New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Your body parts must be worth more than mine.....

who said anything about selling my own body parts?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

So collectivist corporatocracy. It's currently en vogue to spout lip service to minority rights but it's perfectly fine to shit all over the rights of the ultimate minority, the individual.

Those dystopian cyberpunk futures sure seemed a lot cooler in 80's anime.

Use whatever labels that helps you to keep things simple to think about. What individual rights of yours are getting shit on?

We live on a planet with finite resources. If we don’t live in a sustainable way then all we can expect is a dystopian future. If the idea of working together cohesively as a society with limitations sounds dystopian to you then all futures for you are dystopian. You might want to find a deserted island somewhere outside of a society to live your individualistic life, hopefully in a way where you are only capable of affecting yourself or your island and either living sustainably or living until your resources are depleted. If you choose to live in a society, in a family or in any social group then you automatically are sacrificing liberties and accepting limitations.

[soundman98]

Where does one get an island?!? Sign me up!

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Use whatever labels that helps you to keep things simple to think about. What individual rights of yours are getting shit on?

We live on a planet with finite resources. If we don’t live in a sustainable way then all we can expect is a dystopian future. If the idea of working together cohesively as a society with limitations sounds dystopian to you then all futures for you are dystopian. You might want to find a deserted island somewhere outside of a society to live your individualistic life, hopefully in a way where you are only capable of affecting yourself or your island and either living sustainably or living until your resources are depleted. If you choose to live in a society, in a family or in any social group then you automatically are sacrificing liberties and accepting limitations.

lol

If you are so excited about this wonderful future of society working together driving their electric cars, how come you have a build thread on here for your dirty ICE vehicle ? Why are you paying attention to the last Lotus ICE car to be produced ? Kind of smacks of hypocrisy IMO because you don't need those cars, bruh.

For someone who pushes so hard for everyone else to accept the "inevitable" you really seem to be doing the complete opposite. Odd for someone who claims to totally believe in the promise of fully automated luxury space communism.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

Where does one get an island?!? Sign me up!

Whatever you can afford. I think Jeff Epstein's island is available.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

lol

If you are so excited about this wonderful future of society working together driving their electric cars, how come you have a build thread on here for your dirty ICE vehicle ? Why are you paying attention to the last Lotus ICE car to be produced ? Kind of smacks of hypocrisy IMO because you don't need those cars, bruh.

For someone who pushes so hard for everyone else to accept the "inevitable" you really seem to be doing the complete opposite. Odd for someone who claims to totally believe in the promise of fully automated luxury space communism.

Maybe you would be surprised to learn, but in California, many areas are smog exempt, and there is also a system from CARB for allowing people to modify their cars with superchargers or other performance parts, and many people can be green and sympathetic to the future while still being pragmatic. What is going to make the biggest dent in altering carbon emissions? Going after car enthusiasts or getting the masses to switch to EVs? Ending ICE motorsports and banning every ICE lawn mower or getting the masses to switch to EVs? The sports car market is small, but the enthusiast subset of this market that modifies their cars is even smaller, so we are talking a fraction of a percentage of cars are enthusiast cars. The future will inevitably be almost entirely BEVs and FCEVs, and there may persist a fraction of biofuel ICEs, but for now, the goal is to get the masses on EVs. These people could care less what they drive or if they drive. They just want to get from point A to point B comfortably, reliably and safely. In fact, the move to EVs will likely allow manufactures to continue to support sports cars. Without EVs, emission regulations and average fleet standards would make sports cars that much harder to produce. If the world moved to EVs supplied by green renewables and just 1% still had an ICE "classic car" then the CO2 emissions from these drivers wouldn't be an issue at all.

