New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[soundman98]

yeah, that gorozen link comes off as heavily biased against ev's. i can't seem to find their official determination as to what they consider 'degraded to unusable codnition' at that 120k mile marker, which doesn't offer a very clear understanding of the parameters of their paper, which works against the credibility of the entire paper.

a WSJ article referenced near the end said that ev's take 20k miles to be net-zero green. a 100k mile difference is quite a drastic difference for what appears to be not all that much actual info.

[WolfpackS2k]

Why are graphs of atmospheric CO2 continually being posted in here? By itself, relative saturation of the air by CO2 only results in a 2.0 - 2.5 °C change. Every additional molecule of CO2 released into the air has half the effect of the molecule before it. It's not a runaway system.

EVs with AWD systems will be (are already?) better than any mechanical system. The computers figure it all out and do the driving for you.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Why are graphs of atmospheric CO2 continually being posted in here? By itself, relative saturation of the air by CO2 only results in a 2.0 - 2.5 °C change. Every additional molecule of CO2 released into the air has half the effect of the molecule before it. It's not a runaway system.

EVs with AWD systems will be (are already?) better than any mechanical system. The computers figure it all out and do the driving for you.

I’m confused by what you are trying to say. Are you saying CO2 levels can continually increase without issue, meaning there is a cap on the deleterious effects? You say it is not a runaway system. Why is that? Are you saying it is impossible to continue to increase CO2 levels? You say each CO2 molecule released has half the effect as the molecule before it, but why would you say that?

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Why are graphs of atmospheric CO2 continually being posted in here? By itself, relative saturation of the air by CO2 only results in a 2.0 - 2.5 °C change. Every additional molecule of CO2 released into the air has half the effect of the molecule before it. It's not a runaway system.

EVs with AWD systems will be (are already?) better than any mechanical system. The computers figure it all out and do the driving for you.

computers are only as good as the programming.

if it's anything like the automatic transmission shifting programming in my tacoma, they'll basically have the independent wheels fight each other to the death.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I... but I’ll say it again, which is that the argument that the vast majority of people couldn’t live with an EV because they need the utility of a truck has been demonstrated to be a myth. ...

Well, except no one was really making that argument. There are a lot of other reasons EVs don't make sense for everyone, but practically, that is one of them if you use a truck as a truck even just once a month or once a year and towing is the reason you bought it.

It's the same logic that says EVs make sense as a DD for most people but you may want to keep an ICE for longer haul trips. That I agree with, and an EV truck would fit that bill as well as any other EV.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This is true. They are incentivizing people to get EVs. It seems to be working out fine.

Yes, but your original point seemed to be that "hey, folks in Norway have gone all in on EVs and they love it, they barely buy anything else". When, in reality Norwegians aren't given much of a choice, and there is the whole thing of their country being about the same size as Montana, so it's a little more practical.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, except no one was really making that argument. There are a lot of other reasons EVs don't make sense for everyone, but practically, that is one of them if you use a truck as a truck even just once a month or once a year and towing is the reason you bought it.

It's the same logic that says EVs make sense as a DD for most people but you may want to keep an ICE for longer haul trips. That I agree with, and an EV truck would fit that bill as well as any other EV.

Perhaps. As EVs become more ubiquitous it will be interesting to see what the market response to declining gasoline demand will be. If/when gasoline consumption declines by 50% how will current gasoline producers react? One would assume that whatever economies of scale are present in the industry would diminish. Will gasoline become more of a boutique product? How many gas stations will be left to provide fuel? Will the maintenance of an ICE vehicle make sense if the infrastructure that supports ICEs begins to wither? What might the demand for fuel / supply infrastructure relationship look like? Linear, curvilinear, tipping point-step function? Lots of interesting questions.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

Perhaps. As EVs become more ubiquitous it will be interesting to see what the market response to declining gasoline demand will be.

Agreed, but that is a bit in the future at this point. Eventually, yes the tide will turn but it will take a while to change over the fleet, and to get the infrastructure in place.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’m confused by what you are trying to say. Are you saying CO2 levels can continually increase without issue, meaning there is a cap on the deleterious effects? You say it is not a runaway system. Why is that? Are you saying it is impossible to continue to increase CO2 levels? You say each CO2 molecule released has half the effect as the molecule before it, but why would you say that?

