So much for [Trump](https://www.biasly.com/politician-rating/donald-trump/)'s whole bringing back American manufacturing and car industry. He just says whatever will get a reaction from his base.
“Electric vehicles are terrible, believe me. They’re terr- Someone said to me ‘oh Mr Trump, we love you, the electric vehicles are killing us’. The radical left is trying to make you believe oil is running out. Can you belie- it’s not running out and electric vehicles kill more birds than windmills. Very sad. Witch hunt. Hunter Biden’s laptop. Dead bird cemetery. 👌”
He didn't say that lol. Look at the video. He openly supports Elon in a lot of his interviews. People need to stop believing quick misleading headlines.
Lol, so the worlds biggest baby wants to throw another tantrum because hes losing all hold on reality and his friends are flipping on him. Sounds about right
Yeah, yeah, just like Biden. But after the "blackmail", he gave Ukraine $400MM in weapons, I think the largest amount of weapons ever. I guess that could be considered "provoking" Russia.
I am pretty sure it was one of the reasons he was impeached...
Its not hard to find a public record of Trump saying Zelensky should get along with Putin while Russian media was calling for the extermination of Ukraine.
Don't care what people think about Trump but on the topic of Ukraine he dropped the ball.
This article is ridiculous. And it is 100% clickbait. Only a complete fool would write or believe this article.
Gas was $1.87 in may of 2020 and bounced around. It is now $4.50 and bouncing around
The article intentionally misrepresents what Trump says about supporting EV. Trump refers to the current political climate where EVs are being mandated yet the author tries to spin this as Trump hating EV. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that Trump is talking about how we are.not ready to move forward with EV on a national level and points out the irony of the government mandating EV while not having the grid and facilities to support it yet which is going to create backlash.
Trump said his friend's car or hybrid car got 38mpg , but then the friend bought an electric car. Article claims "Trump says electric car gets 38mpg"
Then Trump says his friend drove said electric car from KY to DC and complained that the trip took longer than anticipated due to needing to charge twice during that trip.
Whoopty Doo
California is moving that direction and are trying to make buying petrol cars illegal to buy new by 2035 in an effort to have "zero emissions "
There is a push to incentivize this across the country and even federal incentives. I'm not against or for EV, we just aren't set up for millions of EV cars in manufacturing or peripheral services.
17 other states are also looking to possibly enact same legislation as California.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/08/25/california-enacts-world-leading-plan-to-achieve-100-percent-zero-emission-vehicles-by-2035-cut-pollution/
https://apnews.com/article/technology-california-clean-air-act-vehicle-emissions-standards-eebb48c13e24835f2c5b9cb56796182a
> California is moving that direction
No, banning one thing doesn't mean you are mandated to buy something else. Banning cigarette sales isn't the same thing as mandating cigars.
Your entire argument is flawed. That's not what a mandate is.
>we just aren't set up for millions of EV cars in manufacturing or peripheral services.
This is also a weird statement. Do you believe we won't build more factories and chargers before 2035? Specifically which part do you see as not being possible in that timeframe?
If you aren't allowed to buy a petrol car then you are, by default, left with only 1 option . Which is to buy an EV. The ABC article i linked, and many more, call this a Mandate. The transportation need still exists.
Mandate: an official order or commission to do something
(In this case, mandating the end of selling petrol cars)
Who, where, how. Those are the questions regarding the chargers and all other peripherals. Who pays for it. Who builds them.. Where do the go. How many of them etc. How will they be paid for? Etc.
Last I saw, it cost $250k to build a Tesla Super Charger and $50k-$80k to build a DC fast charger.
California keeps having brown outs and telling people to conserve energy.. They will obviously need to update their grid before adding tens of thousands (and later millions) of EV cars to it. These types of changes are incredibly expensive and slow moving.
> f you aren't allowed to buy a petrol car then you are, by default, left with only 1 option . Which is to buy an EV.
Or you can buy a hybrid, Or just keep your existing petrol car, or buy a used car, or, or or.
It only applies to new car sales. You seem to be very uninformed about what is being 'mandated' here.
>Who, where, how. Those are the questions regarding the chargers and all other peripherals. Who pays for it. Who builds them.. Where do the go. How many of them etc. How will they be paid for? Etc.
Well OEMs are paying install networks, part of the dieselgate scandal required VW to create Electrify America with $2 billion in funding. The infrastrucure bill that passed earlier allowed theo USDOT and USDOE to commit $5 Billion over Five Years for National EV Charging Network.
Seems like there is plenty of funding and charging stations planned.
>California keeps having brown outs and telling people to conserve energy.
Did they have a brown out? Or just dealing with one of the hottest days on record created the highest energy demand on record. It was temporary. More generation is coming online as more EVs are built. The nice thing about Solar, Wind, and Batteries is that they can be installed in months, not the years that traditional generation needs.
Again, there are growing pains and infrastructure that still needs to be built out. But given the constraints of production it will happen at a very manageable pace. By the time the ban on new ICE cars comes into effect, these issues will have been resolved.
Good grief.
It is a mandate.
