Automotive trends while Obama was in office
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 |
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.
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 | 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 |
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.
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.
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 |
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 |
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.
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)
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. |