If global warming could be stopped and earth saved by ending the use of all forms of electricity, would you do it?

[mom2rtk]

an electric car transmission has 20 parts, a gas engine transmission has 2000. At some point electric cars will be much cheaper.

It doesn't mean people can afford to pay more up front to avoid expense down the road.

When the electric cars become cheaper, won't the demand rise organically?

 

[MillauFr]

Progress used to occur in this country via the free markets and capitalism not through government regulation and intervention. If everyone wanted an electric car then that’s all companies would make.
We should be able to choose I’m not going to have an actor or politician telling me what to drive when they are taking private jets to climate summits and have homes that use more electricity than some small towns. Last time I checked this was America.

Did the oil industry evolve without government regulation and intervention? Of course not. Suburban development and car dependent lifestyles were heavily dependent on government zoning policies and freeway building. If the government hadn't built freeways out to the country so people could move there and drive to their jobs in the cities places like Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta would look far different today than had those freeways not been built.

 

[longboard55]

It doesn't mean people can afford to pay more up front to avoid expense down the road.

When the electric cars become cheaper, won't the demand rise organically?

Car companies are gearing up rapidly based on demand, VW just started producing 7000 a month in a new plant in Tennessee. They see the future.

 

[Colleen27]

Natural sources like wood have less problems for the ozone than fossil fuels. As far as dirtier methods for renewable energies, modern advanced machines can make the energy in a safe and healthy way for the planet.

But ozone is only one part of a bigger picture. Particulate emissions (soot/ash), carbon emissions, the destruction of the carbon sink that forests currently provide, etc. all have to factor in as well. And all of that (plus the factor someone mentioned earlier about it being easier to scrub emissions at a central power generation facility than at millions of point-of-use chimneys/tailpipes, create a situation where our current methods are better than anything that came before. The solution is to move forward, not look back.

No we don't. We are very divided. To think that the US can exist in it's current form and continue to be the number one economy is a pipe dream. What's an even bigger pipe dream is to think that countries around the world are going to unite, join hands and buy into this green madness. It's more likely to lead to another World war. Unless Europe changes course they are in deep dog doo doo and so are we.

I think you might be right about the number one economy thing - it stands to reason that some of the nations that have 3+ times our population will surpass us if they can maintain even modest levels of economic growth and shared prosperity (that second being the real challenge for most). But I can't foresee any way the US breaks up. I don't think anyone here, no matter how divided they think we are, has an appetite for the kind of chaos that would cause. I especially don't think those in whose hands power is concentrated would ever permit such a thing. It would be too bad for business.

It's far more likely that angry people from California and Washington State will move to Texas and Oklahoma where they'll be able to buy ICE cars and gas stations to fill up for a longer period of time. I can't speak to what it's like to drive any EV but a Tesla Y, which is what I have....but of other EVs are half as much fun to drive, and as easy to plug in and maintain....most people will wish they'd gotten an EV sooner. I just don't see EV vs. ICE car as an issue that we "take to the streets" over.

Or not even move, just fly out to Nevada to buy that gas car that can't be sold in CA and then drive it on home. That's the problem with state-by-state restrictions on products. You ever pass through a dry county and see all the liquor stores stacked up just outside the county line? That's what would happen with ICE vehicle dealerships.

Yes, all new cars are expensive now. Which is why a lot of people never buy one. They buy much cheaper used cars to get by.

Apparently CA (and nearly a dozen other states saying they plan to follow suit) thinks EVs work for everyone since they plan to ban the sale of gas powered cars after 2035.

Of *new* gas powered cars. Which is another point against the policy. It isn't the new ICE cars that add the most to the emissions. It is my son's '94 Silverado and his grandmother's '88 Mercury. And even with a ban on new gas powered cars, people in our income bracket will be many years away from being able to afford even an older used EV (assuming the battery life issues have in fact been resolved well enough that there will someday be 20yo EVs on the road).

 

[Ms.Minnie]

A high percentage of the population would see each of these as being shoved down their throats.

Same sex marriage
School integration
The Civil Rights Act of 1964

There are others. The government often has to drag their population into the future.

Thanks for these examples. I don't see these changes the same way I see banning fossil fuel vehicles, they just aren't the same. Your examples are social changes, banning fossil fuel is an economic change, not the same at all but I thank you just the same.

Is it so terrible that light bulbs now last 25 years and use very little power. A lot of people were real upset with the change

LOL, I have those light bulbs in my house and guess what? They don't all last 25 years and they are a problem when you need to dispose of them. You can't just through them in the trash like the old type lightbulb. This is a perfect example of EVERYTHING has a cost and NOTHING is perfect.

Actually I recall when there were big battles over car safety seat belts and air bags, the car manufacturers really fought it. So we reduced deaths per mile by 75% since the 60s.

Cars back in the 50s and 60s were like tanks. They were very heavy, and they didn't go as fast as the cars today. If they were involved in a crash, they didn't crumble the way cars today do. With the newer vehicles we need seat belts because the cars today just aren't as safe as the cars of yesterday for the reasons stated above.