Sales of sports cars in the US were down 2% in 2019 as this type of vehicle accounts for 1.6% of the total US car market with fewer than 270,000 deliveries, of which more than two thirds (67.4%, down from 70% in 2018) were one of the three American muscle cars Mustang, Challenger or Camaro.

https://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sale...9-sports-cars/

CO2 isn't inherently bad. The problem is when it exceeds the extraction rate. CO2 harvesting would need to dramatically increase to offset CO2 emissions to balance production with extraction. We don't need to get to zero. If we get the masses to move to EVs, and we transform the energy production sector to renewables, and we move to renewables for residential and commercial heating/cooking, and the industrial sector moves more to renewables, then our production would likely be low enough that extraction would match production. We are best to focus on the biggest bang for the buck to reverse the carbon production trends seen below. We can do that while being pragmatic.






My swap will still get better MPGs than many road going vehicles and will have a catalytic converter. Is it the greenest vehicle out there? No. Should we all be daily driving a 125 mpg Honda Grom? Not practical. Will I buy an EV for commuting someday when my commute is greater than 3 miles? For sure. Will I trade my car for a lightweight EV with a manual? Sure. I'm not locked to ICE powertrains.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Maybe you would be surprised to learn, but in California, many areas are smog exempt, and there is also a system from CARB for allowing people to modify their cars with superchargers or other performance parts, and many people can be green and sympathetic to the future while still being pragmatic. What is going to make the biggest dent in altering carbon emissions? Going after car enthusiasts or getting the masses to switch to EVs? Ending ICE motorsports and banning every ICE lawn mower or getting the masses to switch to EVs? The sports car market is small, but the enthusiast subset of this market that modifies their cars is even smaller, so we are talking a fraction of a percentage of cars are enthusiast cars. The future will inevitably be almost entirely BEVs and FCEVs, and there may persist a fraction of biofuel ICEs, but for now, the goal is to get the masses on EVs. These people could care less what they drive or if they drive. They just want to get from point A to point B comfortably, reliably and safely. In fact, the move to EVs will likely allow manufactures to continue to support sports cars. Without EVs, emission regulations and average fleet standards would make sports cars that much harder to produce. If the world moved to EVs supplied by green renewables and just 1% still had an ICE "classic car" then the CO2 emissions from these drivers wouldn't be an issue at all.



https://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sale...9-sports-cars/

CO2 isn't inherently bad. The problem is when it exceeds the extraction rate. CO2 harvesting would need to dramatically increase to offset CO2 emissions to balance production with extraction. We don't need to get to zero. If we get the masses to move to EVs, and we transform the energy production sector to renewables, and we move to renewables for residential and commercial heating/cooking, and the industrial sector moves more to renewables, then our production would likely be low enough that extraction would match production. We are best to focus on the biggest bang for the buck to reverse the carbon production trends seen below. We can do that while being pragmatic.


My swap will still get better MPGs than many road going vehicles and will have a catalytic converter. Is it the greenest vehicle out there? No. Should we all be daily driving a 125 mpg Honda Grom? Not practical. Will I buy an EV for commuting someday when my commute is greater than 3 miles? For sure. Will I trade my car for a lightweight EV with a manual? Sure. I'm not locked to ICE powertrains.

That's a really long winded way of saying "Rules for thee but not for me". It's okay for you to pollute, because it's "just a little bit" and you're "an enthusiast" because all that makes up for the fact that you're a prime example of someone who could utilize an EV with literally 100% of your "needs" being met.

I don't disagree with your point about a large percentage of people adopting EV's making the potential ICE market better future designs because of more leeway in regards to total OEM emissions rules. But I don't think that will happen because if EV's reach critical mass in terms of adoption, anything utilizing an ICE design is going to be so bespoke and niche market it's sure to be insanely expensive. Nor do I have the narcissistic gall to crow about how everyone else needs to reduce carbon emissions on the internet when in fact I have no plans to decrease my own carbon output until I deem it convenient for me. Is that you Al Gore ?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

That's a really long winded way of saying "Rules for thee but not for me". It's okay for you to pollute, because it's "just a little bit" and you're "an enthusiast" because all that makes up for the fact that you're a prime example of someone who could utilize an EV with literally 100% of your "needs" being met.