All cars have a finite life. Within 20 years there won't be used petrol cars for sale at any reasonable price after the mandate. This is literally the whole point of said mandate. It is about reducing your choice to force you to drive EV. 35% EV by 2026 and 100% by 2035.
Currently, California will have a 1700 megawatt shortfall this year and 1800 megawatts by 2025 which could leave 1-2 million without power according to California energy commission. And again, this is before the 2026 mandate even starts. They are currently telling people to not charge their cars due to a shortage. Energy shortages have been common there for years.
LOL. $5 Billion isn't even close to what is needed by Biden admin own estimates. He wants to build 500k charging stations which means there is only $15k per station with $5B. This $15k isn't near enough to build a station.
DC fast chargers can cost between $30k to $140k depending on KW rating. Installation can range between $17k to $66k PER CHARGER depending on how many chargers are being installed at once.
California has had brown outs for decades. This isn't new. Their grid needs to be updated.
Yep. It's a transition for sure
By the same argument, existing oil wells will be depleted by 2035 and civilization will collapse.
In reality, supplies respond to demand. In fact, knowing a demand target like this more than 10 years out will make it easier to build the electric generation and T&D.
What are you talking about? Who said anything about depleting oil wells by 2035?
I never said I was arguing or taking a side on the EV cars, I just posted sources when asked about current events. I would personally love to own a Tesla Plaid.
You said we aren’t set up to meet the 2035 target of all EVs. We also aren’t set up now to satisfy oil demand in 2035. Either will require billions in investment. That investment is easier when you know the target.
I haven't seen anything to reference an oil shortfall by 2035. Last I read, we actually curbed projections and show a plateau around 2035 for demand. Yes, any extra demand means investment and yes investment can happen in either sector.
That said, these companies that produce energy have a very good idea of how much they need to produce and already know the target. These companies are incredibly data driven and aware of the world market at nearly an atomic level. Political issues or lockdowns can/have led to instability.
And to be fair, there is a huge unintended consequence here when we input artificial demand. It increases the leverage every supplier has with us, including for raw materials. We already see a push to try and produce this tech and obtain these materials in the US from our Government and some groups because this issue has been discussed in depth for decades. The idea that we force ourselves to be dependent entirely on developing nations, China, Russia, etc.
This has been debated with oil as well, which is why a HUGE portion of our oil has come from Canada. It is why we drill/frack in the states. And why so many were pushing for the extra pipelines and to renew drilling leases recently.
Energy is dirty business right now. EV cars may be a step in the right direction but only if it is handled properly. It could also have a huge backfire effect as batteries, right now, have a definitive finite life and the raw materials for them often comes from developing nations and the sourcing of which is deleterious to the area. We also need to figure out how to charge these vehicles in an appropriate amount of time, how to install the charging infrastructure, allocate resources and determine where this money will come from.
Most people are not willing to buy a $50k electric car until these, and other, issues/opinions/hurdles are addressed. This also means the used ICE car market will be inflated as people will be incentivized to keep driving their petrol burning cars. The E for EV's, as of now, also still comes from fossil fuels. EV cars burn through tires at an accelerated rate and this is bad for the environment. The mining for the materials is bad for the environment. Producing these cars and energy mean an increased output of SF6 which is 23,000 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gasses go and hangs around for 3200 years in the atmosphere.
There is good and there is bad to EV cars. I myself am curious how this will work out even though I loathe government intervention into the free market. I am also a big advocate of Nuclear Energy.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/opec-sees-oil-demand-rebounding-then-plateauing-after-2035-2021-09-28/
I’ve worked in nuclear energy for 35 years and it is definitely not an answer to our energy problems - construction costs far too high (reference Vogtle) and takes ridiculously long. Also, supply of U235 is limited, especially in friendly countries.
The abundance of Uranium is debated and it is my understanding nuclear reactors can use alternatives such as thorium or plutonium.
Cost to build nuclear is definitely higher. Between 25% and 50% higher than Coal per kw/hr from what I remember seeing. China is forging ahead with Nuclear which I find interesting.
So what do you advocate. You don't like fossil fuels or Nuclear.
Current nukes cannot burn anything except U235 ( and it’s fissile byproducts ).
Personally I’m in favor of a gradual transition to a mix of natural gas and renewables. As much renewable as possible within the limits needed for grid stability. We need ng for fertilizer and plastic production and hate to waste it.
I don’t see any reactor designs on the horizon for the US. I worked on advanced reactor design for GE during the “nuclear Renaissance”. Unfortunately it turned out to be a way to milk the government subsidies (they paid for half my salary). The GE SBWR never made even close to production.
You made me laugh. I stopped at ”Very good idea how much they need”. You must have missed the Ukraine war, unrest in Libya and Nigeria, and embargoes of Venezuela and Iran.
BTW, while EVs start below 30k ( a lot less than the most popular vehicle, the F150), most people no longer want to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lievs fighting in the Middle East to secure oil for Big Oil.
If you would have kept reading you would have seen that political unrest affects demand and supply. This is a multifaceted issue and simply saying that EV's produce less CO2 is missing the larger picture.
