1988RedT2 said:
I am reminded of a Dead Kennedy's album title: Give Me Convenience, or Give Me Death.
Some things are beyond our reasonable control. You may be inconvenienced. Deal.
Some people were both inconvenienced and killed from this.
Some of it is arguably beneficial to the gene pool.
Some of it is truly a tragedy.
How many deaths is too many from something avoidable? I don't know the answer - I know that it isn't 0, as callous as that sounds, because to mitigate risk fully is seldom necessary and probably never financially sound.
pheller said:
I love how people who don't live in Texas, and aren't impacted by this, are the ones saying "nah, let those people die, it only happens occasionally."
I'd say it if it were here. But then again, I don't think everyone can be saved all the time and that people die every day.
frenchyd said:
....Notice deregulation never is about making our lives better simply about making it easier for the wealthy to make money and protect themselves from the consequences....
If you think regulation is a cure for this I think you are mistaken. It simply moves where the "corruption" occurs. I don't think anyone would call PG&E "un-regulated".
PG&E has also been accused of failings in relation to gas explosions, which resulted in a number of deaths. It also spends tens of millions on political lobbying at a federal and state level. Employees of the company have been indicted for bribery and corruption.
https://www.complianceweek.com/opinion/what-are-expectations-of-compliance-at-a-negligent-company-like-pgande/29128.article#:~:text=PG%26E%20has%20also%20been%20accused,indicted%20for%20bribery%20and%20corruption.
Every see the movie Erin Brokovich? That is from a heavily regulated company.
As I always say, the problem is never "this" or "that", it's a-holes. They can manage to f up pretty much anything no mater how many "walls" or rules you put in the way.
In reply to aircooled :
It's multiplied by size, bigger equals more powerful. So decisions with potential harm are made by those isolated from responsibility. A really big powerful corporation needs a extremely active and involved CEO with a strong sense of morality over profitability to even attempt to contain all the potential harm that is possible by ambitious but morally deficient middle managers.
There is a legitimate role of political reps in morally responsible companies. Politicians may not understand the complexities of corporations. Political reps with access can effect that but they too have a moral duty. To be honest not merely persuasive.
As you have said. It's complex and not really a sound bite which is all the average persons attention span is.
Back to my original thoughts on all of this.
The Automakers are doing this to skirt the fuel mileage requirements rolling out over the next few years, allowing them to build highly profitable trucks. It makes sense. EV availability on a grand scale makes sense. I drive 25 miles per day per week except for two, which I drive nearly 300. I drive the Jeep on the short days and the HR-V for the two long days. That schedule will not change for the next 7 years. An EV would be perfect for me Monday-Thursday and Saturday. But until the real world ability for EVs to get 300mpc in Michigan's winters for their entire service life I'm out.
How do the manufacturers expect this plan to work?
My view on regulation is somewhat skewed as one of our companies dealt directly with the coal industry. Most of the people with MSHA were appointed and somewhat not very well educated, and the inspectors had authority to override approvals. It was ripe with corruption. We once put a shield on one of our products and the inspector kicked the approval even though the body had approved it, and it was a two plus year process to get it re-approved and many, many thousands of dollars. I have tons of stories about the government dealings with regulators, to say it is insane is an understatement. Turns out the inspector above was getting kick backs from a competitor and there was no direct supervision for him, nor did they care. You do need regulations, but the way most of ours are written, they encourage corrupt enforcement.
To the original question, I think rentals will install chargers themselves as a selling point to potential customers. Just like gas stations, recharging stations will pop up to meet demand as we go forward.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) Forum Supporter said:
Back to my original thoughts on all of this.
The Automakers are doing this to skirt the fuel mileage requirements rolling out over the next few years, allowing them to build highly profitable trucks. It makes sense. EV availability on a grand scale makes sense. I drive 25 miles per day per week except for two, which I drive nearly 300. I drive the Jeep on the short days and the HR-V for the two long days. That schedule will not change for the next 7 years. An EV would be perfect for me Monday-Thursday and Saturday. But until the real world ability for EVs to get 300mpc in Michigan's winters for their entire service life I'm out.
How do the manufacturers expect this plan to work?
