EPA makes new EV/pollution rules for passenger vehicles
- Thread starter Saltwater60
- Start date
stokes
.338 Win Mag
Thank god they werent around during the ice age, we'd still be eatin frozen eskimo pussy.
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
could someone copy and paste the article, Im not giving them my email addressSeems they are backing off a bit and instead of 2030 it’s now 2032 for 67% of vehicles being EV. They are also embracing hybrid car sales. I want neither and I’ll stick with gasoline. I’ll be buying a new truck in 3-5 years so should be good timing for me.
Biden seeks to accelerate the EV transition in biggest climate move yet — The Washington Post
The Environmental Protection Agency is imposing America’s strictest limits on greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles.apple.news
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
there is another problem, no one seems to want to talk about: TIME!!!
ok, you rent a EV, you drive it 150 miles, you have 20% left in the battery. You find a charge station with 4 Tesla superchargers ( 900+volts.
) GREAT, but wait, two are occupied, and the other two don't work. The two that are occupied are stuck there. The occupants may have plugged in and wandered off for a nice afternoon of shopping or a nice dinner. They may not be back for a few HOURS or more. Now YOU have to wait to charge your EV. Obviously, with a gasser, it's fill and go, with an EV its "Holy shit, I found a working charge station, I'll plug in and go (somewhere--anywhere) for the day and when I get back it should be fully charged".
Fuck the six other cars that need to charge.
In other words, unless they can get the charge time down to 10 minutes or less, AND *they* demand people stay with the car, this is going to be a huge problem. No one wants to wait HOURS to charge your car. Once you get to charge, how long before you are even at 80%, then YOU wander off shopping for a few hours....
Now, if you're just bombing around town and have a charge station at home (240V) and can charge all night, no biggy, right.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
Refresh and stop will defeat the popup. Then just listen to the article if it doesnt fully load
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Not maybe, DEFINITELY worse. Green energy is a lie so the left can keep getting paid by China.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Correct but the battery is used as a counter weight and isn’t on the chassis. Forklift have no cooling/heating system for the batteries and nowhere near as many electrical connections that cars have. Fork trucks are a very simplified version of this and have a much different purpose and design.
ManualF150
.308 Win
Also most of them are inside a cozy warehouse where it's somewhat climate controlled.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Here is a Wall Street journal opinion piece on it. I think it’s pretty good actually.
Literature warns those who would meddle with great romances, be it Iago or Emma. Woe betide Joe Biden, now scheming to break Americans’ love affair with their automobiles.
This week’s Environmental Protection Agency tailpipe rule amounts to an imminent ban on gasoline-powered cars, never mind the soothing language of “incentivizing” a “transition.” Last year, 84% of all cars sold in America were powered by internal-combustion engines. By 2027, the government will restrict that share to 64%. In eight years, the cap will be 29%. High demand for the few gasoline vehicles still made at that point will drive up prices, making them unattainable to anyone but a limousine liberal. It’s a ban.
It’s also political malpractice. As he often has, Mr. Biden is dancing to the tune of a very loud if notably small progressive constituency—in this case, the climate lobby. It is made up largely of affluent city-dwellers—a white-collar elite. Climate is their First World problem, and they are going to vote for Mr. Biden anyway.
Who else approves? The White House will point to a cheerleading automotive industry, but peek behind the pom-poms and you see an administration with a gun to carmakers’ heads. Ford and General Motors can either beg politely for more subsidies or confront reality and express disapproval, in which case they’ll get nothing. The United Auto Workers leadership—stuck with its Biden endorsement—dug deep to produce a few words expressing support, bracketed by hundreds more explaining that when all this goes wrong for its members it will somehow be Wall Street’s fault.
Arrayed against this coalition is everyone else. The White House press release touting its “historic progress” in electric cars struggled to quote any powerful players beyond the Environmental Defense Fund and Al Gore. Auto dealers—still powerful political players in many congressional districts—are actively campaigning against the rule, and more than 5,000 recently sent a letter to the White House decrying the rule as “completely unrealistic.” Manufacturers think it’s nuts. State attorneys general are gearing up to sue.
Mr. Biden has stepped crosswise with voters. Pollster Scott Rasmussen recently asked how respondents view new “regulations that would effectively outlaw the manufacture and sale of gasoline-powered cars.” Only 14% were strongly in favor. Nearly 60% were opposed. A slight majority of Democratic voters (53%) favored the idea, but 59% of independents and 76% of Republicans opposed it. Among income groups, only those earning more than $150,000 a year had majority support (51%).