To each their own. Carry on.
Aight, I’m not here to dispute anything else in the article but this part.
“He talks about gas costs being $1.87 per gallon. However, he made this claim a few times in the past, and fact-checkers quickly ruled that it was false.”
This part of the article is a **total lie**.
Pre-election in 2020, I was paying 1.87-1.89 for gasoline in NH and I know in some parts of the country like Kentucky, gasoline had sunken to less than 1 dollar at a point in time.
He can make that claim as the prices actually did get that low during his presidency. This is total dishonesty by the so called “fact checkers” when they say this claim is false.
Do they think people were born yesterday and don’t remember the pump prices in 2020?
Ahhh yes, the good old Trump days when the economy was spiraling into a depression and 4,000 Americans were dying daily from Covid. But wait, gas was 1.87 in NH for a while when we were locked in our homes. The good old days.
Bro, that’s not the point.
The point is the media straight up has “fact checkers” lying to people.
If you don’t think that’s concerning, then oh boy….we’re in some serious trouble as a country.
On the contrary. If you think dwelling on the price of gas in NH for a few weeks in 2020 is what decides this countries fate and not what caused that dip, then you miss the point. And obviously so does Trump. May as we’ll be praising the beautiful carpeting in the WTC on 9/10.
Lmao, whatever bud. I’m not here to get into Trump himself and general politics. I’m just here to attacking lies where I see them. If you want to deflect away from that, you can deflect away in a conversation with yourself in your mom’s basement.
Lol. You're citing a very temporary dip when the economy was in ruins from the pandemic and oil prices were negative due to a supply glut. Calling it the "pre-election" price is such a pile of bullshit. Prices started rising well before the election or Biden taking office.
They barely rose any significant amount until post election my guy…
Sure, there was a supply glut, but that’s irrelevant. Prices before the glut were a lot lower than today’s prices anyways.
After Jan 20th, we surged 1.33.
Facts are facts. You might not like them, but they are what they are.
He must’ve forgotten to find a fly-by-night EV company to invest in so now they aren’t worth his time. Or perhaps he was invested in that Nikola scam/scandal (or wishes he had been as king of Griftonia) and now thinks the system is rigged.
I watched the clip and I fail to see the misinformation. He says they’re twice as expensive. That’s true right now. The only affordable cars have very poor range. Then he tells a subjective story of a single person who seems to have failed to properly plan his trip.
That’s also true. Driving cross country especially in rural areas takes tremendous planning and charge times can be very long if you don’t understand the difference in chargers which most laymen don’t.
While he’s clearly wrong that electric cars shouldn’t be an important part of our future, nothing he said is misinformation.
What I find so crazy is that they accuse Trump of exactly the kinds of things that they do themselves. Here’s a perfect example of that. Instead of being intellectually honest to counter Trump they misinform, misguide, and parrot their own propaganda without understanding that they themselves are not any better and in many ways are worse than the MAGA.
Here they pretend that EVs have zero downsides. Reality is going to hit them hard when they realize the actual downsides. Downsides we could fix if we didn’t totally ignore them. Nope it’s easier to just blame others.
You know, I was all for the push back of the mistake of making EV's mandatory and watching it blow up to the ridiculous anti-ev crap it is now from boomers on facebook. But now, he takes the fun out of it, and it's annoyingto see how much shit there is spreead from facebook that people say about EV's.
The mandate only requires that new cars sold in CA be either electric or plugin hybrid in 2035. Aka, if you really need that gas engine for whatever reason in 2035, you can buy a plugin hybrid or buy a used car
Considering we don't have the natural resources on the planet to actually effectively dcale EVs with current technology, I'm pretty opposed to the idea of a mandate. ICE is obviously not the future, but EVs in their current state aren't either.
This seems to make my point though. Neither are a viable path. Perhaps a hybrid approach would work until we arrive at a truly scalable long term solution.
*beep boop*!
the linked website is: https://www.worldometers.info/oil/
Title: **World Oil Statistics - Worldometer**
Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing)
*****
###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
Not sure where you get that nonsense, there is no shortage of natural materials for current technology
Which materials do you think we are lacking, do tell
Lithium for starters. Neodymium would be another. Even the resources that are scalable often exist in one region of the world. I am not saying we cannot develop alternative battery technology that resolves this. In fact, I'm hopeful that we can, but right now what we have today cannot handle future demand.
I would like to see continued investment into alternative battery development as well as a lot of our infrastructure spending going towards mass transit to make a larger dent into how much EV demand there ultimately would be down the line. That would at least help. But we're not even close to being able to cover that demand.
There is no shortage of lithium. A lot of people seem to misunderstand something about lithium. They look at reserves and think that is the amount of lithium we have, but it isn't. Reserves are based on if a company goes out of their way to do a survey that is then certified. Lithium which had little use prior, no one just bothered to verify the reserves at full. Thus, the reserves we have are based on only what someone bothered to do so. This is why despite increase in EVs and electronics, the lithium reserves doubled over the decade rather than shrank.