I don't disagree with your point about a large percentage of people adopting EV's making the potential ICE market better future designs because of more leeway in regards to total OEM emissions rules. But I don't think that will happen because if EV's reach critical mass in terms of adoption, anything utilizing an ICE design is going to be so bespoke and niche market it's sure to be insanely expensive. Nor do I have the narcissistic gall to crow about how everyone else needs to reduce carbon emissions on the internet when in fact I have no plans to decrease my own carbon output until I deem it convenient for me. Is that you Al Gore ?

Again, I think it is fine being pragmatic. It isn't a "rules for thee, but not for me" because there are no rules yet. We are either talking about the feasibility of moving the masses to EVs, or we are talking about the current thread title, which is about a mandate for all new car sales being EVs in California, or we are discussing the roll CO2 plays in climate change, as it pertains to the need to move to EVs rapidly, or we are discussing the inevitability of running out of fossil fuels and needing to move to EVs as a sustainable form of transportation.

I'm not saying I am better in my personal carbon footprint. Being a vegan who drives only 3 miles to work 3-4 days a week might put my carbon footprint much smaller than most people, but driving an 86 with a turbo K24 might add back to that carbon footprint over someone who lives in an Energy Star house that drives and EV or Prius. My carbon footprint could always be lower, but I'm not fanatic about this stuff. I am pragmatic. I just see the reality of the situation and understand something needs to change, and if it isn't accelerated then it is going to change eventually anyways. Unless I have forgotten, I don't believe I have been shaming anyone for having a personal preference for ICEs or have demanded that anyone or everyone needs to change their car to an EV. I am saying that EV adoption is an inevitability, and I have said that getting the masses to move to EVs will help to reduce CO2 levels.

Remember, CO2 isn't a pollutant. It is a green house gas, and it is an emission byproduct of combustion, but it isn't a pollutant. We aren't going to be telling people to hold their breaths, stop exercising, stop growing bigger, or mandating that people wear a carbon capturing mask from their mouths because people breathe out CO2, and we need to do everything to lower carbon production. Population control would be a more pragmatic solution. Similarly, the government is going to focus on shifting the masses to EVs. They aren't going to go after those who own classic cars or ICEs used in motorsports because this would be focusing on the wrong thing.

I think your outlook about the fate of the ICE if EVs reached critical mass is accurate in the long run, but not as it pertains to my lifetime or most people's lifetimes here. We already know green companies support polluting companies through carbon tax credits, and we know sports cars have stayed afloat on the backs of SUV/CUV/sedan sales and on the backs of the sales of mass production vehicles that have higher average fleet gas mileage. We know that biofuel in the US is not as sustainable as biofuels in other countries, but it will likely replace petrol for ICEs for years to come until we get further along with EVs. The ICE isn't going to disappear tomorrow, so what is the fuss? People can fight against these changes, but it is a losing battle. At best, you can delay it, but it will happen. What are you losing by allowing these changes to happen? ICEs will die slowly like the manual transmission, and like I have whined about that, people will whine about losing the option to buy an ICE, but whine as I will, or as you will, the world will keep moving forward.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Again, I think it is fine being pragmatic. It isn't a "rules for thee, but not for me" because there are no rules yet. We are either talking about the feasibility of moving the masses to EVs, or we are talking about the current thread title, which is about a mandate for all new car sales being EVs in California, or we are discussing the roll CO2 plays in climate change, as it pertains to the need to move to EVs rapidly, or we are discussing the inevitability of running out of fossil fuels and needing to move to EVs as a sustainable form of transportation.

I'm not saying I am better in my personal carbon footprint. Being a vegan who drives only 3 miles to work 3-4 days a week might put my carbon footprint much smaller than most people, but driving an 86 with a turbo K24 might add back to that carbon footprint over someone who lives in an Energy Star house that drives and EV or Prius. My carbon footprint could always be lower, but I'm not fanatic about this stuff. I am pragmatic. I just see the reality of the situation and understand something needs to change, and if it isn't accelerated then it is going to change eventually anyways. Unless I have forgotten, I don't believe I have been shaming anyone for having a personal preference for ICEs or have demanded that anyone or everyone needs to change their car to an EV. I am saying that EV adoption is an inevitability, and I have said that getting the masses to move to EVs will help to reduce CO2 levels.

