[Devstrike]

Originally Posted by digitalfutur

Those who think ICE vehicles are the future are on the wrong side of history. It's not a coincidence that those who think that way are generally anti-government, pro deregulation (business first always before environment), and pro fossil fuel.

The HD Truck market and over the road Semi Truck drivers say hi. Ford dropped the EV development for their Superduty Trucks and Ram also said ICE has no end date. So yeah I would say ICE is still the future. I have seen and heard talks of Hydrogen making its way in to an HD due to extreme loss of efficiency of an EV while towing. TFL did a towing test with a Ford Lightning vs a Gas truck it only went 85 miles were the gas truck could tow much much farther and that wasn't even a diesel. EDIT: Looks like ICE will be around in the 1500/150 trucks as well with their EV counterparts with no end date at least for Ram and Ford.

[jamala00]

Looks like another great side effect of EV's. Ford cutting 3000 jobs to lower costs in transition to EVs.

[90503]

Originally Posted by digitalfutur

In typically self-serving fashion, human ingenuity suddenly disappears when one is personally opposed to some new technology, EVs in this case. That is a variance with history where new technologies were developed with human inventiveness and smarts, often with government support, and despite political opposition by vested interests. Challenge me to name some, I've got a long list...

Those who think ICE vehicles are the future are on the wrong side of history. It's not a coincidence that those who think that way are generally anti-government, pro deregulation (business first always before environment), and pro fossil fuel.

It seems a very important component of the EV Transition has been overlooked or intentionally ignored. That is the amount of raw materials and precious metals needed to sustain this so-called transition. Being pro-fossil fuel will be shown to be the right side of history.

From the esteemed World Economic Forum:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/...ical-minerals/

"Shifting from fossil fuels to renewables requires huge amounts of critical metals.
Recycling alone won't be enough to sustain the amount of materials needed
We need to increase sharing, reuse and a preference for longevity to reduce demand.
We need a clean energy revolution, and we need it now. But this transition from fossil fuels to renewables will need large supplies of critical metals such as cobalt, lithium, nickel, to name a few. Shortages of these critical minerals could raise the costs of clean energy technologies." ('Ya think?)

EVs will never be produced in numbers close to ICE, it will be impossible. There will be shortages of available vehicles and extremely high costs to produce or own one. Meanwhile, fossil fueled ICE vehicles will have been discontinued and unavailable. The policies and planning that will follow can only be Orwellian by necessity. (As the WEF contends).

The wrong side of history will have been to eliminate fossil fuels and ICE as a standard quality of life and the freedom it provided, and blindly or more likely intentionally, replacing it with an unsustainable system of rare earth material dependent transportation. Throwing away ICE, fossil fuels, and the quality of life and standards of living it has provided to millions will be shown by history to be the biggest unforced error and folly.

[Chrome383Z]

I think it’ll be a mix. EV make sense for some folks, others it does not. I’m really blown away by the EV crowd though - it’s not new tech. Electric motors date back to ICE origin dates.

Tesla has done an outstanding job marketing EV though. There’s not much an EV does that you couldn’t do with a ICE vehicle. Packaging is easier and HP is easier because you don’t have to worry about CAFE laws. I expect legislation on EV to come to limit HP extending range. It’s the Wild West right now. Range sucks and all the folks that I know that bought EV have decided to go back to ICE for convenience.

Yes someone can say map this out and whatever, fact is folks forget to plug it in or a charger is broken, or not one close by. One of the younger kids I know that got rid of his model S said he had to miss out on trips that spontaneously came up with the guys because his car wasn’t charged up. He got rid of it.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Chrome383Z

Tesla has done an outstanding job marketing EV though. There’s not much an EV does that you couldn’t do with a ICE vehicle. Packaging is easier and HP is easier because you don’t have to worry about CAFE laws. I expect legislation on EV to come to limit HP extending range. It’s the Wild West right now. Range sucks and all the folks that I know that bought EV have decided to go back to ICE for convenience.

