[gpskinzhut]

Originally Posted by TXCSSU

You are assuming that everyone is going to dump their ICE at the same time, which is highly unlikely.

In all likelihood, that won't be a decision left to the individual.

I'm envisioning something more along the lines of a hard line date where anything ICE-powered is simply deemed illegal to operate. In order to push that point home, you'll be hit with taxes and penalties that increase annually up to the EoL date. After that date, you simply become a criminal for ownership.

Maybe we see some half-ass program where they offer you pennies on the dollar of the value of your car to drop it off at some government lot for recycling. But hey that will be your only option as dealers won't take them in trade with no means to resell. And if they do, they are forced to add a substantial tax on (gas guzzler tax on steroids).

Now... the EV crowd chanting away hooray won't be out of the woods as the government now has to make up all that lost revenue in excise and fuel tax. Say hello to your new 'battery disposal' tax applied to your EV or some other such thing.

Mass transit also takes a jump in cost to cover that revenue loss and "to support future infrastructure expansion and improvements" which will just end up being misappropriated anyway on some politicians dumb pet project.

It's a debate that is far more complex and interwoven than the high level stuff people float.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by gpskinzhut

In all likelihood, that won't be a decision left to the individual.

I'm envisioning something more along the lines of a hard line date where anything ICE-powered is simply deemed illegal to operate. In order to push that point home, you'll be hit with taxes and penalties that increase annually up to the EoL date. After that date, you simply become a criminal for ownership.

That is some high level fear mongering......

Here I will provide you the hat.....

[gpskinzhut]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

That is some high level fear mongering......

Here I will provide you the hat.....

Not really, just thinking how the government could roadmap the push and the subsequent reinvention of revenue streams to compensate for losses. It's more or less realistic depending on the imposed timeline(s). But the dynamics are absolutely plausible.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by gpskinzhut

Not really, just thinking how the government could roadmap the push and the subsequent reinvention of revenue streams to compensate for losses. It's more or less realistic depending on the imposed timeline(s). But the dynamics are absolutely plausible.

Oh your how will government recoup the loss revenue from the transition is valid. Something will need to happen whether higher taxes on electricity generation, registration fees, charge by the mile, etc. something needs to be done to ensure our roads, bridges, etc stay funded.

What’s tin foil is suggesting ICE vehicles will be outright illegal and you would be a criminal one day operating one.

[BundiMan]

I could see the banning the mass production of ICE based vehicles and there will always be an exception for industrial cases. I don't see them requiring your to turn in the vehicle you currently own.

[TXCSSU]

Originally Posted by gpskinzhut

In all likelihood, that won't be a decision left to the individual.

I'm envisioning something more along the lines of a hard line date where anything ICE-powered is simply deemed illegal to operate. In order to push that point home, you'll be hit with taxes and penalties that increase annually up to the EoL date. After that date, you simply become a criminal for ownership.

Maybe we see some half-ass program where they offer you pennies on the dollar of the value of your car to drop it off at some government lot for recycling. But hey that will be your only option as dealers won't take them in trade with no means to resell. And if they do, they are forced to add a substantial tax on (gas guzzler tax on steroids).

Now... the EV crowd chanting away hooray won't be out of the woods as the government now has to make up all that lost revenue in excise and fuel tax. Say hello to your new 'battery disposal' tax applied to your EV or some other such thing.

Mass transit also takes a jump in cost to cover that revenue loss and "to support future infrastructure expansion and improvements" which will just end up being misappropriated anyway on some politicians dumb pet project.

It's a debate that is far more complex and interwoven than the high level stuff people float.

Wow, where are you getting your information? Old school muscle hasn't been banned, why would the government ban vehicles that run on ICE?

This is what will likely happen, as more people go to EV, prices may spike a bit to help with leveled off demand, then more ICE vehicles will get sold. Local entities may experience some growing pains, but they will adapt. The biggest benefits IMO, other than less total pollution will be not needing the Saudis and Russias of the world.

[TXCSSU]

Originally Posted by BundiMan

I could see the banning the mass production of ICE based vehicles and there will always be an exception for industrial cases. I don't see them requiring your to turn in the vehicle you currently own.

I could see them giving dealerships an incentive to take ICE vehicles in as a trade-in the way that they did the gas guzzler trade in to get people to trade into more efficient cars. I heard one car that was traded in was a GMC Typhoon, which was kind of sad. I don't see an outright ban, although I hear that line of thinking being pushed by certain propagandist networks owned by Australian nationals...

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by TXCSSU

You know what else causes fires? Fire..maybe we need to abandon fire technology and go back to caveman living. Imagine how many lives we can save if we stop using fire.

