Automotive trends while Obama was in office

Page 3 of 5<12345>
Poll
1 vote (100%)
No votes (0%)

1 member has voted

January 12th, 2022 at 5:22:56 PM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
I have mixed feelings on this, I think fuel economy increases are generally good, I would prefer a transition to EVs. I am less worried about the environment (in the global sense, though that is a valid long-term concern) and more worried (in the short term) about air quality.

I don't think you can say "unsafe and unnecessary", at most its unnecessary (I don't have any reason to think it would be unsafe, other than maybe economically, so I can't in good faith vote that option). And, it's a bit too optimistic. I don't think it's wise to mandate arbitrary requirements and hope that private industry can catch up (regulations should be based on existing data not projected improvements).

We are already seeing a market driven shift towards EVs, Hybrids, and Fuel-Efficient vehicles as fuel prices increase, people are concerned about the environment and air quality, and it just becomes more mainstream. Banning vehicles that no sane person would buy anyway does not seem productive.

I think eventually (20 years from now) having a gas-powered car will be looked at like smoking is now, a solid 15% of people do, most people avoid it, most of those that regularly do are either stubborn trying to prove a point or stuck with a long-term car payment, and some people may indulge occasionally for fun/experience (classic sports cars, antiques, etc... like cigar smoking now....), but people know its harmful to them. And, gas stations will become as rare as "newspapers and tobacco shops" are now.... I don't think this will be the case in 5 years like some say, but 20 years seems a fair guess (I could be wrong, maybe it will happen quicker than I expect, but I am speaking strictly for America, I know some countries are far closer already).
January 12th, 2022 at 6:58:10 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Gandler
I don't think you can say "unsafe and unnecessary", at most its unnecessary (I don't have any reason to think it would be unsafe, other than maybe economically, so I can't in good faith vote that option).


What I said was Trump era EPA said "unsafe". Here is a copy of an actual document of the benefits of freezing CAFE requirements at 2020 level until 2026. The full argument is 515 pages long, so this summary fact sheet is all most people would read anyway.

Quote: EPA-420-F-18-901 August 2, 2018
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MYs 2021-2026 CAFE Proposal - by the Numbers
All quantities compared to standards issued in 2012
Calculated based on “Preferred Alternative” Option in NPRM

Consumer Impacts
Increased vehicle affordability leading to increased driving of newer, safer, more efficient, and cleaner vehicles.
• A $2,340 reduction in overall average vehicle ownership costs for new vehicles
o $1,850 reduction in the average required technology costs
o $490 reduction in ownership costs for financing, insurance, and taxes
Over 12,000 fewer crash fatalities over the lifetimes of all vehicles built through MY 2029
o Up to 1,000 lives saved annually


Manufacturer Impacts
Reduced regulatory costs and burdens. Increased new vehicle sales.
• $252.6 billion reduction in regulatory costs through MY 2029.
• 1 million additional new vehicle sales through MY 2029.
• Reduction from 56% to 3% in the percentage of hybrid vehicles needed to comply in MY 2030.
• 37.0 mpg projected overall industry average required fuel economy in MYs 2021-2026,compared to 46.7 mpg projected requirement in MY 2025 under standards issued in 2012

Overall Impacts:
Under the preferred alternative, there will be lower costs, thousands of lives saved, and minimal impact to fuel consumption and the environment
• Over $500 billion reduction in societal costs over the lifetimes of vehicles through MY 2029
o Technology costs: $252.6 billion
o Costs attributable to additional fatalities: $77.1 billion
o Costs attributable to additional injuries: $120.4 billion
o Costs attributable to additional congestion and noise: $51.9 billion
• $176 billion in societal net benefits
• 2-3% increase in daily fuel consumption
o About 0.5 million barrels per day increase in fuel consumption
• Increase from 789.11 ppm to 789.76 ppm in atmospheric CO 2 concentration in 2100
o 3/1,000 ths of a degree Celsius increase in global average temperature in 2100
o 8/100 ths of a percent increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentration in 2100
• No noticeable impact to net emissions of smog-forming or other “criteria” or toxic air pollutants
EPA-420-F-18-901
August 2, 2018



But the argument was not simply pulled out of thin air. To be fair there are an additional 6,000 people dying in 2020 compared to 2011, and they are only blaming 1,000 of those deaths on increased CAFE requirements.