 

[dvcgirl67]

Many people are angry because they see what the green madness is doing to our economy. There's a lot of people struggling right now because of inflation reportedly one in six households are behind on their energy bill. So wealthy people telling them to go buy an electric car is insulting and is just going to cause more anger. It also shows how juvenile and out of touch some people in the upper income brackets are.

I’m curious…. what is your definition of wealthy… from an income and net worth perspective?

 

[kdonnel]

Thanks for these examples. I don't see these changes the same way I see banning fossil fuel vehicles, they just aren't the same. Your examples are social changes, banning fossil fuel is an economic change, not the same at all but I thank you just the same.

You are just on the other side of this issue so the change seems wrong.

Others gave examples of forced technology.

 

[longboard55]

Thanks for these examples. I don't see these changes the same way I see banning fossil fuel vehicles, they just aren't the same. Your examples are social changes, banning fossil fuel is an economic change, not the same at all but I thank you just the same.



LOL, I have those light bulbs in my house and guess what? They don't all last 25 years and they are a problem when you need to dispose of them. You can't just through them in the trash like the old type lightbulb. This is a perfect example of EVERYTHING has a cost and NOTHING is perfect.



Cars back in the 50s and 60s were like tanks. They were very heavy, and they didn't go as fast as the cars today. If they were involved in a crash, they didn't crumble the way cars today do. With the newer vehicles we need seat belts because the cars today just aren't as safe as the cars of yesterday for the reasons stated above.

The crumpling is a major safety feature, they are designed to crumple on impact to protect the occupants and absorb energy.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

Cars back in the 50s and 60s were like tanks. They were very heavy, and they didn't go as fast as the cars today. If they were involved in a crash, they didn't crumble the way cars today do. With the newer vehicles we need seat belts because the cars today just aren't as safe as the cars of yesterday for the reasons stated above.

This is so wrong I don't know where to start.
-Crumple zones absorb impact over a longer period of time which reduces the amount of force on occupants.
-The passenger cell of modern cars is stronger than ever. Things like hoods/trunks may crumple but you won't see pillars failing or passenger compartment intrusion
-Seat belts have nothing to do with the strength of vehicles. They stop "secondary collisions" like your body hitting the dash board.

 

[Colleen27]

CA has set a dead line for the sale of new exclusively gasoline powered cars. NOT set a deadline for the sale of new gas powered cars.

If that is how the law is written, I object less than I would otherwise. The reporting I've seen has compared it to the bans some European countries have approved, which also ban hybrids and even plug-in hybrids. Which might be viable in the UK, where even "long" drives by regional standards are under the range of a typical EV and battery-killing cold isn't an annual reality, but not so much in the US.

When is that?

EV batteries last 10-20 years and are warrantied by law for 8 years and 100,000 miles.

Replacing your battery in an EV is not something many will ever need to do.

But this is assuming there's no need for a used vehicle market at all. My first four or five cars, pretty much everything I drove before my 30s, had 100K+ miles on them *when we bought them*. I've never retired a car with less than 200K, and have gotten a few to 250K+. My daughter's first car will be my 12yo minivan, still running strong with 224K on it now but mostly retired to be a spare until DD gets her license. Needing a $10,000 repair after 100K miles or so would make the economics of all those older cars entirely impossible, with devastating consequences for the millions of people for whom 8 years/100K miles isn't a old car whose time has passed.

We are a long way from what the EV will eventually will become. A ton of money is being spent on developing the next generation of batteries. Think of the PC in the 80s and where we are now. We live in south orange county, the one in California, we have loads of EVs and people do seem to love them. As far as producing electricity, solar works great out west, again its a case of inventing the large storage batteries so we can eventually become 100% solar, but they are working on it

And when we get there, I'm all for the transition. But until then, while we're still in a place where you can pretty much only charge at home and on interstates, where you never know if the charging stations you mapped out will work, where winter slashes battery life by a third or more, etc., it doesn't make sense to mandate a product that doesn't meet the needs of many drivers.

 

[Colleen27]

The power black outs are a result of the power companies shutting down when there are high winds. We have had no power outages due to demand, that is a false rumor being used often. California produces close to zero electricity from coal. During afternoon hours about 70% is from renewable sources mostly wind and solar.

And that's great... but what does an EV owner do on a windy day when they need to charge to get to work? Regardless of the reason for the outages, doesn't it make more sense to address those infrastructure concerns before forcing huge increases in the load on the grid?

 

[longboard55]

No one is forcing anyone to buy an EV this year. Like I said, California likes to make these types of deadlines. If it does not work out they will change the deadline. China has passed us in EV production, Europe is moving quickly, some very smart people think we should keep moving and not lose an another industry.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

You are just on the other side of this issue so the change seems wrong.

Others gave examples of forced technology.