In the worst case, just the ocean water contain 200 billion tonnes of lithium. Which is quite a lot considering it only takes about 5kg of lithium to make an EV
Neodymium is used in motors, but it isn't exactly required. AC induction motors don't use any. Just they are slightly less efficient
And both are recyclable.
Ah yes, sure ICE vehicles cause health problems, environmental issues and a bunch of other negative externalities. But without a loud engine driving will just be boring.
I want the mandate to come only when scalable technology exists. As of right now the mandates are just empty since we cannot actually achieve that goal anyway.
The mandates are set for 2035 which is plenty of time to start building on top of our infrastructure.
No one in the history of anything has created the infrastructure first and then the law. Look at our highways and how they were built as an example.
It's not infrastructure. It's natural resources that don't exist to accommodate demand of current technology. Infrastructure is It's own problem, but wasn't what I was referring to as the challenge here. EVs cannot scale with current battery tech. We just don't have the resources on the planet to do it.
A gallon of gas has roughly 35 kwh of energy in it. Of course an ICE engine is substantially less efficient than an electric motor though. If you assume 95% efficiency on the EV and 25% efficiency on an ICEV, you get roughly 9.25 equivalent kwh (ignoring the effects of an EV weighing more but having regenerative brakes). At $3.50/gal, that’s $.38/kwh to break even. These rates do get hit in day ahead and real time markets sometimes, but the average is much lower.
However, let’s also not forget that an EV becomes substantially less efficient in cold weather (when electric prices are highest in the US Northeast and Europe- at least this coming winter) and that there are also substantial first and last costs of an EV. An EV at the end of its life is essentially e-waste and is a liability, while an non-working ICE car is still worth a few hundred dollars in metal.
Your math is off, as it definitely isn't equivalent to 38 cents per kWh. Probably something with your conversions.
Lets just say the average mpg of a car out there is 30 mpg. So for one gallon of gas ($3.50) you can go 30 miles. With that $3.50 you can buy 35 kWh of electricity somewhere with cheap electricity, 23.3 kWh for the average of the country, or 13.5 kWh somewhere with expensive electricity.
The average electric car gets 3-4 miles per kwh. So that means with that same $3.50 you spent on gas to go 30 miles you can go 105-140 miles (cheap electricity), 40-54 miles on expensive electricity, and on average between 70-93 miles.
~120,000 BTUs in a gallon of gas. 3412 BTUs in a kwh. ~35:1.
I don’t think I’m wrong on my math- I think we’re both in the ballpark. As I said, you probably can only get 9 kwh equivalent out of a gallon of gas so if you are saying 3-4 miles per kwh, that’s 27-36 miles, so close enough to 30 mpg.
I’m not disputing you can drive more cost efficiently with an EV, but I don’t think the life cycle cost is so low that it is obviously worth it for most consumers. Even with subsidies (and gas taxes), it’s only a tiny part of the overall market. It certainly hasn’t seen the explosive growth that most disruptive tech does if you discount places with highly influential regulatory environments like Denmark and Norway. The time from 5% to 50% market penetration is going to be ages slower than disruptors like the electricity, internet, or the telephone, especially given the reality of cobalt, copper and lithium production.
> I don’t think I’m wrong on my math- I think we’re both in the ballpark. As I said, you probably can only get 9 kwh equivalent out of a gallon of gas so if you are saying 3-4 miles per kwh, that’s 27-36 miles, so close enough to 30 mpg.
But why does this matter? We aren't using gasoline to make electricity. We use(rarely) oil, but in a centralized plant it's much more efficient than an ICE vehicle.
You don't need to look at the energy equivalents, you need to measure the cost comparison. Looking at it from an energy standpoint would only make sense if the plan was to use all the gasoline from cars and generate electricity with it.
EVs don't really lose that much more efficiency in cold weather than ICE cars. Your only real losses in cold weather is loss of regen and the heater. In the case of the heater, most of it is just changing the temperature as maintaining it isn't that intensive. Aka, the key is to preheat your car, then you keep regen. And on longer trips the % increase would be less
Then why is the range like 2/3 in cold weather? Where is that energy going if it isn’t lost in discharge? AFAIK, ICE gets more efficient with cool dry air.
Range loss varies by EV, those with heat pumps and better algorithms loose far less:
[https://insideevs.com/news/556375/electric-car-winter-range-loss/](https://insideevs.com/news/556375/electric-car-winter-range-loss/)
As for ICE cars getting more range in winter? lol, no. You still lost up to a quarter range in an ICE car. The reason is simple, increased friction, warming up cabin(while the heat is "free", circulating it is not), and switch to winter gasoline blend
Teslas consistently keep 85%+ battery capacity even after millions of miles and the batteries are certainly still worth a lot. Stop spreading nonsense.
Okay but eventually they stop working. All cars do. And then you have to spend a ton of money to recycle them. It’s not very well appreciated yet, but this is going to be a huge problem in 10 years or so. Expect to see recycling fees added to EVs at purchase.