Generally fatalities from automobile accidents has been going down since they peaked in 1972. But 2011 was the minimum since 1949, so they have gone up by 19% since 2011. The more severe CAFE requirements were instituted in 2012.

38,680 2020
36,096 2019
36,560 2018
37,473 2017
37,806 2016
35,485 2015
32,744 2014
32,893 2013
33,782 2012
32,479 2011 ---------------- minimum deaths since 1949
32,999 2010
33,883 2009
37,423 2008
41,259 2007
42,708 2006
43,510 2005
42,836 2004
42,884 2003
43,005 2002
42,196 2001
41,945 2000
41,717 1999
41,501 1998
42,013 1997
42,065 1996
41,817 1995
40,716 1994
40,150 1993
39,250 1992
41,508 1991
44,599 1990
45,582 1989
47,087 1988
46,390 1987
46,087 1986
43,825 1985
44,257 1984
42,589 1983
43,945 1982
49,301 1981
51,091 1980
51,093 1979
50,331 1978
47,878 1977
45,523 1976
44,525 1975
45,196 1974
54,052 1973
54,589 1972
January 13th, 2022 at 6:45:43 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5052
Quote: Gandler
... I think eventually (20 years from now) having a gas-powered car will be looked at like smoking is now, a solid 15% of people do, most people avoid it, most of those that regularly do are either stubborn trying to prove a point or stuck with a long-term car payment, and some people may indulge occasionally for fun/experience (classic sports cars, antiques, etc... like cigar smoking now....), but people know its harmful to them. And, gas stations will become as rare as "newspapers and tobacco shops" are now.... I don't think this will be the case in 5 years like some say, but 20 years seems a fair guess (I could be wrong, maybe it will happen quicker than I expect, but I am speaking strictly for America, I know some countries are far closer already).
Maybe so, but I for one predict a backlash against the way the EV is being pushed ... I foresee a shortage of ICE vehicles for those that want them. The demand for them in the colder parts of the US has to be fairly respectable longterm.

One gripe I heard that I hadn't thought about is heating the vehicle with an EV. You basically have a choice, either freeze your nuts off or cut your trip length possibilities in half.
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]
January 13th, 2022 at 9:25:51 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: odiousgambit
Maybe so, but I for one predict a backlash against the way the EV is being pushed ...


A lot of things are possible. During the GW Bush years we saw the successful lawsuits against California about their EV mandates which would have required 5% of all cars by major 7 manufacturers be zero emissions from tailpipes by 2001 and 10% by 2003.
Quote: Katharine Q. Seelye Oct. 10, 2002 NY Times
White House Joins Fight Against Electric Cars

The Bush administration went to court today to support the automobile industry's effort to eliminate requirements in California that auto manufacturers sell electric cars. President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., was the chief lobbyist for General Motors, one of the plaintiffs in the case. Mr. Card was also head of an auto industry trade association when California proposed to require electric vehicles, and has publicly opposed such a requirement.

Under California clean air rules, 10 percent of the vehicles sold in the 2003 to 2008 model years must be electric or ''zero-emission vehicles.'' But the state, recognizing that the car companies were not ready to meet that goal, offered to let them sell hybrid vehicles, which run on gasoline and electricity, to satisfy part of the requirement.

Still, the industry wants to avoid having quotas at all and was not satisfied with that relaxation of the rules. It sued the state, arguing that the hybrid provision violated federal law.
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/us/white-house-joins-fight-against-electric-cars.html


Then we saw the Toyota Prius hybrid sales beginning in the year 2000, followed by hybrid Highlander and Camry which peaked in US sales in 2007 and then severely crashed.

This massive jump in automobile deaths is being blamed on CAFE requirements formally established in 2012. There are a lot of class action lawsuits under lemon law regarding CVT and 10 speed transmissions. Subaru didn't even add "overdrive" until 1988, now cars have three "overdrive" speeds to increase fuel economy at high speeds.