To be fair, this is a real concern with batteries.

It's true that hydrocarbon fuels are more energy-dense, but as long as you keep them away from oxygen, then they are relatively controllable. Even if they combust, the fire is easier to put out, as mentioned above.

Batteries are a whole different animal. A short circuit is really all you need to start a decent fire, since the temperature gets high enough to melt through any protection you may have. This is why batteries with even higher energy density are a concern, if they are possible - now you have more frequent fires that are even more difficult to extinguish. Joy.

There are some real challenges for BEVs. Some are easy to solve, but don't assume all problems are easy to solve. At some point, laws of physics will come knocking on the door.

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

And you’re doom and gloom……

You’re assuming people wouldn’t set charging time for off peak hours for lower electricity rates. You are acting you need to set the charging time every time you plug in. You don’t. Once you tell the car to charge at 1 am, it will remember it all the time. So every night people come home, plug in, go to dinner, and car won’t charge until 1 am. It’s not that hard and the aspect of saving money will be more than enough motivation for people to take the 30 seconds one time to set charging time.

There are some issues that aren't apparent yet since BEVs aren't the majority on the road.

But if most people have BEVs and charge at 1AM, wouldn't 1AM become the new peak? Then you'd have to adjust the charging rate or have to shift the charging time around depending on the demand of the day. It could be an automated process, but it would need a bit more work than the system now.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

To be fair, this is a real concern with batteries.

It's true that hydrocarbon fuels are more energy-dense, but as long as you keep them away from oxygen, then they are relatively controllable. Even if they combust, the fire is easier to put out, as mentioned above.

Batteries are a whole different animal. A short circuit is really all you need to start a decent fire, since the temperature gets high enough to melt through any protection you may have. This is why batteries with even higher energy density are a concern, if they are possible - now you have more frequent fires that are even more difficult to extinguish. Joy.

There are some real challenges for BEVs. Some are easy to solve, but don't assume all problems are easy to solve. At some point, laws of physics will come knocking on the door.

There is a difference in discussing how to deal with a battery experiencing thermal runway due to a defect or in a crash that damages the battery pack compared to the FUD the other member was spreading trying to equate the recall of the Bolt as proof EV’s are dangerous and unsafe.

There are some issues that aren't apparent yet since BEVs aren't the majority on the road.

But if most people have BEVs and charge at 1AM, wouldn't 1AM become the new peak? Then you'd have to adjust the charging rate or have to shift the charging time around depending on the demand of the day. It could be an automated process, but it would need a bit more work than the system now.

And that’s a fair point.

Like I said earlier, there are legitimate issues to bring up. His point in the grid needs to be upgraded is true, but his fear of everyone charging at 5-7 PM is probably not a real fear to have given current setup and habits when you buy an EV.

[gpskinzhut]

Originally Posted by TXCSSU

Wow, where are you getting your information? Old school muscle hasn't been banned, why would the government ban vehicles that run on ICE?

This is what will likely happen, as more people go to EV, prices may spike a bit to help with leveled off demand, then more ICE vehicles will get sold. Local entities may experience some growing pains, but they will adapt. The biggest benefits IMO, other than less total pollution will be not needing the Saudis and Russias of the world.

Originally Posted by TXCSSU

Wow, where are you getting your information? Old school muscle hasn't been banned, why would the government ban vehicles that run on ICE?

This is what will likely happen, as more people go to EV, prices may spike a bit to help with leveled off demand, then more ICE vehicles will get sold. Local entities may experience some growing pains, but they will adapt. The biggest benefits IMO, other than less total pollution will be not needing the Saudis and Russias of the world.

It's fan theory we'll say. I'm open to debate. None of us have a crystal ball so, have at it.

The flip to an outright ban would be a soft ban (for lack of a better term) by making it cost ineffective to operate/own one. As an example, Cali is already planning on banning the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2035, and if that gets passed I'm curious to see how they'll ramp up regulatory standards to push existing ICE vehicles out or at least reduce their operation. The easiest way to accomplish that is simply making them too expensive to run/own. We all know there's exceptions; big business and the elite for example.

So the outcome really depends on who's in charge and how aggressive a plan they want to install. But no I haven't read the details behind the California executive order so I don't know the context. But I have read a number of states are watching to follow suit depending on what happens in the sunshine state.

Ehhh. Just trading the Ruskies and Saudies for the Chinese and Chileans and whoever else pops up with extensive reserves of Lithium or whatever the next high-demand raw material is. At the end of the day, unless we can supply ourselves, reliance is always going to be an issue.

[TXCSSU]

Originally Posted by gpskinzhut

It's fan theory we'll say. I'm open to debate. None of us have a crystal ball so, have at it.