If you use the HP of the EV, yeah range is reduced. But, I can buy acceleration boost which increases my Model 3's HP, but as long as I drive it the same, it maintains the same range.

If I had a Model 3 Performance, but put the 18" wheels with the low resistance tires on from the LR, as long as I drive the same, it will have the same range as the LR. In fact Tesla used to build such a vehicle known by the community as the Model 3 Stealth. It was equipped as an LR, but had the motors from the performance. The aero and wheels/tires is the reason why the Performance gets less range than the LR.

[Alan47717]

Originally Posted by 90503

It seems a very important component of the EV Transition has been overlooked or intentionally ignored. That is the amount of raw materials and precious metals needed to sustain this so-called transition. Being pro-fossil fuel will be shown to be the right side of history.

From the esteemed World Economic Forum:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/...ical-minerals/

"Shifting from fossil fuels to renewables requires huge amounts of critical metals.
Recycling alone won't be enough to sustain the amount of materials needed
We need to increase sharing, reuse and a preference for longevity to reduce demand.
We need a clean energy revolution, and we need it now. But this transition from fossil fuels to renewables will need large supplies of critical metals such as cobalt, lithium, nickel, to name a few. Shortages of these critical minerals could raise the costs of clean energy technologies." ('Ya think?)

EVs will never be produced in numbers close to ICE, it will be impossible. There will be shortages of available vehicles and extremely high costs to produce or own one. Meanwhile, fossil fueled ICE vehicles will have been discontinued and unavailable. The policies and planning that will follow can only be Orwellian by necessity. (As the WEF contends).

The wrong side of history will have been to eliminate fossil fuels and ICE as a standard quality of life and the freedom it provided, and blindly or more likely intentionally, replacing it with an unsustainable system of rare earth material dependent transportation. Throwing away ICE, fossil fuels, and the quality of life and standards of living it has provided to millions will be shown by history to be the biggest unforced error and folly.

I have pointed this out numerous times on this thread and NONE of the patronizing "Oh, don't worry, American ingenuity will overcome these piddling little problems." individuals have made any attempt to respond to the rare earth metals scarcity or rare earth metals mining environmental issues.

It's hard to have a reasoned debate with people who choose to only debate some of the issues while pretending some issues don't exist.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by jamala00

I see people make this claim/argument so many times in EV threads. The problem with this argument is automobiles back then, roads, gas stations, etc... They ALL made everyone's lives better in every way over horses and trails. Toss out the fact of ICE drivers subsidizing driving an EV for now... (Because that will change) Today EV's do not make anyone's lives better.

Until EV's make peoples lives better and the masses can see why, they will not ever become mainstream without them simply being shoved down our throats. Things that are forced upon us that consumers don't see the benefit of, simply don't fair well in history.

Agreed with this.

The problem is automobiles back then were decided by the MARKET. Consumers WANTED the switch and the change. It was not pushed so feverishly by government intervention. It was met with government accommodation, such as the expansion of the interstate highway system (which had more roles than just serving commuters. It's part of the national defense system), but not intervention. People desired the freedom and flexibility of automobiles and as a result, infrastructure changed to accommodate them. Today, Government is pushing incentives to encourage EV participation and also using our tax dollars to build EV charging stations (while foolishly DECREASING Power Grid Capacity by removing reliable energy in favor of 'green energy'... which isn't as green or reliable as its marketed to be ... )

They are only telling the public half truths about EV's.. ..they do not tell the public that EV's generally are not cleaner than ICE vehicles when considering their emissions from their conception to their condemnation, or the fact that most of the nation does not have an abundance of super charging stations, infact currently EV's actually greatly outweigh current supercharging capacity, this is due to supply and also the fact that an EV has to sit at a super charger much longer than an ICE vehicle has to refuel making it so that vehicles have to wait longer to recharge.

