New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[cjd]

Originally Posted by soundman98

modern ABS is leaps and bounds above the ABS systems in the vehicles they used.

but solving a mechanical problem with electronics, it's still got the same root problem though. the wheels need to first slip in order to trigger the system to do anything.

by locking axles together, it reduces mechanical slippage, and reduces the times that the system would need to do anything in the first place.

With motors in the mix I'm not sure the tires need to slip - read torque feedback through the drivetrain. I think...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

modern ABS is leaps and bounds above the ABS systems in the vehicles they used.

but solving a mechanical problem with electronics, it's still got the same root problem though. the wheels need to first slip in order to trigger the system to do anything.

by locking axles together, it reduces mechanical slippage, and reduces the times that the system would need to do anything in the first place.

With a locked differential, there is constant slip when in any turn because the outside wheel has to travel further than the inside wheel, which is why it is only for snow and mud. In theory, the three motors in an EV like the Hummer or Cybertruck could compensate for this with input from the steering angle sensor.

[BrahmaBull1990]

“ April 14th 2021, Jefferies published a research note entitled “Are EVs as ‘Green’ as They Appear?” in which they conclude an electric vehicle must be driven 200,000 km (or 124,000 miles) before its “whole of life” carbon emissions equals that of an internal combustion engine.”

Turns out making lithium batteries is not good for the environment…

http://blog.gorozen.com/blog/explori...rbon-footprint

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by BrahmaBull1990

“ April 14th 2021, Jefferies published a research note entitled “Are EVs as ‘Green’ as They Appear?” in which they conclude an electric vehicle must be driven 200,000 km (or 124,000 miles) before its “whole of life” carbon emissions equals that of an internal combustion engine.”

Turns out making lithium batteries is not good for the environment…

http://blog.gorozen.com/blog/explori...rbon-footprint

They lost me after the second line:

Moreover, they point out that a typical EV is on average 50% heavier than a similar internal combustion engine, requiring more steel and aluminum in the frame.

It is really hard to compare apples to apples, but this is close enough. A Tesla Model 3 Performance does 0-60 3.5 seconds and weighs 4,250 pounds. A BMW M3 does 0-60 in 3.5 seconds and weighs 3,850 pounds, but also costs a lot more. 50% more weight would mean the Model 3 would weigh 5,775, so I don't know where they are getting their numbers from.

Also the next set of lines were odd:

Our analysis suggests a modern lithium-ion battery has approximately 135,000 miles of range before it degrades to the point of becoming unusable.

This is false in so many ways. For one, here is a data set from the Tesla owner's club, and it shows that degradation in charge isn't bad. The outliers at the bottom used the fast chargers often instead of home charging and had high commutes. Even then, a 300 mile car that dropped to 85% of its capacity would still have 255 miles of range, which is more than enough for the average person that drives 30-40 miles a day. Moreover, the batteries aren't useless. Besides being recyclable, batteries are being repurposed for grid storage. This has been done on a large scale for stadiums and corporations and on a small scale for homes. Unlike a car, having maximum capacity or power-to-weight doesn't matter, so even if a 100kWh battery pack dropped to 50% capacity, that would still power the average home for several days. For perspective, the average Tesla wall pack is 5-15kWh, so this would be 3-10x that capacity.




Engineering Explained and everything I have read said that even in areas that use coal for electricity production, an EV is greener. If that energy comes from renewables, it isn't even close. Your article seemed to be making some wild assumptions and miscalculations that are so egregious, I question the motives of the author. Regardless, coal is a finite resource, and we don't have an endless supply of oil. We will need to move to renewables regardless of emissions. It isn't a matter of if but when.



https://thecorrespondent.com/7056/wh...61200-afaa6e5d

[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.