20-30 years for EV transition?

ctenidae

Well-Known Member
First Name
Alex
Joined
Jan 19, 2022
Threads
33
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
1,789
Location
Stamford, CT
Vehicles
DMG GT; Taycan, Q7, Sienna Hybrid
Occupation
Solver of problems
Country flag
When someone who is an advocate of others (climate) needs actually lives (i.e. sacrifices) like they propose others do, then I may start paying attention. I've yet to come across such a person. Ed Bagley comes close, though.
Respectfully, I don't think anyone who puts "climate" in the plus column when considering getting an EV cares whether you pay attention or not. A significant portion of the population isn't absolutist and believes that every little bit counts.

A lot of people who consider driving an EV to be good for climate related reasons have driven EV adoption, most often by just buying a car and paying for charging. Much more visible are greenwashers, of course, and they draw the most ire, it seems.

In any case, choosing a car is a matter of balancing a variety of compromises, as are so many other choices in life.
Sponsored

 

Gloff

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Mar 26, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
212
Reaction score
345
Location
San Francisco
Website
www.serramonteford.com
Vehicles
2023 Mach E RWD X, 2003 BMW Z4, 2013 Tesla Model S
Occupation
Sales Manager
Country flag
For sure that battery would fix the problem.

I just think it’s a fairy tale.

Just like gas engines, batteries have been developing for 100+ years.

I bet the likelihood of a battery/electric motor combo that weighs, charges and costs less than a gas engine and tank is as likely as a gas engine that’s 90% efficient.

It’s just not likely. That's why I hope we continue to look for and develop other fuel sources.

Definitely agree on the last a paragraph.
If you told the average American in 1994 that only thirty years later a watch would out have 100x the computing power of a home computer, they'd tell you you're crazy.

Electric motors are incredibly reliable and efficient, which is why so much stock is being put into energy storage to power those devices. I agree we should develop multiple fuel sources, but they have to be clean and ideally renewable.
 

corradoborg

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jun 9, 2023
Threads
0
Messages
128
Reaction score
190
Location
Aptos, CA
Vehicles
2023 Mach-E Premium AWD SR
Country flag
I was more pointing out that people who are expecting the transition to happen in the next 10 years are ignoring certain economic and manufacturing realities. I don't think California's mandate of 2035 is realistic for 100% ZEV. Probably gets pushed to 2040 around 2028-2029. I don't see us giving up our Highlander Hybrid anytime soon, too.
Nothing in California's 2035 law would require you to give up the Highlander anyway. Only new vehicles sold would be required to be ZEV. It allows a natural phase-out of remaining non-ZEV cars as they are wrecked, stop working, or are retired at their owners' choice.

You're probably right that 2035 is an unrealistic cutoff and will have to be pushed out. But it was still smart to choose 2035 as the initial cutoff. It will encourage innovation while companies try to meet that deadline. A later date would allow for complacency. When they inevitably have to push it out, we'll still be technologically ahead of where we would be if the initial law said 2040 from the get go.
 

devmach-e

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
1,171
Reaction score
1,429
Location
SF Bay Area
Vehicles
2022 Premium RWD ER, 2016 Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Occupation
Unix Sysadmin
Country flag
Nothing in California's 2035 law would require you to give up the Highlander anyway. Only new vehicles sold would be required to be ZEV. It allows a natural phase-out of remaining non-ZEV cars as they are wrecked, stop working, or are retired at their owners' choice.

You're probably right that 2035 is an unrealistic cutoff and will have to be pushed out. But it was still smart to choose 2035 as the initial cutoff. It will encourage innovation while companies try to meet that deadline. A later date would allow for complacency. When they inevitably have to push it out, we'll still be technologically ahead of where we would be if the initial law said 2040 from the get go.
I didn't mean to imply that I had to give up my Highlander in 2035. I'm merely pointing out that a pure ZEV future for us personally right now is not a viable path.

I'm fully aware of what the "law" requires. And I say "law" because California hasn't actually passed a new law banning new ICE-powered vehicles. All they've done is approve new emissions regulations. New regulations that were prompted by the current governor stating a lofty goal that he wants to see be accomplished long after he is out of office. The "law" that lets them do it has been around for over half a century.

CARB could take a look at the state of the market in 2030 and realize that we're a ways away from hitting the goal and push it to 2040. Or a future more conservative administration may decide that the whole idea is unachievable and abandon it. I do agree that drawing a line in the sand (2035) is a good way to light a fire under manufacturer's butts to get them to start actually working towards a ZEV future, rather than have an open-ended requirement.
 


devmach-e

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
1,171
Reaction score
1,429
Location
SF Bay Area
Vehicles
2022 Premium RWD ER, 2016 Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Occupation
Unix Sysadmin
Country flag
People that can charge at home and have typical daily commutes are good candidates for BEVs. But people also buy cars to meet all their needs. If they take several road trips a year, they need a car that can do that. If they're outdoors people and take frequent day trips out to the wilderness every weekend, they need a car that can do that. Commuting/errands is only one part of people's needs. Telling people to rent a different car for their other use cases is not a valid retort. Telling people to just change their lifestyle is bs. Telling people that no one needs something that does something you don't personally have a need for is just typical being stuck in your own echo chamber.
If you are a multiple car household, there's little reason to not have one of the cars be a BEV. And it might turn out that the BEV can do road-trip duty. At least that's been my experience. We've taken the Mach-E for road trips, and we've take the Highlander.
 
