of those may need to be mandated. Nobody is going to be forced to live there, but if you choose to live there, you'll need to comply with local regulations, and it appears that will include vehicle regulations. LA is nowhere near cities like Seoul with their public transportation system, and they're not even going that direction, so planning for air quality with transportation that will exist is going to be necessary for more population. For that matter, even cities like Tulsa are developing serious air quality problems - how many "Ozone alerts" do they go through in any one summer? Since I haven't lived there for a number of years, I don't know now, but it is a health issue. Will electric vehicles get us there? Probably not by itself, but it is likely a step in that direction. Since it is a health issue for my kids' and my grandkids' generations, I think us old farts who won't be here when they are dealing with the situation might want to listen to what concerns them and lend our experience and expertise where it is helpful. For companies like GM, Ford, Chrysler, they all missed the boat before. They might want to pay attention to the direction of the industry and not be disrupted again, lest they wind up like Sears. That's my thought on it. There's a problem. Our kids' generation wants to work on it and do it differently from how we did it, but a lot of us are just sitting in the passenger seat saying "Ah! Get a horse!"
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 25, 2021 2:08:01 GMT
Slightly related: I wonder if Elon has shelved plans to move operations to Texas after their recent power problems? I understand he personally/officially moved to Austin in December. The factory there is still being built even after the power outages. I don't really know if Tesla headquarters will be moved there as there was even some disagreement about whether he meant he was moving the Tesla headquarters or not. The new factory in China is now in operation, and the one in Germany is still supposed to become operational this year.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 25, 2021 3:38:07 GMT
There is a sappy old cartoon that I actually love about an old man and woman sitting by the fire and reminiscing about their young years. At one point in their memories, the man (young at that point) bought a car and took the woman on a date in their early model car. It was going well until the car broke down, at which time the woman (young at that point) exclaimed "Ah, get a horse!" That's exactly where I see our generation right now with this kind of critical talk. We're talking about 2035 - 14 years from now. At that time, if I'm still above the grass, I'll be well up into my 70s. Many more of my classmates and friends will have passed on. As insane as this sounds to me, our two eldest kids will be in their early 50s, and I won't have any kids younger than 40. Four of my grandkids will be college age. I hope to be retired and have travelled a lot more with my lady, and I hope she's still with me. It won't be our world then - it will be theirs. So the first point is: For us to sit here and talk about what people will want at that time is silly. My kids want very different things in the world than I did when I was young. (Remember it was my eldest son who convinced me about EVs). I don't see anything wrong with what they want, but I recognize there are some challenges to be overcome for them to get there. That's what they're talking about, and our generation is the ones sitting back telling them they can't do it, and many of the reasons we give are just showing our ages. New houses that are built these days are built with the capacity to put in car chargers. When we talk about how many chargers are needed like it's some unachievable number, it's missing things like that. There is not a 1:1 relationship to number of gas pumps to number of fast chargers specifically because most cars will be charged at home most of the time - not fast chargers. The last house I lived in in California was built to be able to install two vehicle chargers. In my current house, I had three NEMA 14-50 plugs installed specifically so three cars could charge there. Our neighborhood needs new electrical lines just so these towering evergreens don't fall on the lines and knock out power out every time we get a good wind storm around here, so it's something that is going to have to be done anyway - we might as well plan for the disruption. 