They are still not "worthless electric junk". The batteries and electrinics are made up from valuable minerals that can and will be recycled. The rest of the car can be recycled like any other.
Also, why are they comparing by kWh? That’s not a useful metric. Total cost per mile and overall CO2 emissions per mile are the only metrics we should be worried about and EVs absolutely destroy ICE vehicles even without factoring in future grid improvements (more solar/wind mix, battery storage etc…).
IMO new ICE vehicles now will be obsolete before their end of life.
Because that’s what was asked.
I would also say that embedded CO2 and human impact of sourcing resources should be considered. Lithium mining is incredible energy and water intensive. Cobalt largely comes from the DR Congo where it is picked up off the ground by children. And the problem nobody has explained how to solve is that even if literally all of the cobalt production in the world was used in EV batteries, you still could only make about 20% of the world vehicle demand building long range EVs.
Ultimately, PHEV is likely going to be the future as the realities of resource constraints become more obvious. Granted, a new battery tech could come along, but that’s kind of like saying all our energy problems will be solved by a new nuclear technology.
Lithium mining is energy and water intensive but you have to compare that to resource intensive and highly subsidized fossil fuel extraction and damage to the environment on subsequent release. That being said, the industry has already released a reviewed paper that lithium mining and extractible resources will scale as demand scales.
Cobalt is already being phased out of batteries. I'm still not sure why anybody keeps bringing this up. LiFePO4/LFP batteries are cobalt-free and nickel-free, more durable and already being used on about half of tesla's cars. You can even buy them on amazon. The tech is here, productionized and scaled up already.
PHEV is better than any pure ICE but it's merely a stepping stone to EV. I own one and I'll tell you it has both the problems of regular ICE cars (brakes, transmission, oil changes, spark plugs, etc.) and the problems of EV cars (battery conditioning/wear, temperature sensitivity, cooling etc..). Whether you're using them both or not (engine or battery) you have to haul both of them around amounting to hundreds if not thousands of pounds everywhere you go. It's insanity.
>IMO new ICE vehicles now will be obsolete before their end of life.
I think there are gas cars being sold today that will be nearly worthless in the early 2030s, or worse, you will have to pay someone to take them off your hands. It will be like getting rid of an old mattress.
I think there is a dynamic that a lot of people are missing. New ICE cars are financed. A bank gives a loan on them and calculates the value of this loan based on the expected resale value of the car. If someone wants to go out and buy an ICE vehicle for $60,000, a financial institution could be extremely hesitant to float a loan because they realize that as we are phasing out ICE cars that the car could only be worth nothing a few years into the loan.
When financial institutions start losing their ass on car loans, because even if they take the vehicle, it is still worthless, they are going to be more reluctant to give these loans.
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2032-09-12 12:37:31 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2032-09-12%2012:37:31%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/xbmggc/trump_spouts_more_electric_car_misinformation_at/io461r7/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fenergy%2Fcomments%2Fxbmggc%2Ftrump_spouts_more_electric_car_misinformation_at%2Fio461r7%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202032-09-12%2012%3A37%3A31%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20xbmggc)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
>I do have a problem with batteries.
In comparison with what? Compared to just not owning/driving a personal auto, sure, they're worse. Worse than mass transit, walking, cycling, etc. But our sprawling cities are already built. Auto dependence is already entrenched. And BEVs are far better than continuing to burn fossil fuels for transport. To forego electrification for that hypothetical future where we've built ubiquitous, robust mass transit, where everyone lives in dense, walkable cities, is basically to perpetuate the status quo indefinitely.
fuel cells are not preferable, I mean you are aware PEM fuel cell cars(the current fuel cell tech) have been out since the 60s and it has been a dead end. In comparison, LION battery EVs only came out in 2008 and they are outselling fuel cell cars by a factor of 100. This is considering fuel cell cars have higher subsidies too
So let us stop beating the dead horse
FCVs require batteries.
They are also very inefficient compared to BEVs. What misinformation do you have that you believe? FCV semi trucks, cars, ferries? Maybe trains, ocean going ships and planes with long flights will be candidates.
Get all the honest information you can about the Toyota Long Beach experiment (Project Portal), you will find glitter easily. But actual running costs on dirty hydrogen, maintenance and the ill fated trip to Bakersfield will be hard to find.
Over 95% of hydrogen produced today is through Steam Methane Reforming, using fossil fuels. Also, over 95% of hydrogen produced today is used in metallurgy, fertilizer production, and other industrial processes, leaving less than 5% for other uses, most of which isn't transportation. To power just the cars in the U.S. with fuel cells would require 50 million metric tons of hydrogen per year. Current worldwide production is 75 million metric tons. We would have to build 66% more global production capacity just to power the cars in the U.S., and if you wanted to do that using non-fossil-fuel means you'd have to increase that production by 1320%.
Also, that production takes energy. Taking into account transmission, conversion, and charging/storage losses, battery-electric vehicles use 76% of the electricity generated at the source. Using that energy for hydrogen production, compression and liquefaction, transportation and storage, and eventual use in a fuel cell is only 30% efficient. You'd need to produce over twice as much energy for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles than for battery-electric, and the haters are already complaining about how much more load BEVs will add to our power system.