OP
OP
Mach1E

Mach1E

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Threads
76
Messages
7,865
Reaction score
9,789
Location
Florida
Vehicles
Mach 1, Chevy SS-sold, GTPE delivered oct 2021
Country flag
This is a thorough response, and I appreciate that.



How often are you making these trips? This is certainly a fringe case, how many people in the US are actually regularly taking 600 mile trips? Most people are flying that.



No doubt, my argument is that your above argument is a unique lifestyle, most people would fly that distance.



If the infrastructure was better, would that not make the Mach E as enjoyable as the MY?



Why not, it's an operational characteristic of the vehicle, and not that complicated. Someone has to show you how to put gas in the car the first time, then it's pretty easy from there. My point is that the charging hardware is not uniform, that's a teething issue that could be resolved with some regulation.



EA isn't interested because they were forced to do it. There is money in fast charging, it's just not mature yet. Technology will have to improve, energy generation will have to be cleaner and more efficient. These things are not overnight changes, I understand that.

I want to make clear, I'm not talking about regulation of pricing/cost. I'm talking regulation of components. Gas stations sell the same grade of fuel that must meet certain regulations and that fuel must be dispensed using regulated equipment.

That being said, most infrastructure doesn't make money directly. It's social and societal profit. The interstate system makes $0 (not withstanding some toll sections), but its a benefit to the entire country. People are up in arms about taxes/government paying for EV infrastructure because of the political tilt, not because it could be a benefit or determent to the public at large. EV's have become a political hot button issue linked to climate change, both sides of the aisle are guilty here.



Tesla doesn't make money selling cars, they make money from regulatory credits. I agree their charging infrastructure is just plain better. I'm saying that any regulation could use the SC network as a basis for it's requirements. Standardization would go a long way to expanding the network and streamlining costs.



100% agree. Density, Charge times, AND infrastructure need to be improved. Solid state may help with density and charge time, but infrastructure is a massive part of this.



I agree with you, I'm just making the argument that the daily commute individuals are the majority, and the massive road trippers and outdoors people are the outliers. I'm a sales person by nature, so objections trigger my brain to overcome them. It's ok that people don't want them, but for those of us that do, and want to see more adoption, we know what's needed:
The hard part is you’re assuming people buy cars based on need rather than want.

I would bet most 4x4 SUVs and trucks rarely if ever tow anything or go off-road.

People don’t pay extra for 4x4 for the 95% use cases.

It’s the same with other products. Here in Florida, people take $600,000 triple engine boats on cruises to the beach. If the purchase was based on need, they’d have spent $30k on a simple pontoon boat.
 
OP
OP
Mach1E

Mach1E

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Threads
76
Messages
7,865
Reaction score
9,789
Location
Florida
Vehicles
Mach 1, Chevy SS-sold, GTPE delivered oct 2021
Country flag
If you told the average American in 1994 that only thirty years later a watch would out have 100x the computing power of a home computer, they'd tell you you're crazy.

Electric motors are incredibly reliable and efficient, which is why so much stock is being put into energy storage to power those devices. I agree we should develop multiple fuel sources, but they have to be clean and ideally renewable.
Computing power is exponential.

Battery power isn’t.

Based on the movies that came out around 1994 about the “future” around 2024, I would actually argue the opposite.

People in 1994 would be extremely disappointed with the lack of technological progression over the last 30 years. They were expecting much more than just smart watches and faster computers. Hoverboards, flying cars and self tying shoes come to mind! 😂
 

Hammered

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2022
Threads
26
Messages
1,275
Reaction score
1,136
Location
SE US
Vehicles
2022 PB F150, MME GTPE
Country flag
Respectfully, I don't think anyone who puts "climate" in the plus column when considering getting an EV cares whether you pay attention or not. A significant portion of the population isn't absolutist and believes that every little bit counts.
China has ~100 coal power plants currently under construction. I am not, nor have I ever been concerned about the AGW grift (outside of the hidden costs buried everywhere due to the $1tril+ that it's already redistributed in the economy). My decisions are made around the financials of it and how it benefits me. The loud mouths pushing the AGW grift often have energy usage just in their aircraft alone that exceeds that of a few dozen typical households combined. How anyone can take them serious is hilarious to ponder.
 