With lots full of unsold EVs and people trying to make their gas burners last forever. Throw in a recession and the profitable trucks will be sitting on the lot too. Then the Automakers go hat in hand back the the government for another bailout.
As an additional point on regulators: one of the primary issues (as noted above) is that it is of course best to have regulators who know about the industry they are regulating. Where do you find those? In that industry. Soooo as you can imagine, people going from working in the industry, to being regulators and (most importantly) going back into the industry, creates a situation rife for not only corruption, but a tendency to do things in the best interest of the Industry.
This is the situation that occurs with the financial industry and it's regulators (you may remember a "thing" a few years ago....). Just a huge revolving door of (industry) self interest.
I don't know an exact solution, but I am pretty sure you don't want to crank the regulation dial all the way either way, like most things...
....the best answer is somewhere in between.
I love how the original creator of the thread claimed to "Not want to get political" but then claimed EV is doomed to fail right in the title.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) Forum Supporter said:
How do the manufacturers expect this plan to work?
I feel like most manufacturers see too often just the short-term and are spreading their sales and tactics across a huge area. Trucks right now are made to lease on long (like, 8 years long) terms since that's what the market wants currently, but at the same time there's still a contingent that acts like we're still in an era where a few family can comfortably own two new cars for different tasks and duties despite wage stagnation. That doesn't even touch on how CAFE regs could soon change, or if a carbon tax is (IMO, finally) seriously considered and implemented.
I think most OEMs that arent Tesla are thinking most will lease their "nice" vehicle and "own" a crummier one, with their duties clearly split and full ownership becoming less common. Tesla on the other hand, is going full-lifestyle.
I drive 25 miles per day per week except for two, which I drive nearly 300. I drive the Jeep on the short days and the HR-V for the two long days. That schedule will not change for the next 7 years. An EV would be perfect for me Monday-Thursday and Saturday. But until the real world ability for EVs to get 300mpc in Michigan's winters for their entire service life I'm out.
Well you'd stop and charge at some point. I used to drive the same amount each week for work and that's what, nearly a 5 hour drive? I couldn't cannonball that in ANY car i've owned, even the one that get's 30+ MPG.
aircooled said:
As an additional point on regulators: one of the primary issues (as noted above) is that it is of course best to have regulators who know about the industry they are regulating. Where do you find those? In that industry. Soooo as you can imagine, people going from working in the industry, to being regulators and (most importantly) going back into the industry, creates a situation rife for not only corruption, but a tendency to do things in the best interest of the Industry.
This is the situation that occurs with the financial industry and it's regulators (you may remember a "thing" a few years ago....). Just a huge revolving door of (industry) self interest.
I don't know an exact solution, but I am pretty sure you don't want to crank the regulation dial all the way either way, like most things...
....the best answer is somewhere in between.
And you can't just block everyone who has worked in the industry from going towards the government side, because otherwise you'll fill your regulator with unskilled newbies versus people with experience; same problem as those who call for term limits on elected officials but not against lobbying powers. Just an unequal setup that clearly benefits one group who pushes for it. Even if you limit the years, you can't limit their friends... vexing.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) Forum Supporter said:
Back to my original thoughts on all of this.
The Automakers are doing this to skirt the fuel mileage requirements rolling out over the next few years, allowing them to build highly profitable trucks. It makes sense. EV availability on a grand scale makes sense. I drive 25 miles per day per week except for two, which I drive nearly 300. I drive the Jeep on the short days and the HR-V for the two long days. That schedule will not change for the next 7 years. An EV would be perfect for me Monday-Thursday and Saturday. But until the real world ability for EVs to get 300mpc in Michigan's winters for their entire service life I'm out.
How do the manufacturers expect this plan to work?
Have you seen what's happened with EVs in the last 5 years? To meet your specifications, AND apparently, turn two vehicles into a single vehicle, we're really not more than a year or two out.
300 on a charge is creeping into average territory, but really, I haven't owned an ICE that could go 300 on a tank so I feel that point is moot.
I think all I own are cars that have at least 300 miles in a tank.
Explorer : 22mpg 19.7 gallon tank= 433
Zx2 35mpg 12.8 gallons =448
Even the V8 explorer would do it, the clubwagon gets 12 with a 35 gallon tank too.