I'm saying that because it's true. CO2's warming effect is a logarithmic function.

"Radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide varies in an approximately logarithmic fashion with the concentration of that gas in the atmosphere. The logarithmic relationship occurs as the result of a saturation effect wherein it becomes increasingly difficult, as CO2 concentrations increase, for additional CO2 molecules to further influence the “infrared window” (a certain narrow band of wavelengths in the infrared region that is not absorbed by atmospheric gases). The logarithmic relationship predicts that the surface warming potential will rise by roughly the same amount for each doubling of CO2 concentration. At current rates of fossil fuel use, a doubling of CO2 concentrations over preindustrial levels is expected to take place by the middle of the 21st century (when CO2 concentrations are projected to reach 560 ppm)."

The whole theory of alarmist global warming has its foundation based on the 2+ degrees added by CO2's effect pushing things over a tipping point, leading to other environmental changes that will create a runaway warming effect. But that's all theory with no empirical evidence to back it up. And each of the last 3 IPCC reports has shown less confidence in that even being a possibility.

Please don't interpret the above as an argument from me against EVs. Oil obviously isn't going to last forever so a variety of transportation options are ideal and definitely worthy of development.

[Transport3r]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I'm saying that because it's true. CO2's warming effect is a logarithmic function.



The whole theory of alarmist global warming has its foundation based on the 2+ degrees added by CO2's effect pushing things over a tipping point, leading to other environmental changes that will create a runaway warming effect. But that's all theory with no empirical evidence to back it up. And each of the last 3 IPCC reports has shown less confidence in that even being a possibility.

Please don't interpret the above as an argument from me against EVs. Oil obviously isn't going to last forever so a variety of transportation options are ideal and definitely worthy of development.

The runaway effect does not come from CO2. It comes from 2 things that the higher temps do:

Releasing Methane in ancient permafrost. Methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas as CO2.

Losing our ability to reflect sunlight back into space. White (ice) reflects light. Dark blue (ocean) absorbs it. The more ice we lose the more IR we absorb from the sun, no greenhouse even needed.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, except no one was really making that argument. There are a lot of other reasons EVs don't make sense for everyone, but practically, that is one of them if you use a truck as a truck even just once a month or once a year and towing is the reason you bought it.

It's the same logic that says EVs make sense as a DD for most people but you may want to keep an ICE for longer haul trips. That I agree with, and an EV truck would fit that bill as well as any other EV.

But people do make that argument. Mileage while towing in an EV truck was a key calculation and talking point from Engineering Explained and other publications when the Cybertruck was announced. It’s been talked about here, the Hummer thread, the Cybertruck thread and in popular publications. Publications have compared towing capacity, towing range, hauling/loading capacity, durability, etc of EVs trucks to ICEs.

The reality is that millions of SUV and truck buyers will be able to move to EVs with little impact. As the industry necessarily moves to EVs, the minority of people will have to adapt or rely on older vehicles.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

But people do make that argument..

Yes, but that was not the specific discussion point here. My point was you seem to be saying that people should only buy trucks where they have a specific use for them. My point was people buy what they want and the reason for that purchase is not always obvious when you see them drive down the street.

Perhaps I was misreading that part of your discussion, but much of it was very heavily laced with the implication "folks that buy trucks don't need trucks so they shouldn't buy trucks".

As I said, I agree that trucks could be the very thing that tows EV sales up the sales cliff, because it is something people want, for whatever reason. That's a good thing in general, and certainly better than all the "me too" CUVs we are seeing announced right now.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Yes, but your original point seemed to be that "hey, folks in Norway have gone all in on EVs and they love it, they barely buy anything else". When, in reality Norwegians aren't given much of a choice, and there is the whole thing of their country being about the same size as Montana, so it's a little more practical.

More like they have gone in on EVs as a society without mass protests and people’s lives upended by the changes. They are adapting.

I don’t know how the size matters.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

More like they have gone in on EVs as a society without mass protests and people’s lives upended by the changes. They are adapting.

I don’t know how the size matters.

Well, folks in the US aren't exactly rioting in the streets over EVs either.

Size/distance travelled matters because their use case changes. The average Norwegian drives 6,500 miles a year. If that's all I drove I wouldn't be worried about plugging in either. I drive 5x that much (literally)