READ MORE POTOMAC WATCH
The Trump-Biden Codependency
Mitch McConnell, by the Numbers
Sifting the FBI’s Garbage
Down With Special Counsels
T he subject matter (autos) and the clarity of the ban hand Republicans a potent election weapon. The Biden administration has issued all manner of destructive environmental rules, but many center on obscure words like “ambient air quality” or “polyfluoroalkyl substances.” Cars and trucks? Americans understand those—and love them.
They understand that no Tesla is going to function in the bitter cold of a Wisconsin or Alaska winter; no Ford Lightning will manage the work of a Montana ranch or a Kansas farm. They understand a ban means the end of entire lifestyles that require reliability, distance and towing power—boating, hunting, off-roading, camping, snow-machining, horse hauling. The White House may not be able to tell a toy hauler from a travel trailer, but millions of Americans can and do—and won’t give either up without a fight.
It’s a tailor-made issue for Donald Trump, a perfect summation of his opponent’s radicalism. His campaign immediately trashed the rule as a diktat that will “force Americans to buy ultra-expensive cars they do not want and cannot afford while destroying the U.S. auto industry.” Just wait until he gets around to the bumper-sticker formula: “They’re coming for your truck.” An energy trade group has already been up with ads making that point in swing states, calling on Americans to reject Biden’s “EPA car ban.”
House Democrats have already expressed some unease over the politics. Republicans last fall brought two car-freedom bills to floor votes; they picked up eight Democratic supporters in one vote, five in the other. While not huge numbers, the defections are notable in a Democratic caucus that maintains zero tolerance for dissent. Republicans are already rushing to force Democrats to defend and protect the Biden ban specifically, with votes in both the House and Senate to kill the rule under the Congressional Review Act.
Today’s Democratic Party is entirely dedicated to the proposition that all Americans should be told how to live. Yet rarely are its leaders so baldly open with their intentions. Mr. Biden has helpfully clarified that this election will directly decide what choices—if any—Americans have going forward. That’s a powerful club to hand the opposition.
Write
Cavalry
.308 Win
Yes and no. While much more simple, newer lifts are lithium ion, everything is integral to the pack. Most electric trucks are surely used in warm warehouses, but the big distribution centers are also running them in freezers all day.
Jsmegs77
.308 Win
I like renting Teslas from Hertz... they practically throw them at you for the price of their cheapest economy car. Last one I rented, for a quick weekend trip to LI, was $38 a day. I topped it off at home before I left with the included 110/220 charger, drove to my destination with one 15 minute Supercharger visit while getting coffee, and charged it overnight at my destination. Reverse on return, I spent more in tolls than I did on charging.
There's a use case for them, but it's been massively, MASSIVELY oversold and tried to make fit where it doesn't. And the whole green thing is utter and complete bullshit upon bullshit. The pollution is just relocated to China where our fucktards in charge can't see it and thus can pretend it doesn't exist.
There's a use case for them, but it's been massively, MASSIVELY oversold and tried to make fit where it doesn't. And the whole green thing is utter and complete bullshit upon bullshit. The pollution is just relocated to China where our fucktards in charge can't see it and thus can pretend it doesn't exist.
Willyone
6.5 Creedmoor
Pollution is also moved to the site where electricity to charge the battery is generated. Green fucks won't mention or address that either.
It's good that the USA is so full of stupid people.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Correct. I camp and have a camper and I’m not willing to give that up or deal with the hassle of charging on the way.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
It’s now more expensive to charge your EV than it is to fill up a gas equivalent
OPINION | REVIEW & OUTLOOK (U.S.)
Biden’s EV Mandate Blows Its Cover
The EPA’s new tailpipe emissions rule is a plan to eliminate gas-powered cars.
Follow the WSJ in Apple News
Biden officials are stressing that the new auto greenhouse gas emissions standards they rolled out on Wednesday aren’t an electric-vehicle mandate. But the liberal press and climate lobby don’t buy it, and neither should Americans.
T he Environmental Protection Agency somewhat eased CO2 emissions requirements through 2030 from its proposal last spring while maintaining essentially the same end-point for 2032. That means gas-powered cars can make up no more than 30% of auto sales by 2032. Make no mistake: This is a coerced phase-out of gas-powered cars.