These vehicles - if mass adopted in their current form are going to change consumer lives in a very big way and the fact that they are not giving us a choice on how we want to get around, by removing ICE vehicles and labeling them as dirty, when EV's are just as dirty.. ..speaks volumes.. It isn't to make the environment better, it is to control the people and manipulate them into what profits government, who happens to be in the control of Billionares.. ..and that is what is pissing people off.. they want to take away our rights for their personal prosperity.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Alan47717

I have pointed this out numerous times on this thread and NONE of the patronizing "Oh, don't worry, American ingenuity will overcome these piddling little problems." individuals have made any attempt to respond to the rare earth metals scarcity or rare earth metals mining environmental issues.

It's hard to have a reasoned debate with people who choose to only debate some of the issues while pretending some issues don't exist.

You can't have reasoned debate with someone who has been taught that disagreeing with their positions isn't just wrong, it's bad. Because they view opposing positions as bad, they don't bother to debate them, they just ignore or dismiss them, or mock them. Due to this, their ability to understand not only their position, but the other side's position has atrophied, as has their ability to debate based on facts rather than insults and accusations of some type of 'ism'.

[Hops]

Originally Posted by Chrome383Z

I think it’ll be a mix. EV make sense for some folks, others it does not. I’m really blown away by the EV crowd though - it’s not new tech. Electric motors date back to ICE origin dates.

Yes, i too am tired of hearing from the EV crowd, the suggestion electric motors are 'higher' tech. I'm also annoyed at the horse vs car is ICE vs EV comparison on multiple levels. Many people still ride horses as a hobby! It's not an insult, and they're not doing it because they're anti-tech.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Hops

Yes, i too am tired of hearing from the EV crowd, the suggestion electric motors are 'higher' tech. I'm also annoyed at the horse vs car is ICE vs EV comparison on multiple levels. Many people still ride horses as a hobby! It's not an insult, and they're not doing it because they're anti-tech.

When cars were first coming out the government wasn’t cutting checks to Ford nor was it raising the cost of owning horses with efficiency regulations and feed taxes.

[1fastz28]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

How exactly is our infrastructure going to improve?

The Greens don't want nuclear. They don't want hydro. They're OK with solar and wind, but what about when the wind doesn't blow and it's cloudy? We don't have even a fraction of the storage capacity we need to bridge those gaps and no way to do it with current technology. That leaves fossil fuels to bridge the gap, but the Greens have declared fossil fuels verboten lest the sky fall.

So exactly how are we going to 'upgrade our infrastructure'?

This is a really informative video that explains the new Climate Change bill will influence government spending to update our electric power grid, existing nuclear/hydro/geothermal plants.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by jamala00

I see people make this claim/argument so many times in EV threads. The problem with this argument is automobiles back then, roads, gas stations, etc... They ALL made everyone's lives better in every way over horses and trails. Toss out the fact of ICE drivers subsidizing driving an EV for now... (Because that will change) Today EV's do not make anyone's lives better.

Until EV's make peoples lives better and the masses can see why, they will not ever become mainstream without them simply being shoved down our throats. Things that are forced upon us that consumers don't see the benefit of, simply don't fair well in history.

Except for us, the dying breed that enjoys working cars, EVs are already better with one exception, charging time. Quieter, less maintenance, etc.

Originally Posted by Devstrike

The HD Truck market and over the road Semi Truck drivers say hi. Ford dropped the EV development for their Superduty Trucks and Ram also said ICE has no end date. So yeah I would say ICE is still the future. I have seen and heard talks of Hydrogen making its way in to an HD due to extreme loss of efficiency of an EV while towing. TFL did a towing test with a Ford Lightning vs a Gas truck it only went 85 miles were the gas truck could tow much much farther and that wasn't even a diesel. EDIT: Looks like ICE will be around in the 1500/150 trucks as well with their EV counterparts with no end date at least for Ram and Ford.

To be clear the ICE truck range dropped a significant amount as well. Under 200 miles if I recall correctly. EV was worse though.