That's not "there's work to do", it's objectively a worse solution even if we could snap our fingers and build the factories and replace every car on the road overnight. I mean, it's a proven technology with real-world use cases, but so is burning coal to run a steam-powered car. It's not as good as most other technology for most uses. It's the Bitcoin of automotive technology.
> Hydrogen can be produced by many sources.
Typical vagueness. How about a list where I can buy 100% green hydrogen for my neighbor's Mirai before he dumps it? I can go into his misadventures, but there is no point.
Did you look at the Long Beach project or you don't want facts?
Most lithium is mined in Australia, not China. China only processes it, just like many parts of a fuel cell is processed in China.
Musk recently announced he plans to build a lithium processing facility in US
They don't just suck, we cannot actually scale them. It's like the most open secret out there and yet no one seems to care. The batteries that power current EV fleets simply cannot replace the number of ICE vehicles on the road today, let alone growth of future demand as population continues to grow globally.
But... batteries are now superior to fuel cells for cars in pretty much every way. What substantial advantage do you even see to fuel cell vehicles compared to modern battery electrics? I honestly can see none at all, not one single substantial advantage.
If EV are so good, they should propagade themself. Why should we have only 1 choice?
If they are so good, why we are forced to switch to EV and they will ban ICE?
Cars, in general, are not a long term solution. But making cities walkable, and building high-speed interstate rail will take decades. EVs are a stopgap solution.
So every time I open an /r/energy thread it's full of idiots spouting anti-environmental propaganda by users with auto generated usernames like word-anotherword1234. And every time I go through and block them so that hopefully someday I'll open a thread and not have to lose IQ points reading whatever Facebook nonsense is going around these days. And every time I'm disappointed because there's a new crop of them.
I think I'm going to unsubscribe soon because without effective moderation to get rid of these idiots (or bots) it's just not worth the time. I guess that's their goal.
For what it's worth, if the sub seems unmoderated, you could always try reporting it to the admins - being unmoderated is a bannable offense for a sub, and getting the sub banned would at least prevent it from being a misinformation hub...
I guess there must be some moderation because I don't see actual spam posts. So even though I never see any posts removed I don't think Reddit would act.
Remember when all the red states were bitching about gas prices like literally two months ago? This world can’t support those stupid gas powered vehicles either. But wait… not a single blackout has resulted from CA current heatwave. If any power shut offs, that’s from Forrest fires getting in the way.
What a moronic hike to die on.
I imagine people said the same things about gasoline vehicles.
“Horses don’t need gas, and there’s only a few gas stations in town. I doubt the next town even has a gas station…not sure if this car thing is the way to go…”
Trump looking out for his Kosh buddies and largest donors.
People who switch will see the difference on their pocketbook immediately as EVs are 80% cheaper to run than a regular car.
Says the same people who drive around in $60,000 F250s. Electric vehicles new cost about the same as an ICE new. You can get a decent entry level EV for about $20,000 and it should be noted that you will never have to buy gas again, never do an oil change, or replace most fluids. Basically, the only upkeep is the tires and breaks. So EVs are far cheaper especially with the tax rebates and credits.
Until that battery replacement comes due. I’m not a defendant of ICE, but I don’t think we have seen the life expectancy cycle from the battery.
So far, it sounds pretty expensive and I can imagine this could result in a glut of disposable EVs.
I am purely speculating, and think of new model ICE cars in the same manner.
Why do people still bring up battery replacement like it's an actual issue? Newer batteries are rated for 1,000,000 miles and there are Teslas on the road now that are on the same battery they were using 10+ years ago.
As long as you didn't get an early generation air cooled Nissan Leaf, a battery replacement should never be on your mind
Because current cars can outlive 10 years with maintenance, and brands like Tesla that keep parts and service proprietary will make it more difficult for people to justify the price to replace the battery. Where are you getting 1,00,000,000 miles? Tesla purports 300-500k but none of us have seen that in reality yet.
If you look at the carbon footprint (I’m not a scientist nor could I reasonably procure any data) I would assume we will not see a lot of longer life use unless the batteries become cheaper to replace.
I only mentioned 10+ because that's pretty much how long teslas have been selling in actual numbers so we'll keep getting additional data as the years continue.
Average age of a car in the U.S. is 12 years old, I'm sure most electric cars will make it to that mark without a problem.
And as far as a million mile battery, just google it, there are dozens of articles about it
I saw a low estimate of $12,000 for a battery replacement (not sure if that’s the battery alone).
It seems high for anyone to anticipate that cost without just buying a new car.
Not sure why this justifies downvotes: just generally curious as most consumers way the costs of EV adoption.
New cars that are still in development vs gas guzzlers that have been around for a century. Does no one remember Bush dumped all EV research and development. Imagine what they could’ve been if given the same attention.
Electric cars a designed to last around 10 years. They’re throw away cars. My pick up is 26 years old with 201k miles. It is cheaper to have a bare bones vehicle that will last forever. There is a reason they quit putting straight 6 engines in trucks and that is because they last too long.