Auto makers lauded the Administration for “moderating the pace of EV adoption” in “the next few (very critical) years of the EV transition” while calling its targets “still a stretch.” The Administration has taken auto companies hostage, threatening to cause financial carnage across the industry with its EV mandate. CEOs are grateful for the delay in execution.
EVs made up less than 8% of new auto sales last year, and more than half were Teslas. They accounted for less than 4% of General Motors and Ford sales. Foreign luxury auto makers such as BMW (12.5%), Mercedes (11.4%) and Porsche (10%) will have an easier time meeting the Biden mandates because their affluent customers can more easily afford EVs.
The average price of a new EV is roughly $50,000, and only two cost less than $40,000 as of December: the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf. Some makers have slashed EV prices to boost sales, but they are also losing money. Ford ran an operating loss of $4.7 billion on its EV business in 2023, equivalent to $64,731 per EV sold.
The companies are heavily subsidizing EVs with profits from gas-powered cars. This means middle-class Americans in Fargo are paying more for gas-powered cars so the affluent in Napa Valley can buy cheaper EVs. This cost-shift won’t be financially sustainable as the Biden mandate ramps up, and it may not be politically sustainable either.
Most popular gas-powered pickups emit about 430 grams of CO2 per mile. Under EPA’s final rule, trucks will have to average 184 g/mile in 2027, 128 g/mile in 2030 and 90 g/mile by 2032. Ergo, the companies will effectively have to produce one to two electric trucks for every gas-powered one in 2027. The ratio will be closer to four to one by 2032.
EPA claims the rule preserves “consumer choice” because hybrids and plug-in hybrids can help meet the standards in the early years. But auto makers will have no choice but to limit gas-powered, and increase EV, production to meet the mandates. The only “choice” Americans will have in the future is electric.
Stellantis is already reducing deliveries of popular gas-powered cars to states that follow California’s EV mandate. If you like your Jeep, better hope it doesn’t break down.
The White House claim that the standards will boost jobs, reduce pollution and save consumers tens of billions of dollars in fuel costs is false advertising. EVs require many fewer parts and workers to produce. Major auto makers have cut thousands of jobs in the past couple of years to finance their EV “transitions.”
Lower auto profits will also hurt Detroit’s workers who receive profit-sharing bonuses. Companies hope to make EVs profitable through increased manufacturing efficiencies, but this will also likely mean fewer jobs. Technological disruption sometimes causes job losses, but the culprit here will be government mandates, not consumer preference.
As for pollution, gas-powered cars emit more particulate matter and NOx from tailpipes than EVs. But battery-powered cars are heavier and cause more wear and tear on roads and tires, which produces more soot. Generating electricity and producing the batteries that power EVs also creates particulate pollution.
A new Panasonic EV battery plant in Kansas that will receive billions of dollars in subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act is forcing a local utility to keep open a coal plant that was scheduled to close. Congratulations, Mr. President, for increasing coal production.
A PODCAST FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
J oe Biden Rolls Out His EV Mandate for America
*
Not long ago, it was cheaper to fuel up an EV than a gas-powered car. No longer thanks to the government’s force-fed renewable transition, which is raising electricity prices. Fueling up a Ford F-Series truck now costs about $17 per 100 miles on average compared to $17.75 for an F-150 Lightning with mostly home-charging and $26.39 with mostly commercial chargers.
Biden officials believe that with enough subsidies, consumers will buy EVs. Beijing thought the same. Yet EVs that Chinese consumers don’t want are now sitting on scrap yards and flooding foreign markets.
Donald Trump was right when he pointed out last weekend that President Biden’s EV mandate will do great harm to the U.S. auto industry. But the Biden White House is determined to remake the industry, no matter the damage.
Opinion Spotlight
Timely and provocative commentary from the Editorial Page. Includes a free article, daily.
OPINION | REVIEW & OUTLOOK (U.S.)
Biden’s EV Mandate Blows Its Cover
The EPA’s new tailpipe emissions rule is a plan to eliminate gas-powered cars.
Follow the WSJ in Apple News
Biden officials are stressing that the new auto greenhouse gas emissions standards they rolled out on Wednesday aren’t an electric-vehicle mandate. But the liberal press and climate lobby don’t buy it, and neither should Americans.