Remember, CO2 isn't a pollutant. It is a green house gas, and it is an emission byproduct of combustion, but it isn't a pollutant. We aren't going to be telling people to hold their breaths, stop exercising, stop growing bigger, or mandating that people wear a carbon capturing mask from their mouths because people breathe out CO2, and we need to do everything to lower carbon production. Population control would be a more pragmatic solution. Similarly, the government is going to focus on shifting the masses to EVs. They aren't going to go after those who own classic cars or ICEs used in motorsports because this would be focusing on the wrong thing.

I think your outlook about the fate of the ICE if EVs reached critical mass is accurate in the long run, but not as it pertains to my lifetime or most people's lifetimes here. We already know green companies support polluting companies through carbon tax credits, and we know sports cars have stayed afloat on the backs of SUV/CUV/sedan sales and on the backs of the sales of mass production vehicles that have higher average fleet gas mileage. We know that biofuel in the US is not as sustainable as biofuels in other countries, but it will likely replace petrol for ICEs for years to come until we get further along with EVs. The ICE isn't going to disappear tomorrow, so what is the fuss? People can fight against these changes, but it is a losing battle. At best, you can delay it, but it will happen. What are you losing by allowing these changes to happen? ICEs will die slowly like the manual transmission, and like I have whined about that, people will whine about losing the option to buy an ICE, but whine as I will, or as you will, the world will keep moving forward.

What it comes down to is that I simply believe EV's are a poor solution to a possibly non existent problem. Strip mining lithium and rare earth metals refined in a toxic slurry to make batteries for electric cars is a pretty damned stupid idea IMO. I also have serious doubts about the cost and feasibility of the infrastructure requirements needed to support wide scale adoption of electric vehicles outside of certain public service or private fleet use. We can't even maintain our roads and bridges, or get broadband internet and cellular phone reception to large areas of the country. That doesn't give me confidence about retrofitting tens of millions of homes, private and public parking areas and building an entirely new network of dedicated charging stations. This country has been running unfathomable deficits for more than 20 years and has still not been able to tax and money printer go brrrrr it's way to prosperity yet. It's not going to be able to.


I also have doubts about the nebulous promises of recycling those batteries once their useful life has ended. They will probably just get sealed up and buried like the "spent" nuclear fuel and decommissioned wind turbine blades. Tons of promises can be made, but the reality of the past and present doesn't bode well for future performance.


Alternative fuels could very well be viable and it would require almost zero changes to the current infrastructure and existing fleet. Seems like most just want to chase those toxic batteries instead because the "green" battery lie has been so pervasive it's mostly killed serious interest in alternative fuels. It's basically the opposite of the "dirty nukes" lies that killed the nuclear power industry all those years ago.


Regarding our impending climate doom, I'm old enough to remember the tail end of the first climate change hysteria, the one where "the science" was telling us we were all going to die in a new ice age. Ideas were bandied about to truck coal dust to artic regions and spread it around to increase solar heat absorption. Now we are being told to "trust the science" about everything from global warming, to the super ultra deadly novel cold virus, to the fact there are 87 genders. I hope you'll pardon me for approaching nearly everything with a heavy dose of skepticism.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

What it comes down to is that I simply believe EV's are a poor solution to a possibly non existent problem. Strip mining lithium and rare earth metals refined in a toxic slurry to make batteries for electric cars is a pretty damned stupid idea IMO. I also have serious doubts about the cost and feasibility of the infrastructure requirements needed to support wide scale adoption of electric vehicles outside of certain public service or private fleet use. We can't even maintain our roads and bridges, or get broadband internet and cellular phone reception to large areas of the country. That doesn't give me confidence about retrofitting tens of millions of homes, private and public parking areas and building an entirely new network of dedicated charging stations. This country has been running unfathomable deficits for more than 20 years and has still not been able to tax and money printer go brrrrr it's way to prosperity yet. It's not going to be able to.