The flip to an outright ban would be a soft ban (for lack of a better term) by making it cost ineffective to operate/own one. As an example, Cali is already planning on banning the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2035, and if that gets passed I'm curious to see how they'll ramp up regulatory standards to push existing ICE vehicles out or at least reduce their operation. The easiest way to accomplish that is simply making them too expensive to run/own. We all know there's exceptions; big business and the elite for example.

So the outcome really depends on who's in charge and how aggressive a plan they want to install. But no I haven't read the details behind the California executive order so I don't know the context. But I have read a number of states are watching to follow suit depending on what happens in the sunshine state.

Ehhh. Just trading the Ruskies and Saudies for the Chinese and Chileans and whoever else pops up with extensive reserves of Lithium or whatever the next high-demand raw material is. At the end of the day, unless we can supply ourselves, reliance is always going to be an issue.

I figure EVs will be the go to for going to work or running little errands here and there. Enthusiast will hold onto their vehicles for weekend cruising or other events. I actually have no problem with that as I think it's kind of crazy to see so many people cruising around in rush hour traffic in a huge vehicle with just them in the car. Here's a question, what if we can master the car battery enough that we can start considering putting them into small personal aircraft? Considering how far we've come since the first EVs were created, I'd love to see how far we can push the envelope. Unfortunately, we have people that just don't like innovation anymore, even though it may eventually come down to our survival.

[gpskinzhut]

Originally Posted by TXCSSU

I figure EVs will be the go to for going to work or running little errands here and there. Enthusiast will hold onto their vehicles for weekend cruising or other events. I actually have no problem with that as I think it's kind of crazy to see so many people cruising around in rush hour traffic in a huge vehicle with just them in the car. Here's a question, what if we can master the car battery enough that we can start considering putting them into small personal aircraft? Considering how far we've come since the first EVs were created, I'd love to see how far we can push the envelope. Unfortunately, we have people that just don't like innovation anymore, even though it may eventually come down to our survival.

I'm game for a flying car. I can't envision the jackoffs that roam the roads nowadays in a flying vehicle floating around like blind seagulls with their faces buried in their phones, or hanging out of the flying cars doing some stupid challenge, or piddling along at 15 mph below the speed limit and changing lanes without any awareness whatsoever due to cognitive decline. Idiots. All of them. But yeah, flying car? Absolutely, so long as the automation is kosher.

I still think there will be some strict regulatory actions and steep taxes imposed on anyone with a gas-powered vehicle, to curb ownership and reduce usage. If and when that would happen, who knows. Get some of these extremists in control and anything is possible.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by gpskinzhut

In all likelihood, that won't be a decision left to the individual.

I'm envisioning something more along the lines of a hard line date where anything ICE-powered is simply deemed illegal to operate. In order to push that point home, you'll be hit with taxes and penalties that increase annually up to the EoL date. After that date, you simply become a criminal for ownership.

Is there even a speck of evidence that points that this is likely to happen? And if so, who implements it and who benefits from it?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by wavsine

I wasn't going to but since you insisted...



"Normally a car fire you can put out with 500 to 1,000 gallons of water," Austin Fire Department Division Chief Thayer Smith said, per The Independent, "but Tesla's may take up to 30,000-40,000 gallons of water, maybe even more, to extinguish the battery pack once it starts burning"

Note that some of these Tesla fires are spontaneous, they are not charging at the time.

And my favorite part is that after the fire has been "extinguished", it can reignite again and again.

You might want to get your Tesla out of the garage and park it on the street....just not near my car please.

Meanwhile, Hyundai and Kia say "hold my beer, please"

Park your car outside: Hyundai, Kia recall vehicles due to fire risk
Tom KrisherThe Associated Press

Hyundai and Kia are telling the owners of nearly 485,000 vehicles in the U.S. to park them outdoors because they can catch fire even if the engines have been turned off.
DETROIT (AP) — Hyundai and Kia are telling the owners of nearly 485,000 vehicles in the U.S. to park them outdoors because they can catch fire even if the engines have been turned off.

The recalls from the two Korean automakers are another in a long string of fire and engine failure problems that have dogged the companies for the past six years.

This time the problem is contamination in the antilock brake control module that can cause an electrical short. This increases the risk of fire while the vehicles are being driven or are parked.

Affected are certain Kia Sportage SUVs from 2014 through 2016, and the 2016 through 2018 K900 sedan. Recalled Hyundais include certain 2016 through 2018 Santa Fe SUVs, 2017 and 2018 Santa Fe Sports, the 2019 Santa Fe XL and 2014 and 2015 Tucson SUVs.