T he Environmental Protection Agency somewhat eased CO2 emissions requirements through 2030 from its proposal last spring while maintaining essentially the same end-point for 2032. That means gas-powered cars can make up no more than 30% of auto sales by 2032. Make no mistake: This is a coerced phase-out of gas-powered cars.
Auto makers lauded the Administration for “moderating the pace of EV adoption” in “the next few (very critical) years of the EV transition” while calling its targets “still a stretch.” The Administration has taken auto companies hostage, threatening to cause financial carnage across the industry with its EV mandate. CEOs are grateful for the delay in execution.
EVs made up less than 8% of new auto sales last year, and more than half were Teslas. They accounted for less than 4% of General Motors and Ford sales. Foreign luxury auto makers such as BMW (12.5%), Mercedes (11.4%) and Porsche (10%) will have an easier time meeting the Biden mandates because their affluent customers can more easily afford EVs.
The average price of a new EV is roughly $50,000, and only two cost less than $40,000 as of December: the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf. Some makers have slashed EV prices to boost sales, but they are also losing money. Ford ran an operating loss of $4.7 billion on its EV business in 2023, equivalent to $64,731 per EV sold.
The companies are heavily subsidizing EVs with profits from gas-powered cars. This means middle-class Americans in Fargo are paying more for gas-powered cars so the affluent in Napa Valley can buy cheaper EVs. This cost-shift won’t be financially sustainable as the Biden mandate ramps up, and it may not be politically sustainable either.
Most popular gas-powered pickups emit about 430 grams of CO2 per mile. Under EPA’s final rule, trucks will have to average 184 g/mile in 2027, 128 g/mile in 2030 and 90 g/mile by 2032. Ergo, the companies will effectively have to produce one to two electric trucks for every gas-powered one in 2027. The ratio will be closer to four to one by 2032.
EPA claims the rule preserves “consumer choice” because hybrids and plug-in hybrids can help meet the standards in the early years. But auto makers will have no choice but to limit gas-powered, and increase EV, production to meet the mandates. The only “choice” Americans will have in the future is electric.
Stellantis is already reducing deliveries of popular gas-powered cars to states that follow California’s EV mandate. If you like your Jeep, better hope it doesn’t break down.
The White House claim that the standards will boost jobs, reduce pollution and save consumers tens of billions of dollars in fuel costs is false advertising. EVs require many fewer parts and workers to produce. Major auto makers have cut thousands of jobs in the past couple of years to finance their EV “transitions.”
Lower auto profits will also hurt Detroit’s workers who receive profit-sharing bonuses. Companies hope to make EVs profitable through increased manufacturing efficiencies, but this will also likely mean fewer jobs. Technological disruption sometimes causes job losses, but the culprit here will be government mandates, not consumer preference.
As for pollution, gas-powered cars emit more particulate matter and NOx from tailpipes than EVs. But battery-powered cars are heavier and cause more wear and tear on roads and tires, which produces more soot. Generating electricity and producing the batteries that power EVs also creates particulate pollution.
A new Panasonic EV battery plant in Kansas that will receive billions of dollars in subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act is forcing a local utility to keep open a coal plant that was scheduled to close. Congratulations, Mr. President, for increasing coal production.
A PODCAST FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
J oe Biden Rolls Out His EV Mandate for America
*
Not long ago, it was cheaper to fuel up an EV than a gas-powered car. No longer thanks to the government’s force-fed renewable transition, which is raising electricity prices. Fueling up a Ford F-Series truck now costs about $17 per 100 miles on average compared to $17.75 for an F-150 Lightning with mostly home-charging and $26.39 with mostly commercial chargers.
Biden officials believe that with enough subsidies, consumers will buy EVs. Beijing thought the same. Yet EVs that Chinese consumers don’t want are now sitting on scrap yards and flooding foreign markets.
Donald Trump was right when he pointed out last weekend that President Biden’s EV mandate will do great harm to the U.S. auto industry. But the Biden White House is determined to remake the industry, no matter the damage.
Opinion Spotlight
Timely and provocative commentary from the Editorial Page. Includes a free article, daily.
Along with all of the EV crazy is the Fed and State govts drooling over the new tax revenue stream they'll create by charging $ per mile traversed on roadways! Soon after, in all probability, a tax per ton of breath exhaled per person, per year on your Fed Taxes!