I also have doubts about the nebulous promises of recycling those batteries once their useful life has ended. They will probably just get sealed up and buried like the "spent" nuclear fuel and decommissioned wind turbine blades. Tons of promises can be made, but the reality of the past and present doesn't bode well for future performance.


Alternative fuels could very well be viable and it would require almost zero changes to the current infrastructure and existing fleet. Seems like most just want to chase those toxic batteries instead because the "green" battery lie has been so pervasive it's mostly killed serious interest in alternative fuels. It's basically the opposite of the "dirty nukes" lies that killed the nuclear power industry all those years ago.


Regarding our impending climate doom, I'm old enough to remember the tail end of the first climate change hysteria, the one where "the science" was telling us we were all going to die in a new ice age. Ideas were bandied about to truck coal dust to artic regions and spread it around to increase solar heat absorption. Now we are being told to "trust the science" about everything from global warming, to the super ultra deadly novel cold virus, to the fact there are 87 genders. I hope you'll pardon me for approaching nearly everything with a heavy dose of skepticism.

The problem is measurable by the rise in CO2. Now, it may be debatable as to whether that rise will lead to global warming or whether it has already lead to global warming. I think the evidence is already in, but I'll concede the point because the larger point is that it can't continue to increase forever without being checked. That is a fact. And we are foolish to gamble on the possibility. I shouldn't care. I have no kids who will deal with the ramifications, but I care about the future of other members in my family and for the future of mankind. I'm not incredibly attached to our species or my lineage, really, but it would be a shame to destroy ourselves and half the planet with us. Again, running this experiment is silly.

Besides CO2, oil reserves are finite. We would need to switch to sustainable biofuels under a controlled population at minimum. Watch the video below on why that might not be realistic. Even if someone believes EVs are a poor solution, then they would have to believe in an alternative solution to BEVs or HPEVs and biofuels are likely not the answer.

There are plenty of videos I have posted that address the feasibility of converting the energy grid to renewables (which is happening in many countries and here), or for getting the masses on EVs (which is happening in countries like Norway), or for scaling the energy grid quickly (see Engineering Explained's video), or for recycling batteries (which is already happening for raw materials and as grid storage), etc.

It is worth considering that we don't have the oil reserves to likely last us at an economically cost effective prices for 100 years, let alone a thousand years or more. In other words, we might have oil left in 50 years, but if you had to pay $20/gallon at the pump adjusting for inflation, we can't expect people to pay to use that oil for transportation at that cost. Many industries currently depend on oil for products besides for use as a source of transportation, so burning through oil only to reduce supply and increase demand means costs for other products might go through the roof. Considering this fact, burning through oil at the rate we are going through it seems illogical, especially when it will take many industries years to figure out and switch to alternatives for oil.

There are other things you mentioned that I wanted to unpack like deficit spending or mining lithium or more details, but I'm trying to keep the conversation on topic or trying not to be redundant on subjects that have been well covered here, while focusing on the key points. I think the key points are what is your alternative plan for using fossil fuels for transportation or for the energy grid if not EVs and renewables, and what do you think should be done to control rising CO2 levels, acknowledging the fact that they can't rise forever without being checked?

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...143867&page=27

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The problem is measurable by the rise in CO2. Now, it may be debatable as to whether that rise will lead to global warming or whether it has already lead to global warming. I think the evidence is already in, but I'll concede the point because the larger point is that it can't continue to increase forever without being checked. That is a fact. And we are foolish to gamble on the possibility. I shouldn't care. I have no kids who will deal with the ramifications, but I care about the future of other members in my family and for the future of mankind. I'm not incredibly attached to our species or my lineage, really, but it would be a shame to destroy ourselves and half the planet with us. Again, running this experiment is silly.

Besides CO2, oil reserves are finite. We would need to switch to sustainable biofuels under a controlled population at minimum. Watch the video below on why that might not be realistic. Even if someone believes EVs are a poor solution, then they would have to believe in an alternative solution to BEVs or HPEVs and biofuels are likely not the answer.

