New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

I think hydrogen stations are liquified hydrogen.
Problem is they get super cold and when its done filling a hydrogen car the nozzle might get stuck cuz it froze to the car's nozzle lol.

The problem I have seen with hydrogen is people have stuck them with the stigma that they are very dangerous. Ultimately I would like to see more investment in other options besides pure BEV.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

The question is - what exactly is the problem anyway? Without getting political, can someone describe the problem scientifically, with evidence? Is the problem the depleting petroleum? Or is the problem the emissions form petroleum? Or is the problem how do we find an alternative sustainable source that doesn't pollute the atmosphere?

this is entirely different questions than you were asking before.


is the problem depleting petroleum?
it is a significant concern--as the population expands, more people use a finite resource, so there's less of that resource available.

curiously, lithium and cobalt are also finite resources, but are currently viewed as nearly-infinite. the same as oil was in the early 1900's...

the emissions from gas burning are a definite concern as well.

i think that 'we're'(as a species) looking for an ideal energy source that burns nothing, costs nothing, and emits nothing, but provides limitless power.

but the first law of thermodynamics directly contradicts this.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

I'm not fully aware of the challenges of hydrogen power. How does one refuel hydrogen? Do you just swap out the cylinder? Filling liquid gasoline is much easier than gaseous hydrogen, since the leaks can't be managed.

Primarily it's in its production and right now the easiest method is using natural gas to produce it. Some will argue that it complicates the process as in the end its an inefficient means to get to what is basically an electric car.

The supply chain is very similar to gasoline, right down to pumping it into the vehicle. The output is water.

It also has the issue that Musk was not a fan, and did not want to go that route.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Some (most) people don't realize that they're being played. The same crowd that has convinced them of EVs are the same ones flying private jets around.

OHHHH THERE IT IS.
As soon as these words are uttered I know there is no point in even trying to explain anything since the argument will just change and nothing but a spewing sea of rhetoric can be expected.

[soundman98]

my tinfoil hat is bigger.

it also rejects 5g waves.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

OHHHH THERE IT IS.
As soon as these words are uttered I know there is no point in even trying to explain anything since the argument will just change and nothing but a spewing sea of rhetoric can be expected.

Yea it's quite ironic! All of a sudden people put their tinfoil hats on and prophesy how the ice caps will melt, crude will be all gone, earth become a pancake griddle...

[new2subaru]

We were supposed to freeze to death in the 70's. Just sayin...


There's no doubt we should be concerned just with spewing shit into the atmosphere we have to breathe.

But, the Media and Politicians make it sound like we're going to fry tomorrow.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Are we gonna have a fully developed grid to support the EV needs by 2035?

https://www.autoblog.com/2022/08/13/...n-energy-cost/

Yes, most likely. Watch the video. We can add more energy production quickly to meet demand, and only 6% of cars on the road are new, so it will take 10 years to 2045 to get to 60% EVs and five more years to 2050 to get to 90% EVs, depending on demand for EVs. The law is only that new cars sold have to be EVs, thus we have over 30 years to build the grid to meet 100% demand.

Originally Posted by chipmunk

It wasn't that long ago when Texas froze over. And California had rolling blackouts. And look at what's going on in EU and UK.

What exactly is your point again?

Texas froze because they had bad weather, and their grid failed because wind turbines weren’t i stalled with warmers like they are in other states, because the nuclear plants didn’t maintain or prepare for such events (slacking on maintenance to maximize profits short term), and because Texas is isolated from the other states where they choose to not connect to grids in other states like they were an island, but what does this have to do with EVs? California has rolling blackouts to mostly reduce the risk of fires, but shortfalls has mostly been from reduced hydro from climate change, increased damage from fires from climate change and increased air conditioning use from climate change. We also had blackouts in 2001 after the Governor passed legislation to deregulate the energy industry leading to utilities restricting supply to drive up prices despite have three times the capacity of what was being produced.

My point was that EVs, right now, don’t alter peak demand that much or at all, and they help to flatten the duck curve created by solar.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Efficiency actually drives OEMs to build the vehicles. If the cost isn't apparent in $, it will be in other ways. Just the past 2 years has shown the world what happens when you depend too much on 1 country for raw materials. Some country are more efficient with one source of energy, while other geographies might be different. Trying to force a geography into something that it isn't built for, is not efficient. When you have 1 country controlling 70-80% of raw materials for batteries, that's gonna turn out pretty expensive as well.
https://www.autoblog.com/2022/08/13/...n-energy-cost/

Sodium sulfur batteries are coming. More energy dense/lighter and far cheaper and greener. They can be recycled easy and will outlast the life of the car. Problem solved.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/937007
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/s...gh-190333.html

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

The question is - what exactly is the problem anyway? Without getting political, can someone describe the problem scientifically, with evidence? Is the problem the depleting petroleum? Or is the problem the emissions form petroleum? Or is the problem how do we find an alternative sustainable source that doesn't pollute the atmosphere?

There are two problems. The first problem is emissions. There are sulfur oxides and noxious gases from combustion, which gets into the air causes smog, respiratory issues, asthma and death, besides acid rain, and these come from industry and cars, but catalytic converters have helped. There are greenhouse gases like methane from industry, ground and cow farts that are far worse than CO2, but doesn't last as long, and there is vapor, which traps heat and is worse than CO2, and then there is CO2. All the data is in the other thread on Expert Prognosis for the Planet. There has been a huge rise in CO2 levels, which has and will continue to lead to an increase in average global temperatures, but CO2 has a max effect, so the real concern is a runaway greenhouse gas effect where melting ice and permafrost will not reflect as much sunlight (trapping heat), and it will release more methane, etc. leading to an inhabitable planet or considerably less tolerable one.