Lol
You are thinking traditional battery set ups with individual batteries tied together, etc. But no, the design is a complete self contained unit, which would be handled mechanically, the only connection would be the final connection of the unit to the vehicle, very simple actually. No need for lifts even as old style PIT drive ups could be made, the drained unit drops and slides out, the new one slides over and in! And again, the batter units get to be kept and controlled, recycled, recharged in a controlled environment, etc. No bullshit 120v plugins taxing the consumer grid! And delivery of HV needed for the fast charging of power units is more readily available where gas & service stations already are!
Ultimately I don't give a shit, because I'm never buying an EV... Maybe, and a big maybe, a Hybrid, ok.
Ultimately, this (EV) bullshit, along with other delusional crap instituted by the Federal Govt like the coming Kill Switch will drive up prices on older vehicles! Unless they outlaw gasoline vehicles in it's entirety which would be a real stretch!
The current administration would need to win the election, and control both houses in Congress AND swing the SCOTUS to a Liberal majority... And that's not happening any time soon!
Just thoughts...
Lol
You are thinking traditional battery set ups with individual batteries tied together, etc. But no, the design is a complete self contained unit, which would be handled mechanically, the only connection would be the final connection of the unit to the vehicle, very simple actually. No need for lifts even as old style PIT drive ups could be made, the drained unit drops and slides out, the new one slides over and in! And again, the batter units get to be kept and controlled, recycled, recharged in a controlled environment, etc. No bullshit 120v plugins taxing the consumer grid! And delivery of HV needed for the fast charging of power units is more readily available where gas & service stations already are!
Ultimately I don't give a shit, because I'm never buying an EV... Maybe, and a big maybe, a Hybrid, ok.
Ultimately, this (EV) bullshit, along with other delusional crap instituted by the Federal Govt like the coming Kill Switch will drive up prices on older vehicles! Unless they outlaw gasoline vehicles in it's entirety which would be a real stretch!
The current administration would need to win the election, and control both houses in Congress AND swing the SCOTUS to a Liberal majority... And that's not happening any time soon!
Just thoughts...
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If you wanted to make an electric car battery a quick swap item, you could solve all those problems. You're probably going to take a 10% penalty on weight and bulk to do it, but it all those connectors would be standardized and integrated into one monster plug, and you would be swapping out the whole trunk or something with an on site robotic gantry crane. Have to keep your luggage under the hood.
It would be like going through a car wash.
But, to make it work, all the packs would been to be standardized across all manufacturers.
They would have to be like AA batteries where everything uses the same ones, not like cordless tool batteries where your Milwaukee doesn't fit my Dewalt.
It would be a mess if you have to find a charge station that carries the right battery for your make and model.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Yes you could make it work but it’s not as easy as menu think. The current cars are all designed with batteries on the chassis so removing them as you state is not currently practical. Then you have large batteries that weigh 7,000-9,000 lbs and adding that much weight in the truck can be problematic. That can cause it to be less safe and adding a lot of stopping time to the car.
What I’ve seen is they want the batteries to stay on the chassis and essentially lift the entire top of the car off but that’s not easy to do. I personally think for the most part this isn’t feasible and EVs are dying. Biden is trying to fix this through government mandates.
ManualF150
.308 Win
I'm not totally against EVs. What I am against is not giving the consumer the choice of using the following viable fuels: Gas, Diesel, or Electric.
There should be laws that prevent a manufacturer to completely ridding themselves of conventional normal fossil fuel vehicles and offer at least ONE vehicle (passenger car, SUV, pickup truck) that runs on all three fuels, or a combination of those three in their line up.
And I'm not talking about class 2 or class 3 heavy duty pickup trucks. Those don't count!
I'm pissed that there are NO NEW diesel passenger cars/sedans available. At least GM is producing SUVs and a half ton pickup truck with a diesel still.
I hope Trump does something about this if he gets re-elected. I'd love for him to push mandated regular fossil fuel vehicles. I'd love to see Tesla have to offer a gas and diesel Tesla model. I'd laugh my ass off.
There should be laws that prevent a manufacturer to completely ridding themselves of conventional normal fossil fuel vehicles and offer at least ONE vehicle (passenger car, SUV, pickup truck) that runs on all three fuels, or a combination of those three in their line up.