There are plenty of videos I have posted that address the feasibility of converting the energy grid to renewables (which is happening in many countries and here), or for getting the masses on EVs (which is happening in countries like Norway), or for scaling the energy grid quickly (see Engineering Explained's video), or for recycling batteries (which is already happening for raw materials and as grid storage), etc.

It is worth considering that we don't have the oil reserves to likely last us at an economically cost effective prices for 100 years, let alone a thousand years or more. In other words, we might have oil left in 50 years, but if you had to pay $20/gallon at the pump adjusting for inflation, we can't expect people to pay to use that oil for transportation at that cost. Many industries currently depend on oil for products besides for use as a source of transportation, so burning through oil only to reduce supply and increase demand means costs for other products might go through the roof. Considering this fact, burning through oil at the rate we are going through it seems illogical, especially when it will take many industries years to figure out and switch to alternatives for oil.

There are other things you mentioned that I wanted to unpack like deficit spending or mining lithium or more details, but I'm trying to keep the conversation on topic or trying not to be redundant on subjects that have been well covered here, while focusing on the key points. I think the key points are what is your alternative plan for using fossil fuels for transportation or for the energy grid if not EVs and renewables, and what do you think should be done to control rising CO2 levels, acknowledging the fact that they can't rise forever without being checked?


https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...143867&page=27

Efuel reduces CO2 emissions by ~85%. It's made from capturing CO2 from the air or industrial emissions and combining it with hydrogen. Might not even have to change the pumps at the gas station.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/i...ars-after-2030

Now, making hydrogen is energy intensive. So, maybe we should stop ****ing around with toxic battery BS and start putting some serious work into figuring out easier ways to obtain hydrogen. It's only the most abundant element in the universe. -

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-harves...nogardens.html

I grew up not far from the Rock of Ages granite and marble quarry in VT. I've been to the site a number of times and removing millions of tons of stone leaves quite the scar on the landscape. But that's a drop in the bucket to the tens of millions of tons of earth that would need to be strip mined and then refined with sulfuric acid to make tens of thousands of tons of lithium in the case of the Thacker Pass mine. At least a rock quarry could eventually be repurposed as a reservoir or man made lake, can't so much do that with a strip mined superfund site.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/02/...-costs-of-evs/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

Efuel reduces CO2 emissions by ~85%. It's made from capturing CO2 from the air or industrial emissions and combining it with hydrogen. Might not even have to change the pumps at the gas station.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/i...ars-after-2030

So you are fine with the proposition that we can rapidly expand the energy grid to produce e-fuels from renewables, but making electricity for EVs by scaling the energy grid is impossible?

I'm curious what this fuel will cost. Porsche says their cost would currently be around $38 per gallon.

Originally Posted by WildCard600

Now, making hydrogen is energy intensive. So, maybe we should stop ****ing around with toxic battery BS and start putting some serious work into figuring out easier ways to obtain hydrogen. It's only the most abundant element in the universe. -

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-harves...nogardens.html

It would be nice if we could use hydrogen. It would require a huge increase in our energy grid beyond the requirements for BEVs because of the reduced efficiency. We still need to build batteries with FCEVs, but smaller ones, so this could be a good solution if we can scale renewables. Hydrogen ICEs is possible, but it isn't a great idea. Hydrogen will definitely be in our future. I don't think it will be adopted as fast as BEVs.

Originally Posted by WildCard600

I grew up not far from the Rock of Ages granite and marble quarry in VT. I've been to the site a number of times and removing millions of tons of stone leaves quite the scar on the landscape. But that's a drop in the bucket to the tens of millions of tons of earth that would need to be strip mined and then refined with sulfuric acid to make tens of thousands of tons of lithium in the case of the Thacker Pass mine. At least a rock quarry could eventually be repurposed as a reservoir or man made lake, can't so much do that with a strip mined superfund site.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/02/...-costs-of-evs/

There might be other ways to mine lithium:



https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...e-green-energy

Also, Tesla is working on a sulfate-free process to harvest lithium pulled from mines in Nevada:

There are also plenty of people working on alternatives to lithium ion batteries. There are already alternatives that can be used for grid storage that are far cheaper and better than lithium too, where size/energy density isn't as important as car batteries.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It would be nice if we could use hydrogen. It would require a huge increase in our energy grid beyond the requirements for BEVs because of the reduced efficiency. We still need to build batteries with FCEVs, but smaller ones, so this could be a good solution if we can scale renewables. Hydrogen ICEs is possible, but it isn't a great idea. Hydrogen will definitely be in our future. I don't think it will be adopted as fast as BEVs.

