Fossil fuel vehicles gone in 8 years

[jacee]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It would not be good.  It would be catastrophic.

No it wouldn't. People adapt.

And yes, the truckers would complain ... and then they would adapt.

Nothing changes until there's a force for change.

[sharkman]

7 minutes ago, jacee said:

I understand that my grocery store, bus, drug store, entertainment and everything I need are within a 5-10 min walk for me, so yes my situation is different than many ... not because I live in a city though: My small town childhood was the same.

I also know that living in a city, it often feels like there's little oxygen, not because of pollution per se - cars pollute much less these days, but internal combustion still eats up a lot of oxygen.

There is a real need for EV's in cities, and banning internal combustion engines within city limits. Right now would be good.

 

They are too expensive.  The batteries are super dangerous in a collision.  They are limited in distance travelled between charges.  Our electrical grid does not have anything close to the capacity needed to charge millions of new ev vehicles.  In BC, the new minority NDP government stopped completion of a huge hydro electric dam which would have helped with future demand to charge up these future vehicles.  The whole thing is just not reality.

 

I know you're going to respond with something glib and unrealistic.  It doesn't matter.  The reality of our electrical grid will not change.

Edited July 15, 2017 by sharkman

[Guest]

Just now, jacee said:

No it wouldn't. People adapt.

And yes, the truckers would complain ... and then they would adapt.

Nothing changes until there's a force for change.

Police cars, ambulances and fire engines all use internal combustion engines.

Then there's all those people who have to get to work.  And then there's the truckers you mentioned.

Maybe in fifty years or so...

 

[jacee]

5 minutes ago, sharkman said:

They are too expensive.  The batteries are super dangerous in a collision.  They are limited in distance travelled between charges.  Our electrical grid does not have anything close to the capacity needed to charge millions of new ev vehicles.  In BC, the new minority NDP government stopped completion of a huge hydro electric dam which would have helped with future demand to charge up these future vehicles.  The whole thing is just not reality.

 

I know you're going to respond with something glib and unrealistic.  It doesn't matter.  The reality of our electrical grid will not change.

All of those limitations are fast disappearing as the technology is improving leaps and bounds now.

That was the point of the article.

Did you read it?

[jacee]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Police cars, ambulances and fire engines all use internal combustion engines.

Then there's all those people who have to get to work.  And then there's the truckers you mentioned.

Maybe in fifty years or so...

 

Read the article.

We are on the cusp of one of the fastest, deepest, most consequential disruptions of transportation in history.

Edited July 15, 2017 by jacee

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

Read the article.

I did.  What does it have to do with you saying right now would be a good time to ban internal combustion engines in cities?

 

[sharkman]

No.  Every few years some wild eyed jack leg cobbles together some nonsense about the combustion engine, or the environment, or the world population or some other topic that the left keeps screeching about.  Eventually the combustion engine will fade out, but it won't EVER be forced in a free economy.  Wake up.

[jacee]

13 minutes ago, sharkman said:

No.  Every few years some wild eyed jack leg cobbles together some nonsense about the combustion engine, or the environment, or the world population or some other topic that the left keeps screeching about.  Eventually the combustion engine will fade out, but it won't EVER be forced in a free economy.  Wake up.

"Wild eyed jack leg" 

Not sure what that is but ... interesting turn of phrase. 

For your entertainment:

"It'll never work"

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/neverwrk.htm

"This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us. - Western Union internal memo, 1878"

 

"...transport by railroad car would result in the emasculation of our troops and would deprive them of the option of the great marches which have played such an important role in the triumph of our armies.

- Dominique Francois Arago (1786-1853)"

[sharkman]

Uh, well it WILL work.  Only not in eight years.  That's all I'm saying.  There are several great technologies besides the electric car that may yet win the day.  Something will replace the combustion engine, or perhaps the combustion engine will evolve to zero emissions, who knows what could happen. 

[jacee]

3 hours ago, sharkman said:

They are too expensive.  The batteries are super dangerous in a collision.  They are limited in distance travelled between charges.  Our electrical grid does not have anything close to the capacity needed to charge millions of new ev vehicles.  In BC, the new minority NDP government stopped completion of a huge hydro electric dam which would have helped with future demand to charge up these future vehicles.  The whole thing is just not reality.

 

I know you're going to respond with something glib and unrealistic.  It doesn't matter.  The reality of our electrical grid will not change.