In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
It's not how far on a tank but how far do you need between charges or fillups?
my wife's bladder limits how long we can go between stops. They are never 3 minute stops like I did when I did all my traveling. 15 minutes is a quick stop for her. And 2 hours is as long as her bladder will allow. So stop, pug it in, charge it enough to go 2 more hours, and leave. Traveling out west 2 hours at 75mph gets me 150 miles which a Tesla Supercharger is 15-20 minutes. Hmmm? !
racerdave600 said:
My view on regulation is somewhat skewed as one of our companies dealt directly with the coal industry. Most of the people with MSHA were appointed and somewhat not very well educated, and the inspectors had authority to override approvals. It was ripe with corruption. We once put a shield on one of our products and the inspector kicked the approval even though the body had approved it, and it was a two plus year process to get it re-approved and many, many thousands of dollars. I have tons of stories about the government dealings with regulators, to say it is insane is an understatement. Turns out the inspector above was getting kick backs from a competitor and there was no direct supervision for him, nor did they care. You do need regulations, but the way most of ours are written, they encourage corrupt enforcement.
To the original question, I think rentals will install chargers themselves as a selling point to potential customers. Just like gas stations, recharging stations will pop up to meet demand as we go forward.
Individuals who make mistakes or cheat/ are corrupt should not condemn the whole system. They need to be individually responsible for poor judgement, inaction, or flaws.
Same as investors in a company need to be held accountable for unreasonable, unjust, or illegal pressures on management.
A classic example; a big investor or inspector can often get free personal use of the corporation's Jets. Or other Corporate perks.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
Thirty percent that’s the number I’ve seen driving the large manufacturers to electrification. Thirty percent fewer parts, thirty percent less labour in manufacturing there huge gains to be made in the manufacturing process.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I love how the original creator of the thread claimed to "Not want to get political" but then claimed EV is doomed to fail right in the title.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) Forum Supporter said:
How do the manufacturers expect this plan to work?
I feel like most manufacturers see too often just the short-term and are spreading their sales and tactics across a huge area. Trucks right now are made to lease on long (like, 8 years long) terms since that's what the market wants currently, but at the same time there's still a contingent that acts like we're still in an era where a few family can comfortably own two new cars for different tasks and duties despite wage stagnation. That doesn't even touch on how CAFE regs could soon change, or if a carbon tax is (IMO, finally) seriously considered and implemented.
I think most OEMs that arent Tesla are thinking most will lease their "nice" vehicle and "own" a crummier one, with their duties clearly split and full ownership becoming less common. Tesla on the other hand, is going full-lifestyle.
I drive 25 miles per day per week except for two, which I drive nearly 300. I drive the Jeep on the short days and the HR-V for the two long days. That schedule will not change for the next 7 years. An EV would be perfect for me Monday-Thursday and Saturday. But until the real world ability for EVs to get 300mpc in Michigan's winters for their entire service life I'm out.
Well you'd stop and charge at some point. I used to drive the same amount each week for work and that's what, nearly a 5 hour drive? I couldn't cannonball that in ANY car i've owned, even the one that get's 30+ MPG.
I read the O.P.'s "doomed to fail" as a comment on the economic and infrastructure hurdles associated with widespread EV adoption. Nothing political about that at all, it's math.
On the other hand, you brought a 100% political topic into the discussion with your carbon tax comment. Thank you for highlighting exactly why many people are resistant- skeptical of EV adoption. Rather than just make EV's better (more economical, better range), your solution is to make ICE vehicles more expensive. I appreciate your candor.
frenchyd said:
racerdave600 said:
My view on regulation is somewhat skewed as one of our companies dealt directly with the coal industry. Most of the people with MSHA were appointed and somewhat not very well educated, and the inspectors had authority to override approvals. It was ripe with corruption. We once put a shield on one of our products and the inspector kicked the approval even though the body had approved it, and it was a two plus year process to get it re-approved and many, many thousands of dollars. I have tons of stories about the government dealings with regulators, to say it is insane is an understatement. Turns out the inspector above was getting kick backs from a competitor and there was no direct supervision for him, nor did they care. You do need regulations, but the way most of ours are written, they encourage corrupt enforcement.