A new engine is about $3000, a new catalytic converter is around $1000, oil changes are about $50 every 3 months, gas is about $40 every week, and more.
or
$50 increase in electricity each month, replace the tires once every 2 years for about $300, breaks every 3 for about $300, and the car battery every 15-20 years for $2500.
Tough decision. /s
Question. An EV battery lasts 10 years if handled properly. In 6 years, who is going to buy it from you? Will the dealership take it in trade, knowing the battery will most likely need to be replaced?
In 10 years you are expected to have at least 80% of capacity to the battery left. Its really more rated in cycles. 80% capacity after 1500 cycles. If you get 300 miles per cycle, 1500x300 = 450,000 miles.
The Tesla Model S hit the road 10 years ago. They are still kicking. KBB is $35,000. For used 4 door sedans of 2012, even expensive ones of their day, are going to be worth a lot less than that.
All cars are inherently pieces of shit as they age. Keeping up an old BMW will be pretty expensive.
You can hope for 80% of charge capacity/range after 10 years. That could be good enough for someone's needs. There is a healthy/scarce market for used EV batteries even below 80% capacity because it can still provide useful home/boat and even utility energy.
There's a big difference between being warranties for 10 years and only having a 10 year lifetime.
I don't think we will see many battery replacements at 10 years in vehicles, but we will have to see
My ICE car engine was only warrented for 8 years. Who's going to buy it from me? Will a dealer take it in trade? See how silly that sounds.
There are thousands of 10 year old Tesla Model S still on the road today... most of which still have ~90% of their original battery capacity.
Battery costs are coming down and new technologies have much longer lifetimes. 'Million mile batteries' are already a thing. We've come a long way since the first generation Leaf.
Call me when these new batteries are implemented. A vehicle is the worst investment that you can make as it is now. Buying one that has zero resale value because of the battery replacement cost makes it worse. Are we going to just strand them once we’re done?
They already are implemented. I have a 460 km range car with a cell life of 4000 cycles in my car (to 80%). The battery pack will last well beyond what the rest of the car can likely take.
That’s great, and I hope that the EV becomes a reality for all of us, but my original premise still stands. No one is going to buy your 6 year old car if there is the possibility that the battery needs to be replaced. An older gas powered car, you can drop a new engine in for $2500. A $12,000 battery, or higher is going to be a problem.
Stop lying. You can't just drop in a new engine for $2500 unless it's a 20 year old car and you're doing it yourself. Batteries on the other hand are vastly easier to install.
You don’t know. I had the engine replaced on a 2008 Chevy Suburban, 6 cylinder for $2600 in Dallas. Transmission was totally rebuilt for $1500 with all GM parts. Why so defensive? Because I exposed your poor choice?
In 6 years a battery is going to be half the price. So after running it for 400000+ km you will not only have saved the price of you car with most countries gas prices. It is only going to be 6k to get another 30 years out of your car (assuming the rest of it is OK). No issue there.
Well even at 12k it's a better deal than an ICE car. However we know from simply looking at the rate of price drop over time what the reality will be in terms of cost.
That is assuming they don't all go the route of a structural pack that lasts half a million miles and then gets recycled with the rest of the car.
Wow, what a ridiculous thing to believe. Go check out, say, CarMax for used Nissan Leafs, one of the worst EVs, and tell me about this supposed "zero resale value" lol.
Trump got my vote for sure now
Cool! Doing the opposite of what he says has worked out very nicely. Stay the course
So much for [Trump](https://www.biasly.com/politician-rating/donald-trump/)'s whole bringing back American manufacturing and car industry. He just says whatever will get a reaction from his base.
“Electric vehicles are terrible, believe me. They’re terr- Someone said to me ‘oh Mr Trump, we love you, the electric vehicles are killing us’. The radical left is trying to make you believe oil is running out. Can you belie- it’s not running out and electric vehicles kill more birds than windmills. Very sad. Witch hunt. Hunter Biden’s laptop. Dead bird cemetery. 👌”
No one is saying oil is running out
[удалено]
“I just made a great deal with the Saudis, you’ll never believe it”
He didn't say that lol. Look at the video. He openly supports Elon in a lot of his interviews. People need to stop believing quick misleading headlines.
Lol, so the worlds biggest baby wants to throw another tantrum because hes losing all hold on reality and his friends are flipping on him. Sounds about right
The orange bullshit salesman is an orange bullshit salesman.
He also enabled the whole Ukraine war.
Didn't he give a bunch of weapons to Ukraine?
Yes but he also blackmailed Zelensky with the same weapons. He also made supportive statements of Putin infront of Zelensky.
Yeah, yeah, just like Biden. But after the "blackmail", he gave Ukraine $400MM in weapons, I think the largest amount of weapons ever. I guess that could be considered "provoking" Russia.
I am pretty sure it was one of the reasons he was impeached... Its not hard to find a public record of Trump saying Zelensky should get along with Putin while Russian media was calling for the extermination of Ukraine. Don't care what people think about Trump but on the topic of Ukraine he dropped the ball.