Battery capacity is the leap that makes EV's viable, and renewable energy sources too:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608273/grid-batteries-are-poised-to-become-cheaper-than-natural-gas-plants-in-minnesota/

"According to the University of Minnesota’s Energy Transition Lab, starting in 2019 and for the foreseeable future, the overall cost of building grid-scale storage there will be less than that of building natural-gas plants to meet future energy demand."

[bush_cheney2004]

Worldwide EV sales were less than 1% of total market volume last year...about 800,000 units....compared to about 85,000,000 IC engined vehicles.

There are lots of reasons that new EV sales will not displace all new IC engine production within 8 years.

Ask those who make such predictions how many EVs they own today.

 

[hot enough]

On 7/13/2017 at 3:33 PM, Hydraboss said:

I could just as easily write:

Yeah, but that is just hydraboss.

[Hydraboss]

And the OP article is just some anti-oil tree hugger type. 

[ZenOps]

A good chunk of electric vehicles will be overnight topper uppers, or 1500 watts or so for the eight hours between 10pm to 6am.

The effect these cars will have on the electrical grid is negligible, because its really only peak power that is an issue with electricity.  In many ways - overnight chargers will greatly improve the efficiency of energy distribution throughout cities.  Only the people who need a quick charge at peak hours (those who drive over 200 miles a day) will affect the grid in a meaningful manner.

Actually the combustion engine is the most lethal device you will ever own, its got fluids that are toxic even in tiny amounts, its got moving parts that can maim in an instant.  Not to mention the fuel, which requires insane amounts of expenditure to make sure it gets to and stays in your gas tank instead of exploding in your face when you accidentally rub your wool sweater the wrong way on fillup.  Armored oil tankers are not cheap, and that's what they use because you just never know when road rage will strike and someone starts shooting on the highway.

Electricity is stupidly cheap by comparison, once you have laid the lines, and pretty much all of North America is hooked up to the grid.

[ZenOps]

Thing is with truckers and deliveries.  A lot of them transport oil.  Electricity has no weight.

Also:  Two ton combustion delivery vehicle to deliver two pound pizza or 15 pound electric drone to deliver same pizza, quicker and without need of human driver.

Electric vehicles could be very distruptive in that the efficiencies gained would probably destroy the old infrastructure that is based on weight (oil and things like billion gallon oil tankers)

But in general:  The less humans you need to do something, the better.  If you had to have a human switch every single pixel on your computer screen on and off by hand, you would keep them employed sure - but the amount of effort expended would hardly be worth it compared to just being more efficient.  Electricity is crazy efficient when you think about it from tonnage of carbons you don't have to shift around on roads, rail, ships every single second of every single day just to transfer some useable energy.

That's not to say you don't need carbons, but if you simply build a couple more natural gas plants at 60% electrical energy conversion efficiency and then push out the energy as electricity - it would make too much sense to do that compared to burning one barrel equivalent of natural gas to extract two barrels of oilsands, which is then transported by rail to Texas for refining to gasoline, then sent back to Canada on a oil truck, to fill up a gas station that may or may not have an attendant in as full service.

Humans flipping pixels on your computer screen by hand and the current gasoline combustion engine - they both would employ an incredible amount of people.  But at what cost?

Edited July 20, 2017 by ZenOps

[Boges]

On 19 July, 2017 at 11:55 PM, ZenOps said:

Thing is with truckers and deliveries.  A lot of them transport oil.  Electricity has no weight.

And a lot of them transport pretty much every other consumer good we get. Like to eat food in the winter? 

Do we have EV Electric Tractor Trailers yet? Will we ever? 

It looks like EV technology isn't as profitable as the OP would suggest. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-california-state-government-bailing-out-2017-7

Quote

 

The California state Assembly passed a $3-billion subsidy program for electric vehicles, dwarfing the existing program. The bill is now in the state Senate. If passed, it will head to Governor Jerry Brown, who has not yet indicated if he’d sign what is ostensibly an effort to put EV sales into high gear, but below the surface appears to be a Tesla bailout.

Tesla will soon hit the limit of the federal tax rebates, which are good for the first 200,000 EVs sold in the US per manufacturer beginning in December 2009 (IRS explanation). In the second quarter after the manufacturer hits the limit, the subsidy gets cut in half, from $7,500 to $3,750; two quarters later, it gets cut to $1,875. Two quarters later, it goes to zero.

Given Tesla’s ambitious US sales forecast for its Model 3, it will hit the 200,000 vehicle limit in 2018, after which the phase-out begins. A year later, the subsidies are gone. Losing a $7,500 subsidy on a $35,000 car is a huge deal. No other EV manufacturer is anywhere near their 200,000 limit. Their customers are going to benefit from the subsidy; Tesla buyers won’t.

This could crush Tesla sales. Many car buyers are sensitive to these subsidies. For example, after Hong Kong rescinded a tax break for EVs effective in April, Tesla sales in April dropped to zero. The good people of Hong Kong will likely start buying Teslas again, but it shows that subsidies have a devastating impact when they’re pulled.

That’s what Tesla is facing next year in the US.

 

Any EV you see on the street are there because the owner is rich or because the government made that car affordable to the owner. The price has to come down and the subsidies not needed for EVs to become common place. And that 200 mile barrier only works for commuter vehicles. You still need ICEs to travel long distances. If by car, truck OR plane. 

What's the progress on an EV Commercial Airliner? 

[Bonam]

22 hours ago, Boges said:

What's the progress on an EV Commercial Airliner? 

Not really possible with foreseeable technology unless you were willing to have the flights take about twice as long. Might have to wait til you can miniaturize a fusion reactor enough to put it on an airliner.... no sooner than 80 years out at best given how fusion is going. 

[Wilber]

For at least the near future, the concentration will be on making aircraft more carbon neutral with increased use of biofuels.

[Prairieboy43]

Eight years Not happening. Maybe thirty years, than the gasoline engine will be obsolete. Owners of electric vehicles should be forced to purchase there power first prior to vehicle purchase. Solar system for home 4-5 KW units. $20,000-$25,000.00. Therefore less abuse of grid for everyday functioning.

electric engine is simple, no efi,carb, pistons, air cleaner, oil changes, etc. Yes I will be early buyer of EV vehicle (motorcycle). Keep my f150, indefinitely.

[jacee]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-27/shell-ceo-van-beurden-says-his-next-car-will-be-electric

Hmm ... !

And this:

https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/07/26/uk-follows-france-in-banning-new-gas-and-diesel-cars-by-2040.html

Edited July 28, 2017 by jacee

[OftenWrong]

On 2017-07-28 at 2:41 AM, jacee said:

https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/07/26/uk-follows-france-in-banning-new-gas-and-diesel-cars-by-2040.html

That's almost 25 years from now. That gives much more time to develop the technology and establish an industry before mandating the switch over. Lots of time to repeal or extend the date if it is not realistically achievable.

[jacee]

19 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

That's almost 25 years from now. That gives much more time to develop the technology and establish an industry before mandating the switch over. Lots of time to repeal or extend the date if it is not realistically achievable.

That's for a complete ban on all fossil fuel vehicles. Production will slow considerably well before that.

[jacee]

OPEC and Big Oil thought they had 50 years. At best they have a decade

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/1412412/wcm/5e4cb33d-2ad2-4445-a260-96677f938b6a

He says the technology is moving so fast that the British ban will be overtaken long before 2040 by pure market forces. Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, might just as well ban horse-drawn carriages. There won’t be any petrol or diesel cars left on the road anyway. Prof. Seba thinks EVs will reach cost parity by 2022 as prices fall below US$20,000 (versus $24,000 for the average oil-based car today). Thereafter they will sweep the field on cost alone. With far fewer moving parts and a potential lifespan of half a million miles, they will render the combustion engine obsolete.

Well ... it looks like the "8 year" (or less) prediction will come true!

Edited August 4, 2017 by jacee

[Guest]

On 2017-08-04 at 8:55 AM, jacee said:

OPEC and Big Oil thought they had 50 years. At best they have a decade

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/1412412/wcm/5e4cb33d-2ad2-4445-a260-96677f938b6a

He says the technology is moving so fast that the British ban will be overtaken long before 2040 by pure market forces. Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, might just as well ban horse-drawn carriages. There won’t be any petrol or diesel cars left on the road anyway. Prof. Seba thinks EVs will reach cost parity by 2022 as prices fall below US$20,000 (versus $24,000 for the average oil-based car today). Thereafter they will sweep the field on cost alone. With far fewer moving parts and a potential lifespan of half a million miles, they will render the combustion engine obsolete.

Well ... it looks like the "8 year" (or less) prediction will come true!

I bet you $50 it doesn't.  We should both be alive in eight years, right?

[jacee]

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I bet you $50 it doesn't.  We should both be alive in eight years, right?

Define the parameters of your wager.

Edited August 5, 2017 by jacee