To the original question, I think rentals will install chargers themselves as a selling point to potential customers. Just like gas stations, recharging stations will pop up to meet demand as we go forward.
Individuals who make mistakes or cheat/ are corrupt should not condemn the whole system. They need to be individually responsible for poor judgement, inaction, or flaws.
Same as investors in a company need to be held accountable for unreasonable, unjust, or illegal pressures on management.
A classic example; a big investor or inspector can often get free personal use of the corporation's Jets. Or other Corporate perks.
It's not just that. When you design a product, in this instance safety equipment for underground mining (requested specifically of us by the govt.), and you work two to five years after a completed design to have it approved for use, only to have the approval thrown out by one guy, there is a problem far greater than the one guy. He should be inspecting that it complies to the approvals, but that is not the power they have. It can be thrown out for any reason the inspector sees fit. If he thinks the mount should have 2cm more in length, guess what, you're out. When that happens you have to start over at ground zero with a new approval. I should point out that at this point we were probably closing in on 7 digits just dealing with the approval process. The govt. even went as far as to mandate our product, then drop the approval, but closed mines for not being in compliance. It would be nice if this were an isolated instance, but sadly it is not.
In reply to racerdave600 :
That's the complication of living with 330 million other people. Each with their own needs and priorities.
Bob wants cheap or free, Charlie wants supervision and limits, John wants good. Now multiply that times 330 million and that's what you're up against. It's called democracy.
Eliminate Democracy and we have Anarchy. Where might makes right. Big and powerful decide what happens. Not a general consensus of what is best for everyone.
Those two choices are behind every government since time began. Realize we have only had Democracy since 1776. Just 245 years. Even our forefathers made mistakes. Saying all men are created equal and then deciding some men weren't equal.
We can either keep trying to fix what we got wrong, or go the route of one person in charge.
Looking at the bloody history of one man's rulings. I know which I prefer.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
There was no political intent in any of my statements. It's honestly a question of how the OEs think this is a good plan. Will it be an eventual? I hope so. But unless there are HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS of dollars put into upgrades between personal residential, businesses and infrastructure I don't see it. No one here has that cash laying around.
I stated that I HAVE room to install a high speed charging unit at my house. It will be an eventuality. I'm not speaking for me I am looking at people like my oldest son and daughter who have chosen careers in industries that do "good things" so they pay nothing.
My statement about range for two of my trips was not about wether a brand new 100% efficient EV will make the trip the day I brought it home but rather will it still do that when the chassis has 80k miles worth of wear in Michigan at -x° as the ice is showering down and the conditions warrant less fuel efficient winter tires. I'm not an early adapter to this technology because of these situations. If I can't make it 300 miles in those conditions without stopping and refueling for 15-20 minutes just to get home then I will wait until the technology catches up to my needs.
Regardless, I'm still not concerned with the political aspects of any of this.
In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) Forum Supporter :
From a practical stand point the answer will be yes. Some of that infrastructure is already there but because it doesn't have the same impact as a big convenience store with gas pumps and lots of lighting you don't notice charging stations as easily. If you owned an EV you'd see all the charging stations already out there.
OHOH, I gotta get gas this morning, stopping at the gas station and buying gas plus maybe get a cup of coffee, doing a bit of shopping and think nothing of spending 15-20 minutes. Now you'll unplug and leave fully charged.
Right now even on the coldest Michigan day you'll pull out of your garage with it fully charged, your 2-3 year old EV will drive a hundred and some miles before needing to plug in.
As competition kicks in, range will increase. Forcing that several year old car to go further and further on a charge.
You need to lift your eyesight a little further. Where will you be 5 years from now? How old will you be? If you look at the chart of a mans income over his lifetime the peak of that curve at about age 50 or so is also a reflection of your driving needs. Sometime in that timeframe you'll reduce your driving. Maybe because your income is reduced, maybe because you'll have been there and done that enough to reduce your needs.
I can speak for me. Up to my late 50's I traveled 65-80,000 miles a year. Now I'm down to 20,000 and once retired that will be reduced even further.
Even today an EV would be massively more cost efficient without any negative impact.
