Automotive trends while Obama was in office

Quote: missedhervee

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?

Good, clean-burning, natural, carbon-neutral, American coal.

Excellent. Perfect. Increase demand, force an increase to supply, make electricity more expensive for things even more essential than vehicles...such as home heating. That's sure to help economically disadvantaged folks and the lower middle class. Wonderful stuff.

Short answer: F$*% the environment.

Quote: Mission146

Excellent. Perfect. Increase demand, force an increase to supply, make electricity more expensive for things even more essential than vehicles...such as home heating. That's sure to help economically disadvantaged folks and the lower middle class. Wonderful stuff. Short answer: F$*% the environment.

Absent a breakthrough in the technology of power generation (hello, cold fusion) I am convinced the most viable and economic way to generate necessary power is via nuclear power generation, but for that to take off we need to find a final repository for all the spent nuclear material; bury it deep at Yucca Mtn. and hope for the best.

I'd much prefer green power but the technology isn't yet sufficiently viable so that it would be economically prudent to go that way ... yet ... hopefully someday.

But it isn't just EV's that will be demanding we increase power generation; let's not forget the so-called "internet of things," which also places considerable demand on power generation.

Quote: missedhervee

Absent a breakthrough in the technology of power generation (hello, cold fusion) I am convinced the most viable and economic way to generate necessary power is via nuclear power generation, but for that to take off we need to find a final repository for all the spent nuclear material; bury it deep at Yucca Mtn. and hope for the best.

I'd much prefer green power but the technology isn't yet sufficiently viable so that it would be economically prudent to go that way ... yet ... hopefully someday.

But it isn't just EV's that will be demanding we increase power generation; let's not forget the so-called "internet of things," which also places considerable demand on power generation.

The most viable and economic way to generate necessary power is to keep using gas. All of these increased costs...R&D money that needs to be recouped...strain on electricity supply...more demand that will increase costs...it's a disaster. I don't want anything to happen if it's going to drive up direct costs to consumers. The environment doesn't matter, existence has no inherent meaning, humanity comes to an end sooner or later, anyway.

Anyway, that's my point. We already lean on electricity enough and will continue to do so. Gas diversifies our energy needs.

Quote: Mission146

The most viable and economic way to generate necessary power is to keep using gas.

At first I thought you meant natural gas, but then I believe I caught your drift.

Quote: Mission146

Excellent. Perfect. Increase demand, force an increase to supply, make electricity more expensive for things even more essential than vehicles...such as home heating. That's sure to help economically disadvantaged folks and the lower middle class. Wonderful stuff.

Well coal is a serious carbon dioxide emitter. For the coal burning states, it might be helpful to help them build new nuclear reactors. WV, WY and KY mine a lot of coal. I don't think Missouri mines a lot of coal, but it's position on the Mississippi river makes it cheap to ship coal there from the states where it is mined.

% electricity generated by coal (and nuclear)

1. 91.0% West Virginia
2. 83.9% Wyoming
3. 72.0% Kentucky
4. 70.7% Missouri ---> 11.9% nuclear Callaway Plant began operating on December 19, 1984. Gen 1 × 1215 MW
5. 64.5% Utah
6. 61.1% North Dakota
7. 59.1% Indiana
8. 54.7% Nebraska ---> 18.6% nuclear : Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) began operating on July 1, 1974. Gen 1 × 769 MW
9. 50.7% Montana
   ------------------------------------------------------- Voted Democrat in POTUS election of 2020
10. 44.9% Colorado
11. 41.8% New Mexico
12. 41.3% Wisconsin ---> 16.2% nuclear : Point Beach Nuclear Plant began on Dec 21, 1970 & Oct 1, 1972. Gen 2 × 625 MW

Natural Gas is a fossil fuel, but it emits less than half the carbon dioxide as coal. It is the number #1 fuel for generating electricity in the nation (and in California). Coal, nuclear, and renewables are roughly equal.