Not really, I just don't want to be forced into something that we as a nation aren't ready for. I'm sorry if you can't or won't understand that. Most examples given were social changes not economic changes. The light bulb change was made with flawed science results based on my experience with the new type of light bulbs, they don't last as stated and you can't just through them away because they are bad for the environment.

As far as seat belts and pollution reducing technology being forced on us, I agree with those changes. Cars aren't as safe as they used to be and too many people drive too fast in cars that aren't as sturdy as they used to be. I don't think anybody would disagree that we all should be doing what we need to do to reduce the pollution we put into our world.

The difference here is some leaders what to stop the use of all fossil fuel vehicles and that just isn't possible yet. We still need trucks, buses, airplanes and ships and our nation's infrastructure is ready to handle 100% EV cars. When we are ready, I'm sure many more people will begin to filter over to EVs.

 

[mom2rtk]

No one is forcing anyone to buy an EV this year. Like I said, California likes to make these types of deadlines. If it does not work out they will change the deadline. China has passed us in EV production, Europe is moving quickly, some very smart people think we should keep moving and not lose an another industry.

Pay no attention to what they're passing? Because they'll change it? You're serious about this in such an important piece of public policy?

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

And that's great... but what does an EV owner do on a windy day when they need to charge to get to work? Regardless of the reason for the outages, doesn't it make more sense to address those infrastructure concerns before forcing huge increases in the load on the grid?

What would they do if they needed gas? Seems like they would be stuck either way.

Regarding the increases in electrical demand we have to remember that the grid load is not static. We have a ton of capacity overnight currently and there is an argument that bi-directional chargers will allow EV vehicles to stabilize the grid. There is already a pilot program in North Carolina currently looking at this: https://electrek.co/2022/08/16/ford-duke-energy-use-ford-f-150-lightning-power-grid/

Electricity load by hour for the US:

Source: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

 

[Ms.Minnie]

The crumpling is a major safety feature, they are designed to crumple on impact to protect the occupants and absorb energy.

And squish the occupants?

This is so wrong I don't know where to start.
-Crumple zones absorb impact over a longer period of time which reduces the amount of force on occupants.
-The passenger cell of modern cars is stronger than ever. Things like hoods/trunks may crumple but you won't see pillars failing or passenger compartment intrusion
-Seat belts have nothing to do with the strength of vehicles. They stop "secondary collisions" like your body hitting the dash board.

Tell this to my DSis who ran into a tree and is now on the other side due to the crumpling of her car. If she had been in a tank (with a seat belt) she would probable still be here with us today.

 

[DCLMP]

I’m curious…. what is your definition of wealthy… from an income and net worth perspective?

I know a big portion of our economy works in the service industry making less than 50k a year. The average house hold income is 67k and only about 35% of households make over 100k. That’s a lot of people that can’t afford an electric car. The people in the service industry who cant work from home are the people making the least amount of money.
We have three cars ranging from 4, 10 and 16 years old. I cannot afford a new car nor do I need one and neither of us have the luxury of working from home.

 

[MamaMermaid]

That means no air conditioner... I'm in South Florida. Nope...

 

[Colleen27]

Not really, I just don't want to be forced into something that we as a nation aren't ready for. I'm sorry if you can't or won't understand that. Most examples given were social changes not economic changes. The light bulb change was made with flawed science results based on my experience with the new type of light bulbs, they don't last as stated and you can't just through them away because they are bad for the environment.

You keep saying this. What kind of bulbs are you talking about? Because this was true of the compact fluorescents that were the "next great thing" for about 15 minutes there, but I don't see those much anymore at all. LED bulbs, which are the most efficient energy-wise, can safely be tossed in the trash just like incandescent bulbs.

What would they do if they needed gas? Seems like they would be stuck either way.

Regarding the increases in electrical demand we have to remember that the grid load is not static. We have a ton of capacity overnight currently and there is an argument that bi-directional chargers will allow EV vehicles to stabilize the grid. There is already a pilot program in North Carolina currently looking at this: https://electrek.co/2022/08/16/ford-duke-energy-use-ford-f-150-lightning-power-grid/

Electricity load by hour for the US:

Source: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

You don't need gas every day, though. EVs do need to be charged every day or almost every day, to be practical for commuting.

I'm not saying the problems with EVs and grid capacity are insurmountable. I'm saying pilot programs like that are the best way forward until the problems are at least on a path to resolution, and that mandates are premature. Maybe @longboard55 is right and the ban is just aspirational, not something that will actually go into effect if the problems aren't resolved by the deadline, but it seems to me that that's a risky view to take of public policy.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

Tell this to my DSis who ran into a tree and is now on the other side due to the crumpling of her car. If she had been in a tank (with a seat belt) she would probable still be here with us today.

Condolences on your loss but it's very unlikely she would have been better off in an older car. As I mentioned, passenger compartment intrusion is a major area of focus and was exponentially worse in the past. That is before we get into features like collapsible steering columns or other things we assume as common sense today.

This was a 50 year delta test the IIHS did a while back. The difference in passenger protection is readily apparent: