So during the 24hrs race coverage most commercials were touting new EVs.
Of late I've been really struck by the fact that I don't see EVs replacing ICEs. Here's why.
First: at current they are not a very good business model; I won't go into the whys but just say the profit margins aren't there.
Second: after you add in the increase emissions of EV production & the inevitable increase in emissions from building EV infrastructure the percentages of reduced emissions are low.
The numbers I've seen vary as many studies are banking on numbers that can't be confirmed for several years. I've seen as low as 5% difference over the likely lifetime of the vehicle and as high as 25%.
Even if we use the 25%, the emissions due to automobiles in US is only 16%. That means we are looking at a 4% reduction if ever car on the road is an EV. I am highly skeptical of that it will be as high as 4%. We may end up with as little as 1% reduction.
I think in 5-20 years as more people realize that EVs are not making any really meaningful changes in overall global emissions they won't feel compelled to give up their ICE powered car. This was all to save the planet.
The other factor is road improvements are fueled by the gas tax; at some point EV owners are going to start getting hit with some sort of road usage tax (wildly unpopular) and be none too happy about it.
Due note as Nostra-Thomas I'm usually wrong about future predictions but at the moment this is where I'm at. Feel free to eviscerate my thinking.
ShawnG
MegaDork
2/2/23 4:13 p.m.
I remember reading an article long ago that said something along the lines of: Every vehicle comes with roughly a 25 year debt to the environment.
Meaning you need to keep it in service that long to justify it's production.
Perhaps a good way to go would be to stop trying to convince everyone that you need a new vehicle every 5 years. It's not the solution but it would sure help the waste generated. Won't help manufacturers or the government any to push that line of thinking though.
ShawnG said:
I remember reading an article long ago that said something along the lines of: Every vehicle comes with roughly a 25 year debt to the environment.
Meaning you need to keep it in service that long to justify it's production.
Perhaps a good way to go would be to stop trying to convince everyone that you need a new vehicle every 5 years. It's not the solution but it would sure help the waste generated. Won't help manufacturers or the government any to push that line of thinking though.
I've read that if we simply kept our vehicles long term that would be better for emissions as well.
Of course it's not good for the economy if folks keep cars 25 years.
The current EV fad is far more about fashion and the perception of doing something positive than it is about good, thorough science and actually doing something positive.
Personally I hope the whole forced conversion to Electric Vehicles fails spectacularly to the point that those pushing the Anti-ICE agenda become the punch line of late night TV and Las Vegas dive bar comedians.
Two issues: One, you're using a very pessimistic view of the environmental data. EVs are more about futureproofing automotive energy than improving emissions right away. With EVs, as the grid becomes cleaner it takes all the EVs with it. The infrastructure emissions are also almost a one-time cost that can pay off more in the future, and will also eliminate emissions from the fossil fuel supply chain, which are in the same ballpark as the amount of energy it takes to actually move the vehicles at the end of the chain.
Second, if you ignore all the environmental stuff, customers will still want EVs for performance, comfort, and reliability reasons.
Tom1200 said:
I think in 5-20 years as more people realize that EVs are not making any really meaningful changes in overall global emissions they won't feel compelled to give up their ICE powered car. This was all to save the planet.
20 years ago the only reason people bought EVs was to save the planet. That's not true today, EVs have gotten to the point that for some use cases they are a genuinely better solution than internal combustion. Quieter, more power/torque/response, convenience of charging at home, lower maintenance requirements -- if you aren't making frequent cross-country trips or trying to do track days there's a lot to like.
That said, I think 100% replacement mandates are a mistake. I think without them EVs would naturally take probably 70-80% of the market given enough time. OTOH the last 10-15% is pushing the tech into areas it's not great at (long range towing, for example) and ramming it down peoples' throats the way that some laws want to is going to cause a lot of backlash.
I find it strange that people talk about their only being 1 way. Why can't we have electric and ICE cars? We have diesel and gas and people accept that. They have different strengths and weaknesses. In some use cases an EV is a far better solution (regardless if environmental impact which is a stretch to say there is no benefit). Also the grid argument doesn't make sense to me since the primary charge time for EV's is overnight at off peak hours. If I understand right they call it off peak because it is below the maximum so adding load to the system doesn't require major investment...
So from a straight usefulness standpoint some cars will be ICE some will be EV, it's all good. Of course everyone is advertising EV's people already have their pet cars in the ICE world, they are fighting over new customers in a brand new market. Take a deep breath no one is going to take your gas car or your guns or your stove or whatever.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:
We doing this again?
It's been almost a week, maybe 10 days, apparently that means we're due
1988RedT2 said:
The current EV fad is far more about fashion and the perception of doing something positive than it is about good, thorough science and actually doing something positive.
You're taking a very short term view. How else is technology supposed to mature?
(Edited: forgot a word)
No the EV fad of about a decade ago was people thinking it was good for the environment. Now it's because they're sweet and slightly cheaper to operate long term than internal combustion vehicles.
They're not without their problems for sure though. I'm not an electric grid expert, but I'm pretty sure night time stops being "off peak" when 100% of the population is charging their cars at the same time.
In reply to Tom1200 :
Well environment aside ( because of politics) the pollution caused by making ICE vehicles is roughly the same as making EV's. While we can debate some of that, perhaps we should move on.
The fuel for an EV. Has the potential to be far cleaner.
I just drove past a billboard that the local electric company has reduced their carbon footprint by 14.2 metric tons since they stopped using coal. I pity states that are still using coal to power generators. Clearly they don't care what their citizens breathe.
I'm sure a major part of the reduction is this state wants to be 100% renewable. It's one of 20 states that are supporting renewables.
The part I most like about solar and wind, is that it's in every-bodies back yard. You don't have to put multi billion dollar rigs out at sea and ship the resulting crude to someplace to be refined. Then transport it to your local station where you have to drive there to get.
Instead you plug in when you get home and spend another 30 seconds or so unplugging when you leave with your tank filled.
I sold a wind generator to a hog Farmer who insisted that it not only make economic sense but environmental. Calculating transit losses ( extreme rural area that purchased most energy). He signed the deal.
The sad thing is we couldn't fulfill the terms of the contract. Demand was too high and it would be more than a year to get the actual generator. Everything else we had in a timely manner. I hated losing a $210,000 deal and attending commission.
Pay back for him was 3 years. ( pigs got to be kept warm )
dps214 said:
I'm not an electric grid expert, but I'm pretty sure night time stops being "off peak" when 100% of the population is charging their cars at the same time.
Please reference my previous statement about it doesn't need to be all or nothing. It won't be 100% in your or my life, or my kids. Let's be realistic.
dps214 said:
No the EV fad of about a decade ago was people thinking it was good for the environment. Now it's because they're sweet and slightly cheaper to operate long term than internal combustion vehicles.
They're not without their problems for sure though. I'm not an electric grid expert, but I'm pretty sure night time stops being "off peak" when 100% of the population is charging their cars at the same time.
Well right now we're at less than 2%. So it will be a while.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:
We doing this again?
Yes because I have actually ADD not just the automotive kind.
As I said it's just where I'm at in this very moment.................thinking out loud as it where.
NY Nick said:
dps214 said:
I'm not an electric grid expert, but I'm pretty sure night time stops being "off peak" when 100% of the population is charging their cars at the same time.
Please reference my previous statement about it doesn't need to be all or nothing. It won't be 100% in your or my life, or my kids. Let's be realistic.
Yeah in that context it's fine. But people love to cling to that as the solution to all future EV infrastructure concerns, which it isn't.
Again, I'm not anti-EV, just saying there's definitely some issues that will need to be worked out ***IF*** they are going to fully take over.
ShawnG said:
I remember reading an article long ago that said something along the lines of: Every vehicle comes with roughly a 25 year debt to the environment.
Meaning you need to keep it in service that long to justify it's production.
Perhaps a good way to go would be to stop trying to convince everyone that you need a new vehicle every 5 years. It's not the solution but it would sure help the waste generated. Won't help manufacturers or the government any to push that line of thinking though.
I think that you are forgetting that after the original owner is done with his car after 5 years, somebody else buys it and the car continues paying off it's dept to society.
I think that eventually, we will be an all electric battery/hydrogen fuel cell society. It will take a long time and a lot of new technology and infrastructure. But, when it happens, how are all of us ICE collector guys going to find gas for our pride and joy? Aviation gas? Moonshine?
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
Tom1200 said:
I think in 5-20 years as more people realize that EVs are not making any really meaningful changes in overall global emissions they won't feel compelled to give up their ICE powered car. This was all to save the planet.
20 years ago the only reason people bought EVs was to save the planet. That's not true today, EVs have gotten to the point that for some use cases they are a genuinely better solution than internal combustion. Quieter, more power/torque/response, convenience of charging at home, lower maintenance requirements -- if you aren't making frequent cross-country trips or trying to do track days there's a lot to like.
That said, I think 100% replacement mandates are a mistake. I think without them EVs would naturally take probably 70-80% of the market given enough time. OTOH the last 10-15% is pushing the tech into areas it's not great at (long range towing, for example) and ramming it down peoples' throats the way that some laws want to is going to cause a lot of backlash.
Even in areas that EV's are not good at ( long range towing) there are solutions. Stick a generator in the truck bed. For example. How often would it be needed? A few times a year if that?
Seems like a rental will probably work. So how much would Joe contractor save in a year of building houses by using a EV truck. And how much would the rental cost for a couple of weekends? Besides what kind of contractor is he? Framing contractor? He already owns a big one.
The two states whose supposed upcoming ICE ban I'm most familiar with (Oregon and California) have allowances for plug in hybrids. So gas engines aren't suddenly becoming illegal or anything silly.
I think the vast majority of people get mired in this short term thinking... as if we only have 10 years to wrap our brains around this and the grid will collapse, cats will sleep with dogs, and the apocalypse will happen.
EVs will replace ICEs in the same way that the GMT800 replaced the Model T. One hundred years later, we still have Model Ts on the road. They aren't a replacement. Ethanol didn't replace gasoline. Cars with catalytic converters didn't replace pre-emissions cars. The Model A didn't replace the model T. When diesels got DPFs, they didn't replace older diesels. They're still on the road.
People keep using the word replace. Of course they won't replace. 200 years from now when gasoline becomes hard to find, you'll see fewer and fewer people restoring GMT800s, but I wish people would stop saying "replace." The sky isn't falling.
VolvoHeretic said:
ShawnG said:
I remember reading an article long ago that said something along the lines of: Every vehicle comes with roughly a 25 year debt to the environment.
Meaning you need to keep it in service that long to justify it's production.
Perhaps a good way to go would be to stop trying to convince everyone that you need a new vehicle every 5 years. It's not the solution but it would sure help the waste generated. Won't help manufacturers or the government any to push that line of thinking though.
I think that you are forgetting that after the original owner is done with his car after 5 years, somebody else buys it and the car continues paying off it's dept to society.
I think that eventually, we will be an all electric battery/hydrogen fuel cell society. It will take a long time and a lot of new technology and infrastructure. But, when it happens, how are all of us ICE collector guys going to find gas for their pride and joy? Aviation gas? Moonshine?
Good thought. Valid even if you'll accept the exceptions. Some cars/trucks are just lemons and will never last 25 years. Up here in the rust belt a 25 year old vehicle is that pile of rust.
Abuse and neglect kill a fair number of vehicles long before their time. Finally accidents. Floods etc.
so what percentage of production ICE or EV will make 25 years?
In reply to frenchyd :
Well, hopefully they will all be 90% non-rusting plastic. 
VolvoHeretic said:
I think that eventually, we will be an all electric battery/hydrogen fuel cell society. It will take a long time and a lot of new technology and infrastructure. But, when it happens, how are all of us ICE collector guys going to find gas for our pride and joy? Aviation gas? Moonshine?
Electrofuels and biofuels.
I don't think hydrogen will be used outside of liquid hydrogen tanks on aircraft and spacecraft, it's just too much of a nightmare to transport and store, plus fuel cell vehicles are as expensive as EVs.