3/4 standards current exist for vehicle charging, and far from what people have said about it not being successful without a single standard, they are beginning to accommodate more than one vehicle type, with the exception of Tesla. EVGo currently has Tesla connectors in their stations, and almost all of them have J1772, and Tesla has an adapter they ship with their own car to allow them to use J1772 if necessary. However; Tesla's current supercharger network is the best one out there. They may not be in the future, but it doesn't worry me. Electrify America's biggest investor is Volkswagen, and their network continues to be built out by hundreds each year. Tesla's network continues to be built out by hundreds each year. Look here for the 5 largest non-Tesla charging networks currently in the US: www.mirrorreview.com/top-5-electric-vehicle-charging-networks/Of course things are being rebuilt. Of course there are challenges. But 15 years ago most retailers didn't believe that some startup internet book seller would disrupt retail the way Amazon has, and many of those brick and mortar stores are gone because they missed it. Amazon became a disruptor in Tech as well, but Microsoft, Google, and some others saw what was coming and changed course to be disruptors instead of out-of-business. Many others, such as Oracle, didn't catch on as quick, and they dropped from prominence quickly. My guess is that in the future, there will be more than one fuel type that is used in cars. Because I have so much emotional investment in hydrogen fuel cells, I hope it is one of them, but it must be more efficient and less costly to compete. I've read many other concepts (one of them just using compressed air - I kid you not), and the battery electrical vehicle is ahead of all of them right now. It may not stay there, but it's there, now. I work with a lot of very bright millennial engineers and scientists. You can stop laughing at them - there are MANY who are VERY bright and capable, and they're NOT naïve like they're always portrayed. These things are the problems they want to take on. My bet is on them much more than a bunch of us old farts sitting around nay-saying. I'm still relevant, but if I become just another old fart sitting around nay-saying, I won't be relevant until that desired retirement date. Yes, government got involved in some places. Government also got involved when TV transmission was going SD to HD. I griped about that at the time, but in retrospect, I think it brought something better about. In this case, cities like Los Angeles, while they have come a long ways since the 1970s still have a long ways to go to get their air healthy. In a case like this, I think government entities may need to step in with a few goals, and some of those may need to be mandated. Nobody is going to be forced to live there, but if you choose to live there, you'll need to comply with local regulations, and it appears that will include vehicle regulations. LA is nowhere near cities like Seoul with their public transportation system, and they're not even going that direction, so planning for air quality with transportation that will exist is going to be necessary for more population. For that matter, even cities like Tulsa are developing serious air quality problems - how many "Ozone alerts" do they go through in any one summer? Since I haven't lived there for a number of years, I don't know now, but it is a health issue. Will electric vehicles get us there? Probably not by itself, but it is likely a step in that direction. Since it is a health issue for my kids' and my grandkids' generations, I think us old farts who won't be here when they are dealing with the situation might want to listen to what concerns them and lend our experience and expertise where it is helpful. For companies like GM, Ford, Chrysler, they all missed the boat before. They might want to pay attention to the direction of the industry and not be disrupted again, lest they wind up like Sears. That's my thought on it. There's a problem. Our kids' generation wants to work on it and do it differently from how we did it, but a lot of us are just sitting in the passenger seat saying "Ah! Get a horse!" I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The problem today, "note today", is EV are excellent for certain applications. The limiting factor is energy density. I think 40% of cars sold in 2030 will be electric. They will be practical for limited range commuters. Local haul freight will be electric. Long haul? Nope. Energy density. Construction equipment? Nope. Farm equipment? Nope. If there is a breakthrough in battery technology, that will change the equation. Wind and solar do not have the generation capacity (intermittent nature), to provide the energy requirements. Nuclear does, as well as fossil fueled electric plants. The US uses approximately 7 million barrels of oil per day for transportation. The GW requirements to replace that are huge.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 25, 2021 15:36:25 GMT
With current battery technology, it will be impossible to use 🔋 for long haul service. Also, heavy equipment and agricultural needs. The limiting factor is weight. To provide the energy of 300 gallons of diesel fuel, equivalent weight of a lithium battery is 60+ tons. 300 gallons of diesel fuel weights approximately 2300 lbs.
Recharge time for a 5,000KW battery, even with a rapid charge is over 24hrs.
Just a few thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 25, 2021 16:33:19 GMT
With current battery technology, it will be impossible to use 🔋 for long haul service. Also, heavy equipment and agricultural needs. The limiting factor is weight. To provide the energy of 300 gallons of diesel fuel, equivalent weight of a lithium battery is 60+ tons. 300 gallons of diesel fuel weights approximately 2300 lbs. Recharge time for a 5,000KW battery, even with a rapid charge is over 24hrs. Just a few thoughts. THINKS: Sounds like it's time I bought some lithium shares.
|
|