California, is trying to do everything at once. It is trying to eliminate nuclear and natural gas as well as hydroelectric at the same time it increases EVs. It is said that solar is the cheapest new plant to be built, but eventually unless you store the electricity for evening use, you will continue to have rolling blackkouts like they had in the summer of 2020 during the heat wave.

As I said earlier California generate 425 kWh per month per person in 2019 (pmpp19) while the national average is 1,041 kWh pmpp19. Wyoming and North Dakota generate 6,088 kWh pmpp19 and 4,401 pmpp19 obviously with the intent to export electricity to other states. Wyoming contains most of the Powder River Basin which contains enough coal to last for multiple centuries and is ideally suited for electrical generation.

Quote: Mission146

Short answer: F$*% the environment.

Maybe not that extreme, but it is difficult to do everything at once. You are trying to undo the entire industrial revolution.

See this truck? It is the third worst carbon dioxide emitter in the nation. It cost ~$76000. It has no gas guzzler tax because it is a truck.
6.2 liter 8 cylinder (702 hp)


#2 is a $500 thousand dollar car 6.5 liter 12 cylinder (769 hp)


#1 is a $3 million dollar car 8.0 liter 16 cylinder (1578 hp)


So if you wanted to save the planet which of these three vehicles would you ban? Would you ban them all? Would you tax them to death? Would you not propose any taxes or bans?

Quote: EPA automotive trends report

Turbocharged engines have been increasing rapidly in the marketplace, accounting for 30% of all production in model year 2019, and projected to reach 35% in model year 2020.Many of these engines are applying turbochargers to create “turbo downsized” engine packages that can combine the improved fuel economy of smaller engines during normal operation but can provide the power of a larger engine by engaging the turbocharger when necessary.

Toyota turbocharged their Tundra pickup this year to downsize it from a 5.7 liter naturally aspirated V8 to twin 3.4 liter 6 cylinder turbocharged engine. Fuel economy improved from 15.6 mpg to 21.6 mpg and I think it will be easier to add a hybrid version in the next two months. Toyota has pledged to have a hybrid version of every model by 2025.

Subaru turbocharges their most powerful engine (2.4 liter 4 cylinder) and has replaced all their naturally aspirated larger engines with 6 cylinders. For example:
2019 Subaru Legacy AWD 3.6L, 6 cyl, Automatic (AV-S6) natural MSRP: $22,545 - $31,545 City MPG:20 Highway MPG:28 |256 hp
2022 Subaru Legacy AWD 2.4L, 4 cyl, Automatic (AV-S8), Turbo MSRP: $22,545 - $31,545 City MPG:24 Highway MPG:32 |260 hp
2022 Subaru Outback AWD 2.4 L, 4 cyl, Automatic (AV-S8), Turbo MSRP: $26,945 - $39,945 City MPG:23 Highway MPG:30 |260 hp
2019 Subaru Outback AWD 3.6 L, 6 cyl, Automatic (AV-S6) natural MSRP: $26,345 - $38,995 City MPG:20 Highway MPG:27 |256 hp

But many automakers are replacing naturally aspirated with reasonably small engines and replacing them with turbocharged engines under 2.0 liters, It permits them to add horsepower without getting worse fuel economy.

It's a little disturbing in my opinion, adding all this unnecesary complication and expense (especially long term maintenance expense) just to save a few mpg.

They aren't doing this because they want to; gov'ts require increasingly better fuel economy, and the best way to do that plus meet emissions is to turbocharge.

Seems odd to have a turbocharged four cylinder in a full-sized pickup but hey, wake up and smell the economy.

Since a turbo uses exhaust gas to power the turbo there is a very negative effect on the sound of a turbo car's exhaust; no longer a ripping scream, more like a brain-addled fart.

Such is the price of progress.

Quote: missedhervee

Seems odd to have a turbocharged four cylinder in a full-sized pickup but hey, wake up and smell the economy.

There are turbo 4 diesels for large trucks and buses. Other things equal you are usually better with fewer cylinders.

In some ways, but there is no question that a turbocharged engine is more highly strung and has to work harder than a normally aspirated eight cylinder engine of comparable horespower.

This could lead to shorter engine life.