And I'm not talking about class 2 or class 3 heavy duty pickup trucks. Those don't count!
I'm pissed that there are NO NEW diesel passenger cars/sedans available. At least GM is producing SUVs and a half ton pickup truck with a diesel still.
I hope Trump does something about this if he gets re-elected. I'd love for him to push mandated regular fossil fuel vehicles. I'd love to see Tesla have to offer a gas and diesel Tesla model. I'd laugh my ass off.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
I’m mostly against EV’s. I hate them and I hate everything they stand for. I dislike the smug idiots that drive their $96,000 Tesla and think they are better than you or me. If you drive a mustang GT 500 and you think you’re better than me fine I can accept that but not the Tesla douche’s. Do I think they shouldn’t be sold? No, if you want one fine. What makes me the maddest is all the lies and government money behind them to make them work or force them on us. There’s a reason why and there’s no benefit to one. I recently read an article where each tax payer will be on the hook for something like $70,000 per EV sold.
They really need to move towards hydrogen and make everyone happy.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
No, EVs are the future. They will overtake combustion as surely as cars overtook horses.
They are just not as close as their proponents want them to be.
20-30 years out, they will be 90% of the vehicles on the road. But that's 20-30 years, not 5-10.
The infrastructure will get upgraded, the charging problems will get solved. Those are largely the same problem BTW. Put enough super chargers out there and it becomes a non issue, even with today's technology.
It *will* take a massive investment in the infrastructure though. You're talking a 300-400% increase in the capacity of the electric grid, minimum. But, when charging ports are as common as parking meters a lot of the issues will go away.
Basically, the vehicles are there. They will get better, but they're good enough right now.
There just isn't enough support infrastructure for widespread adoption.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
I disagree and think hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Hydrogen can be used to power everything and clean. They are finding many sources of ground source clean hydrogen and hydrogen can be made now with wind and solar cutting out the pollution. Biden even gave money to it and the car manufacturers said this is where they will go but EV’s are a stopgap. The citizens will not accept EVs for what they are now and it will tank them. It’s possible if they are the only thing offered that they will take off but people are bucking them now. This new EPA BS could cost them the election along with a few other things. If the republicans are smart they will use this to win but we know they aren’t so who knows.
Willyone
6.5 Creedmoor
I'm not disagreeing with you but, H powered vehicles won't go anywhere unless or until DC elected officials can $benefit from it. Not much moves ahead without them getting their pockets lined.
By forcing the transition now they are actually helping the gas industry.
EVs will get a serious black eye and a permanent bad reputation for inefficiency, cost, maintenance, etc. More and more people will see them as a liability, rather than as an asset.
The only thing that will continue their deployment is a one-party rule. Once someone with a more conservative ideology gains power EVs will be crushed. Any potential benefit EVs, or Hybrids, could make would be overshadowed by their epic failure now.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
There are companies working on it and Biden did give some money to this. They know it’s the future as well. Sea travel is already moving this direction.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Hydrogen has an even bigger infrastructure problem than electricity.
We already have a nationwide distribution network for electricity, it just needs to be beefed up.
Building a whole new Hydrogen distribution infrastructure is at least an order of magnitude harder.
With electric, we don't have enough, but it is *everywhere* so you can add a low level charger anywhere already, you just can't add a whole bank of big ones.
The infrastructure for hydrogen is much much harder to build out.
ManualF150
.308 Win
Also Hydrogen has a big problem. To compete with a diesel for instance, you would need almost 2x as much Hydrogen as to the 1x amount of diesel.
That means some massive tanks on trucks. Even on the consumer use ones.
I still believe biofuels (plant based) fuels are the true winners. Ethanol and biodiesels. No conversions require for fueling stations. So the infrastructure is already there.
Just tailor up the fuel system to run on petrochem and biochem based fuels. Can easily be done with computers now a days onboard.
That is why there still needs to be an abundance of all three types. Mostly gas and diesel vehicles though. Keep the EVs for the cities or folks that have a true need or desire for them.
That means some massive tanks on trucks. Even on the consumer use ones.
I still believe biofuels (plant based) fuels are the true winners. Ethanol and biodiesels. No conversions require for fueling stations. So the infrastructure is already there.
Just tailor up the fuel system to run on petrochem and biochem based fuels. Can easily be done with computers now a days onboard.