Gloff

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Mar 26, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
212
Reaction score
345
Location
San Francisco
Website
www.serramonteford.com
Vehicles
2023 Mach E RWD X, 2003 BMW Z4, 2013 Tesla Model S
Occupation
Sales Manager
Country flag
Computing power is exponential.

Battery power isn’t.

Based on the movies that came out around 1994 about the “future” around 2024, I would actually argue the opposite.

People in 1994 would be extremely disappointed with the lack of technological progression over the last 30 years. They were expecting much more than just smart watches and faster computers. Hoverboards, flying cars and self tying shoes come to mind! 😂
I think that's short sighted. Who is to say there's not a Moore's law equivalent for battery tech that hasn't been discovered yet? The semiconductor didn't exist when room sized computers were using vacuum tubes.

I'm not saying EVs are a panacea, just that they're a step in the right direction knowing what we know about combustible fuels and their byproducts.
 
OP
OP
Mach1E

Mach1E

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Threads
76
Messages
7,865
Reaction score
9,789
Location
Florida
Vehicles
Mach 1, Chevy SS-sold, GTPE delivered oct 2021
Country flag
I think that's short sighted. Who is to say there's not a Moore's law equivalent for battery tech that hasn't been discovered yet? The semiconductor didn't exist when room sized computers were using vacuum tubes.

I'm not saying EVs are a panacea, just that they're a step in the right direction knowing what we know about combustible fuels and their byproducts.
Me, I’m saying there isn’t a Moore’s law with battery tech.

It’s a physics problem. You can only store so much electricity in a physical space.

It can get incrementally better, but not exponentially better.

It’s like solar panels. Only so much solar energy comes in contact with a certain area. We are near the limits there too.
 

Gloff

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Mar 26, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
212
Reaction score
345
Location
San Francisco
Website
www.serramonteford.com
Vehicles
2023 Mach E RWD X, 2003 BMW Z4, 2013 Tesla Model S
Occupation
Sales Manager
Country flag
Me, I’m saying there isn’t a Moore’s law with battery tech.

It’s a physics problem. You can only store so much electricity in a physical space.

It can get incrementally better, but not exponentially better.

It’s like solar panels. Only so much solar energy comes in contact with a certain area. We are near the limits there too.
I'm no expert, could there possibly be a different storage device, in theory?

Gasoline has incredibly high energy density, yes? If we could utilize that energy without waste heat, gasoline engines would be twice as efficient, correct?

Lithium metal is the best we discovered thus far.
 
OP
OP
Mach1E

Mach1E

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Threads
76
Messages
7,865
Reaction score
9,789
Location
Florida
Vehicles
Mach 1, Chevy SS-sold, GTPE delivered oct 2021
Country flag
I'm no expert, could there possibly be a different storage device, in theory?

Gasoline has incredibly high energy density, yes? If we could utilize that energy without waste heat, gasoline engines would be twice as efficient, correct?

Lithium metal is the best we discovered thus far.
That’s the thing, we tried all the materials.

I do think we should focus on other things to make electricity. Kinda what they are doing with hydrogen if we want to decrease weight and refueling times.
 

voxel

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nelson
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Threads
22
Messages
1,840
Reaction score
1,681
Location
Altamonte Springs, FL
Vehicles
22 Mach-E 4X, 23 GC Limited
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
Honestly I don’t care how complex or simple it is if it gets the job done efficiently and reliably.

People seem to equate simplicity with reliability and unfortunately that hasn’t been the case for BEVs. Same goes for the cost of repairs.
EV powertrains (motors and inverters) have been reliable and could last 20+ years easily with maybe only minor part replacements like bearings or seals. It's batteries that struggle to survive past 8-10 years.
 

voxel

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nelson
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Threads
22
Messages
1,840
Reaction score
1,681
Location
Altamonte Springs, FL
Vehicles
22 Mach-E 4X, 23 GC Limited
Occupation
Software Engineer
Country flag
That’s the thing, we tried all the materials.

I do think we should focus on other things to make electricity. Kinda what they are doing with hydrogen if we want to decrease weight and refueling times.
And hydrogen has show us how difficult it is to move away from gasoline.

The compression + chilling + transporting of hydrogen fuel is extremely dangerous and complex. Hydrogen for passenger cars is dead. Pipelines need to be sealed to prevent hydrogen from leaking. Tanks are heavily re-inforced for the chilled/compressed hydrogen. Extracting hydrogen is mostly a dirty process. There's plenty of loss just chilling/transporting hydrogen from source to refuel station and supposed these refuel stations are broken more than EA chargers.

I still think PHEVs are the best solution for the next 20 years. EVs are fantastic at urban driving - highly efficient and low polluting (in the immediate air). Gasoline is great for long-range driving due to range and refuel times. Mix the two and you have a PHEV :)

Also we don't need to build complex expensive new delivery mechanism that hydrogen would.
Sponsored

 
 




Top