The longer issue is that we will run out of coal, oil and natural gas because these are finite resources. Without change, we will likely run out of the ability to extract enough oil to meet demand, irregardless of known supply levels, especially because we can't extract everything from a reserve (eventually it is more expensive to extra the oil than the profit from selling it, and it becomes harder and harder to get the last 25-50% of the reserve).

Originally Posted by chipmunk

My real concern is - how does a country stay fully self-reliant and self-sustained while being ethical and cause least damage to the environment? As such, if crude oil doesn't fit the bill, when what next. Electricity is definitely not the solution. The US might not be directly affected by the mining, but the exporters are. That's unethical. Moreover, being a net importer of energy is a terrible idea, something that became even more obvious in the recent years.

I'm not fully aware of the challenges of hydrogen power. How does one refuel hydrogen? Do you just swap out the cylinder? Filling liquid gasoline is much easier than gaseous hydrogen, since the leaks can't be managed.

The best way would be nuclear fusion, if it didn't have huge costs and worked, but nuclear fission is the second best if it also didn't have huge costs, huge risks to the environment and terrorism, and ultimately, it produces toxic waste that takes forever to recycle. If we could safely launch the waste into the sun then that would be nice. Wind, solar, hydro/coastal, geothermal are more ideal from a sustainability factor and even a cost compared to nuclear. EVs from renewables are the best solution, but hydrogen cars would be the second when we have excess electricity to make hydrogen, and this would be used to solve for EV pitfalls like range in aircraft.

As mentioned, battery tech is moving away from exotic metals to sodium sulfur and lithium sulfur, both of which we can mine here. Lithium has risks to ground water and uses lots of water, so it is less ideal than sodium, but we have all the lithium in the US to build all the batteries we would need. Of course, recycling lithium from batteries will be more sustainable and green when we have enough to recycle in mass, but I feel we will move to sodium sulfur really fast. Plentiful, green enough and cheap.

In 2020 we produced 18.4 million barrels and only needed 18.2 million barrels and imported 7.86 million barrels. We import oil because it is cheaper to buy oil overseas and sell our expensive oil than to consume it here. It also promotes energy production to reduce supply here. We also import oil because our refineries are built to refine the type of oil we produce, which isn't the type we import.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/amer...e-import-crude

Hydrogen gas is pressurized into the tanks. Liquid hydrogen would be better and is likely the future for storage, transport and delivery. The pitfalls of hydrogen is that we would need to build the infrasture to deliver hydrogen, which would require far more fueling stations than EVs because most people refuel their EV at home, and it would be more expensive to build these stations, and we need to produce the hydrogen, where most of it is produced now through fossil fuels, and if we used renewables to produce hydrogen from electricity then there is a conversion loss over producing the hydrogen to produce electricity in the car versus just using the original electricity to charge a battery. This means we would need even more energy production to meet the energy demands of the grid.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

The problem I have seen with hydrogen is people have stuck them with the stigma that they are very dangerous. Ultimately I would like to see more investment in other options besides pure BEV.

As stated above, the biggest issue with hydrogen adoption isn't public fear; it is practicality. Hydrogen cars have been exclusive to California because it was where Toyota and the state agreed to invest in fueling stations, but there are few to date. It is less green than BEVs over the life of the car.

I think they will be there in the future, but I just don't think it will be necessary or best. Solid state sodium sulfur batteries will reduce cost and be more energy dense, so range anxiety will be non-existent, and even without them, battery swapping in the future would be better than refueling with hydrogen. Battery swapping would allow the use of smaller batteries for daily needs and larger batteries for long trips, which means we wouldn't need 100kWh battery cars as the norm--more like 25kWh battery cars. These would be much lighter and cheaper to produce--far cheaper.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

We were supposed to freeze to death in the 70's. Just sayin...


There's no doubt we should be concerned just with spewing shit into the atmosphere we have to breathe.

But, the Media and Politicians make it sound like we're going to fry tomorrow.

From a geologic prospective, we are actually going to fry in the blink of an eye. We are at 421 ppm.

[new2subaru]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

From a geologic prospective, we are actually going to fry in the blink of an eye. We are at 421 ppm.

Tick Tock.

We shall see.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

There are greenhouse gases like methane from industry, ground and cow farts that are far worse than CO2, but doesn't last as long, and there is vapor, which traps heat and is worse than CO2, and then there is CO2. All the data is in the other thread on Expert Prognosis for the Planet. There has been a huge rise in CO2 levels, which has and will continue to lead to an increase in average global temperatures, but CO2 has a max effect, so the real concern is a runaway greenhouse gas effect where melting ice and permafrost will not reflect as much sunlight (trapping heat), and it will release more methane, etc. leading to an inhabitable planet or considerably less tolerable one.

Help me out here - are you talking about global warming, or climate change? Are they the same or is there a difference? Can you point me to some scientific studies that causatively, not correlatively, show that carbondioxide causes temperature rise, and not the other way around?
Also, plants need CO2. By trying to eliminate that, you'll be hurting them in the process.

How exactly are you going to produce all that extra electricity is 50, 60, 70 % of all US cars are EVs?