Automobile accident deaths
38,680 2020
36,096 2019
36,560 2018
37,473 2017
37,806 2016
35,485 2015
32,744 2014
32,893 2013
33,782 2012
32,479 2011 ---------------- minimum deaths since 1949

It's like small private planes. At one point the legal situation become so expensive that it was easier to go out of business.

Toyota and Honda who have invested billions of dollars into improving the Internal Combustion Engine are really not envisioning a day when sales will go 100% battery electric vehicles.

Even Volkswagen which is shouting 100% electrification by the year 2030, actually means at a minimum every vehicle will have a 48 volt internal electric system which can handle all the devices in cars sold in the last few years.

Certainly all the expensive brands are going electric. Jaguars, Land Rovers, Lotus, Volvo, Lexus, probably Bugatti and others. But their customers can easily afford a garage with a charging system, they can afford vehicles with big batteries, and they can afford to go to high voltage rapid charging stations on longer trips where electricity may be 3X the price at home.
January 13th, 2022 at 12:41:09 PM permalink
missedhervee
Member since: Apr 23, 2021
Threads: 96
Posts: 3092
I'd be nervous about relying on an EV if I lived in a remote location with a real cold climate as putting the heater on full blast can reduce range by up to 41%.

Here you are somewhere in the Frozen North; you get caught roadside in a white out / blizzard: oops.
January 13th, 2022 at 1:04:14 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569


Norway is now selling 65% of its new vehicles as battery electric vehicles. The government incentives are simply so high that very few people can afford to turn them down. For December 90% of new passenger cars in December were rechargeable.
It is very possible that before 2022 is over that manufacturers will no long ship a pure gasoline or pure diesal vehicle to Norway for sale.

Quote: missedhervee
Here you are somewhere in the Frozen North; you get caught roadside in a white out / blizzard: oops.


I think there will always be some percentage of owners that will want a hybrid vehicle that switches to gasoline when the battery runs out. Norway will be very reluctant to make such purchases illegal, and I think citizens will fight for the right to own such a vehicle especially if you live in a remote area.

One third of Norway's land and 10% of the population (nearly half a million people) live in the Arctic.
There is a subtle twilight light from about 9 AM to 2 PM in Tromso, but otherwise, the city is dark. While this may sound a bit dreary, Tromsø locals actually report lower levels of wintertime depression than expected which may be related to a more positive wintertime mindset.

Tromsø (~200 miles north of Arctic circle) was issued its city charter on 20 June 1794 and has been inhabited since the Ice Age. It is considered a nice place to live. Maritime winds keep it from getting frigid cold, but it is seldom really warm.

January 13th, 2022 at 3:20:43 PM permalink
DRich
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 51
Posts: 4941
Quote: Gandler
I have mixed feelings on this, I think fuel economy increases are generally good, I would prefer a transition to EVs. I am less worried about the environment (in the global sense, though that is a valid long-term concern) and more worried (in the short term) about air quality.

I don't think you can say "unsafe and unnecessary", at most its unnecessary (I don't have any reason to think it would be unsafe, other than maybe economically, so I can't in good faith vote that option). And, it's a bit too optimistic. I don't think it's wise to mandate arbitrary requirements and hope that private industry can catch up (regulations should be based on existing data not projected improvements).

We are already seeing a market driven shift towards EVs, Hybrids, and Fuel-Efficient vehicles as fuel prices increase, people are concerned about the environment and air quality, and it just becomes more mainstream. Banning vehicles that no sane person would buy anyway does not seem productive.

I think eventually (20 years from now) having a gas-powered car will be looked at like smoking is now, a solid 15% of people do, most people avoid it, most of those that regularly do are either stubborn trying to prove a point or stuck with a long-term car payment, and some people may indulge occasionally for fun/experience (classic sports cars, antiques, etc... like cigar smoking now....), but people know its harmful to them. And, gas stations will become as rare as "newspapers and tobacco shops" are now.... I don't think this will be the case in 5 years like some say, but 20 years seems a fair guess (I could be wrong, maybe it will happen quicker than I expect, but I am speaking strictly for America, I know some countries are far closer already).


i agree with a lot that you say there but i believe the electric cars will definitely be the more powerful and fun cars of the future. gas engines with transmissions are just to slow to put the power to the ground compared to electric. the fastest production cars in the quarter mile are already electrics.
At my age a Life In Prison sentence is not much of a detrrent.
January 13th, 2022 at 7:24:34 PM permalink
missedhervee
Member since: Apr 23, 2021
Threads: 96
Posts: 3092
Need to increase the range and decrease the recharge time before these really take off.