Speaking of fuel cells, looks like Rolls Royce has joined the ranks of those looking at that, although no surprise since they also produce "long haul" engines like aircraft and other transport where fuel cells make way more sense than pure battery/electric.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

So you are fine with the proposition that we can rapidly expand the energy grid to produce e-fuels from renewables, but making electricity for EVs by scaling the energy grid is impossible?

I'm curious what this fuel will cost. Porsche says their cost would currently be around $38 per gallon.

There is an industrial gas production facility a few miles from my house that produces CO2, nitrogen, oxygen and very small amounts of noble gases by literally sucking in air, cooling it and then distilling the desired gases out. It would be much easier to expand power production and delivery to a smaller amount of key facilities than the entirety of the united states population, especially where renewable energy is concerned.

Let's get theoretical for a moment. I never lived in a house that had more than 100 amp main service until I moved out of New England, you can't charge a BEV with that kind of electric service unless you plan on shutting down every appliance in the house while charging.

Would it be easier to increase the delivery of energy or even onsite production at a handful of regional e-fuel production facilities ? Or would it be easier to go around one by one to millions of homes just in VT, NH and Maine and rip out all the old wiring and pull millions of feet of new wire to update those houses to potentially support home EV charging ? And do it all by some arbitrary date set forth by politicians ? And that's the best case scenario where we assume the transmission lines coming from the local power distribution center (or the distribution center itself) can even handle the increased load. Brownouts on hot days where everyone turns on their AC is already an issue in many places.

I'm sure cost per gallon would go way down once it was being produced in quantities outside these early experiments. Especially with advances in growing hydrogen catalysts to increase production efficiency as in the second link I posted. 15 years ago a single 100kwh battery pack was absurdly expensive, increased research and development along with increased production could do the same for e-fuel as it did for battery packs.

It would be nice if we could use hydrogen. It would require a huge increase in our energy grid beyond the requirements for BEVs because of the reduced efficiency. We still need to build batteries with FCEVs, but smaller ones, so this could be a good solution if we can scale renewables. Hydrogen ICEs is possible, but it isn't a great idea. Hydrogen will definitely be in our future. I don't think it will be adopted as fast as BEVs.

See above. Burning hydrogen directly is not the idea. Mix it with the CO2 and make synthetic hydrocarbons. This retains our existing fueling infrastructure for everything from lawn mowers to aviation and marine applications which for many of those things will not be electrified anytime in the near future (if ever).

There might be other ways to mine lithium:


https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...e-green-energy

Also, Tesla is working on a sulfate-free process to harvest lithium pulled from mines in Nevada:



There are also plenty of people working on alternatives to lithium ion batteries. There are already alternatives that can be used for grid storage that are far cheaper and better than lithium too, where size/energy density isn't as important as car batteries.

I'm all for cleaner batteries because batteries are not going away. I just don't think it's a smart idea to go around shoving thousands of pounds of batteries into every car to replace much smaller quantities of much more energy dense liquid fuels. There are some cases where a BEV makes sense, but it's far from an ubiquitous solution.

Liquid fuel is not going anywhere for a long time. There are far too many military, industrial, agricultural and even recreational requirements. What would be needed is a complete revolution in both drastically smaller, lighter, multiple megawatt batteries and solar panels that can produce multiple tens of kilowatts per hour in a few square feet of space. This makes an even bigger case in developing nations and areas where the electric grid is much more limited or even essentially non existent.


*Removed pictures and video links to make quote smaller*