Originally Posted by Alan47717

I have pointed this out numerous times on this thread and NONE of the patronizing "Oh, don't worry, American ingenuity will overcome these piddling little problems." individuals have made any attempt to respond to the rare earth metals scarcity or rare earth metals mining environmental issues.

It's hard to have a reasoned debate with people who choose to only debate some of the issues while pretending some issues don't exist.

Mostly because what you call rare earth metals aren’t actually hat rare.

Originally Posted by 90503

It seems a very important component of the EV Transition has been overlooked or intentionally ignored. That is the amount of raw materials and precious metals needed to sustain this so-called transition. Being pro-fossil fuel will be shown to be the right side of history.

From the esteemed World Economic Forum:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/...ical-minerals/

"Shifting from fossil fuels to renewables requires huge amounts of critical metals.
Recycling alone won't be enough to sustain the amount of materials needed
We need to increase sharing, reuse and a preference for longevity to reduce demand.
We need a clean energy revolution, and we need it now. But this transition from fossil fuels to renewables will need large supplies of critical metals such as cobalt, lithium, nickel, to name a few. Shortages of these critical minerals could raise the costs of clean energy technologies." ('Ya think?)

EVs will never be produced in numbers close to ICE, it will be impossible. There will be shortages of available vehicles and extremely high costs to produce or own one. Meanwhile, fossil fueled ICE vehicles will have been discontinued and unavailable. The policies and planning that will follow can only be Orwellian by necessity. (As the WEF contends).

The wrong side of history will have been to eliminate fossil fuels and ICE as a standard quality of life and the freedom it provided, and blindly or more likely intentionally, replacing it with an unsustainable system of rare earth material dependent transportation. Throwing away ICE, fossil fuels, and the quality of life and standards of living it has provided to millions will be shown by history to be the biggest unforced error and folly.

Can’t mix Precious, rare and critical elements. For example precious metals are required for every ICE car produced today.

And I just love how everyone has picked up on “wrong side of history”. This either works or it doesn’t. GM could be back to 100% ICE in 3 to 4 years. And they won’t do that just because the EVs launched or coming are pretty solid choices. The only risk of failure is that they have to back pedal on going 100% EV. None of them will likely ever go back to 100% ICE.

And lastly, the elements needed for every single ICE car and truck are so valuable they are being stolen. Platinum, palladium and rhodium. None require to make an EV emissions compliant.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by 1fastz28

This is a really informative video that explains the new Climate Change bill will influence government spending to update our electric power grid, existing nuclear/hydro/geothermal plants.

Thanks for the video. I do have some thoughts on it.

1. The vast bulk of the money is going to exactly what I expected, wind and solar and as I stated and he acknowledges the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Do some research on how much acreage it would take for enough solar and wind to power this country. You could cover all of California and not have enough.

2. The money for nuclear is designated for keeping existing plants online, at least that's what the narrator of the video says. That doesn't expand our infrastructure, it just maintains what we already have. And, they'll only give that money out with a bunch of management strings attached.

3. The research money seems fine, no harm in research and often some good.

4. All the stimulus money is just going to increase the strain on the electric grid. The expanded subsidies for buying EVs, the subsidies from switching from gas to electric stoves and hot water heaters. That just exacerbates the problem.

5. There's no money for new nuclear plants. There's no money for upgrading coal fired plants. There's almost nothing for hydro.

So although I appreciate the information in the video I don't find it persuasive.

[jamala00]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Except for us, the dying breed that enjoys working cars, EVs are already better with one exception, charging time. Quieter, less maintenance, etc.

EV's are better to you because of those reasons. "Etc" is not a reason, "Quiter" means nothing about being better. Less Maintenance?... Most newer vehicles don't require any maintenace besides oil changes for 100k miles. Many people lease for 3 years and have no maintenance expeneses. Also EV's are more expensive up front which eats up that maintence budget on purchase.

Aside from that... The post you quoted of mine didn't say anything about an EV being better then an ICE. It said until the consumer sees a benefit to buying an EV... They will never become mainstream unless they are simply being forced upon us.. Which they are!