That is why there still needs to be an abundance of all three types. Mostly gas and diesel vehicles though. Keep the EVs for the cities or folks that have a true need or desire for them.
Other than availability, Hydrogen issues are slowly being eradicated... Vehicle storage being one. But that has been fixed with the storage cell design now resembling a honeycomb shape. Amazingly increases storage capacity and almost eliminates explosion issues, lol.
Back to batteries...
You really have to put your head to this. The trunk issue, etc. No, the batteries won't be 'lifted' out if the car, EV's have their batteries as part of the structure underneath the floorboards etc. And this is my point. There isn't a traditional drive train as the motors driving the wheel are actually attached to the wheel. There's nothing underneath the center f the vehicle. You only lose a few inches of height. The under floor structure would be easily removable, as a separate section, with quick disconnects and standardization is easy as well. All it requires is Congress enacting a useful law for a change and FORCE standards, force manufactures to 'own' the battery, manufacture, maintenance and recycling thereof... The disconnect and then lowering of a 1,000lb 4'x6' box would not be an issue, let alone if it was all standardized. Isn't as hard as some think. It just requires thinking outside the box and implementation, with support from consumers, industry and law making it all happen!
The EV effort as it exists how is a half hearted bullshit billboard campaign to rubbing tree huggers backsides!
Wait for all this to come home to roost!
www.instituteforenergyresearch.org
Long after our time, when these Lithium Love Canals begin to pop up and all those tree huggers find out that the devil we knew was far better than the one we didn't will all still express denial and blame others for their folly. Politicians will sweep the dust of regret or shame from their lapels like dandruff...
Again, I see the ICE vehicles maintaining a market share regardless of these efforts. Mainly because there will be large swaths of roadway and regions unfriendly to the tech! Regardless of why!
Back to batteries...
You really have to put your head to this. The trunk issue, etc. No, the batteries won't be 'lifted' out if the car, EV's have their batteries as part of the structure underneath the floorboards etc. And this is my point. There isn't a traditional drive train as the motors driving the wheel are actually attached to the wheel. There's nothing underneath the center f the vehicle. You only lose a few inches of height. The under floor structure would be easily removable, as a separate section, with quick disconnects and standardization is easy as well. All it requires is Congress enacting a useful law for a change and FORCE standards, force manufactures to 'own' the battery, manufacture, maintenance and recycling thereof... The disconnect and then lowering of a 1,000lb 4'x6' box would not be an issue, let alone if it was all standardized. Isn't as hard as some think. It just requires thinking outside the box and implementation, with support from consumers, industry and law making it all happen!
The EV effort as it exists how is a half hearted bullshit billboard campaign to rubbing tree huggers backsides!
Wait for all this to come home to roost!
The Environmental Impact of Lithium Batteries
During the Obama-Biden administration, hydraulic fracturing was accused of causing a number of environmental problems—faucets on fire, contamination of drinking…
www.instituteforenergyresearch.org
Long after our time, when these Lithium Love Canals begin to pop up and all those tree huggers find out that the devil we knew was far better than the one we didn't will all still express denial and blame others for their folly. Politicians will sweep the dust of regret or shame from their lapels like dandruff...
Again, I see the ICE vehicles maintaining a market share regardless of these efforts. Mainly because there will be large swaths of roadway and regions unfriendly to the tech! Regardless of why!
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Honestly, if you had an unlimited cheap supply of hydrogen, it would probably be cheapest and easiest to run it through a refinery and convert it with CO2 into a liquid hydrocarbon, then just use the existing distribution network.
Distribution is the only hard part for any of them. Production and making cars that run on it is easy.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Consumers now no longer just need an EPA miles-per-gallon (mpg) rating for vehicles. Consumers need to be shown a dollars-per-mile (dpg) for new vehicles.
The DPG should be updated on the fly, daily, for all cars on a dealer's lot based on average price per kilowatt hour and average price for a gallon of 87 octane fuel in a 100 mile radius. This can be displayed with a simple reusable tablet along with a standard window sticker.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
I disagree. Yes the grid is there but chargers arent and the grid is not up to par and needs to be entirely upgraded for this. Also hydrogen can be handled in much the same manner as gasoline or propane. Hydrogen fills faster than a charge and lasts much longer than the current batteries do. You’ll need less filling stations than chargers. Also many chargers are constantly broken at a rate of 40-50% at times.