Oh yeah, where will we get all the electricity to power EV's?
January 14th, 2022 at 4:41:14 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: missedhervee
Oh yeah, where will we get all the electricity to power EV's?


SHORT OPINIONATED ANSWER: Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) which are nuclear generators of less than 300 MW. The NRC has approved the design of 77 MW components that will be trucked to a location and assembled into a group of 6 to 12 to form a plant. The first plant will be in Idaho before 2030.

LONG WINDED ANSWER:

The necessary electricity to power all Battery EVs may require a 30% increase in the total electricity. Figure 2% increase per year for ~ 15 years. In previous decades we increased electricity generated by sometimes much more than 2%.

Of course, we used coal for about 50% of that increase. Number 2 was nuclear, and Number 3 was natural gas.
3466 billion kWh increase in total generation from 1950 to 2000
1811 from coal
754 from nuclear
556 from natural gas
255 from renewables (including conventional hydroelectric)
90 from petroleum (very expensive: only used in large percentages in Hawaii today where coal, natural gas, and nuclear not widely available)

Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant opened in 1961, and Grand Coulee opened in 1942. Those are the largest hydropower plants in the nation. So while hydropower is important most of it is old and it's contribution is 4th in handling the increase from 1950-2000.

In recent decades conservation measures have meant that the total electric power has nearly flatlined. But we are building new plants all the time, #1 natural gas and #2 renewables to diminish coal generated electricity back to the level of ~1972.

Total Elec/yr Decade Coal Elec/yr
8.5% from 1950 to 1960 10.0%
7.3% from 1960 to 1970 5.7%
4.1% from 1970 to 1980 5.1%
2.9% from 1980 to 1990 3.2%
2.3% from 1990 to 2000 2.1%
0.8% from 2000 to 2010 -0.6%
-0.3% from 2010 to 2020 -8.3%

Coal to make up 85% of total U.S. power capacity to be retired in 2022 - EIA

States with less than 10% coal generated electricity (2019)
  1. 9.2% Oklahoma
  2. 8.7% Florida
  3. 7.5% Louisiana
  4. 6.9% Nevada
  5. 6.7% Mississippi
  6. 6.7% Washington
  7. 4.1% Oregon
  8. 3.5% Virginia
  9. 2.3% Delaware
  10. 1.9% New Hampshire
  11. 1.5% New Jersey
  12. 0.7% Maine
  13. 0.3% New York
  14. 0.1% California
  15. 0.1% Idaho
  16. 0.1% Connecticut
  17. 0.0% Vermont
  18. 0.0% Massachusetts
  19. 0.0% Rhode Island

So increasing the generation of electricity would probably require less than the increases we had from 1950 to 2000. However, California has passed a state law requiring 100% electricity generation and importation from other states by renewables by the year 2045. Right now their "reneable portfolio" does not include nuclear, conventional hydropower, or natural gas. As of 2021 they are over one third renewables, but the total amount of electricity generated per person in California is half the national average. Electricity in California costs far more than in any other place in the nation except for Hawaii, alaska, and in New England.

Keep in mind that the carbon dioxide emitted from electricity generated from PURE COAL to power the least powerful Tesla (Model 3 RWD) is less than the internal combustion engine emits from a Chevy Spark. Even in Wyoming they don't use 100% PURE COAL. If I power the same EV with the average electricity fuel in the nation, it generates lower emission than a Prius Eco.

Carbon Dioxide emissions comes from #1) transportation, #2) electrical generation, #3) industry, #4) residential, and #5) commercial. Residential and commercial get power from electricity and natural gas primarily. The carbon emissions are already credited to the electrical generation sector.

January 14th, 2022 at 8:58:33 AM permalink
missedhervee
Member since: Apr 23, 2021
Threads: 96
Posts: 3092
Thank you for that detailed reply.
Page 3 of 5<12345>