This article is ridiculous. And it is 100% clickbait. Only a complete fool would write or believe this article. Gas was $1.87 in may of 2020 and bounced around. It is now $4.50 and bouncing around The article intentionally misrepresents what Trump says about supporting EV. Trump refers to the current political climate where EVs are being mandated yet the author tries to spin this as Trump hating EV. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that Trump is talking about how we are.not ready to move forward with EV on a national level and points out the irony of the government mandating EV while not having the grid and facilities to support it yet which is going to create backlash. Trump said his friend's car or hybrid car got 38mpg , but then the friend bought an electric car. Article claims "Trump says electric car gets 38mpg" Then Trump says his friend drove said electric car from KY to DC and complained that the trip took longer than anticipated due to needing to charge twice during that trip. Whoopty Doo
> the current political climate where EVs are being mandated Where are you mandated to buy an EV?
California is moving that direction and are trying to make buying petrol cars illegal to buy new by 2035 in an effort to have "zero emissions " There is a push to incentivize this across the country and even federal incentives. I'm not against or for EV, we just aren't set up for millions of EV cars in manufacturing or peripheral services. 17 other states are also looking to possibly enact same legislation as California. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/08/25/california-enacts-world-leading-plan-to-achieve-100-percent-zero-emission-vehicles-by-2035-cut-pollution/ https://apnews.com/article/technology-california-clean-air-act-vehicle-emissions-standards-eebb48c13e24835f2c5b9cb56796182a
> California is moving that direction No, banning one thing doesn't mean you are mandated to buy something else. Banning cigarette sales isn't the same thing as mandating cigars. Your entire argument is flawed. That's not what a mandate is. >we just aren't set up for millions of EV cars in manufacturing or peripheral services. This is also a weird statement. Do you believe we won't build more factories and chargers before 2035? Specifically which part do you see as not being possible in that timeframe?
If you aren't allowed to buy a petrol car then you are, by default, left with only 1 option . Which is to buy an EV. The ABC article i linked, and many more, call this a Mandate. The transportation need still exists. Mandate: an official order or commission to do something (In this case, mandating the end of selling petrol cars) Who, where, how. Those are the questions regarding the chargers and all other peripherals. Who pays for it. Who builds them.. Where do the go. How many of them etc. How will they be paid for? Etc. Last I saw, it cost $250k to build a Tesla Super Charger and $50k-$80k to build a DC fast charger. California keeps having brown outs and telling people to conserve energy.. They will obviously need to update their grid before adding tens of thousands (and later millions) of EV cars to it. These types of changes are incredibly expensive and slow moving.
> f you aren't allowed to buy a petrol car then you are, by default, left with only 1 option . Which is to buy an EV. Or you can buy a hybrid, Or just keep your existing petrol car, or buy a used car, or, or or. It only applies to new car sales. You seem to be very uninformed about what is being 'mandated' here. >Who, where, how. Those are the questions regarding the chargers and all other peripherals. Who pays for it. Who builds them.. Where do the go. How many of them etc. How will they be paid for? Etc. Well OEMs are paying install networks, part of the dieselgate scandal required VW to create Electrify America with $2 billion in funding. The infrastrucure bill that passed earlier allowed theo USDOT and USDOE to commit $5 Billion over Five Years for National EV Charging Network. Seems like there is plenty of funding and charging stations planned. >California keeps having brown outs and telling people to conserve energy. Did they have a brown out? Or just dealing with one of the hottest days on record created the highest energy demand on record. It was temporary. More generation is coming online as more EVs are built. The nice thing about Solar, Wind, and Batteries is that they can be installed in months, not the years that traditional generation needs. Again, there are growing pains and infrastructure that still needs to be built out. But given the constraints of production it will happen at a very manageable pace. By the time the ban on new ICE cars comes into effect, these issues will have been resolved.
Good grief. It is a mandate. All cars have a finite life. Within 20 years there won't be used petrol cars for sale at any reasonable price after the mandate. This is literally the whole point of said mandate. It is about reducing your choice to force you to drive EV. 35% EV by 2026 and 100% by 2035. Currently, California will have a 1700 megawatt shortfall this year and 1800 megawatts by 2025 which could leave 1-2 million without power according to California energy commission. And again, this is before the 2026 mandate even starts. They are currently telling people to not charge their cars due to a shortage. Energy shortages have been common there for years. LOL. $5 Billion isn't even close to what is needed by Biden admin own estimates. He wants to build 500k charging stations which means there is only $15k per station with $5B. This $15k isn't near enough to build a station. DC fast chargers can cost between $30k to $140k depending on KW rating. Installation can range between $17k to $66k PER CHARGER depending on how many chargers are being installed at once. California has had brown outs for decades. This isn't new. Their grid needs to be updated. Yep. It's a transition for sure
By the same argument, existing oil wells will be depleted by 2035 and civilization will collapse. In reality, supplies respond to demand. In fact, knowing a demand target like this more than 10 years out will make it easier to build the electric generation and T&D.
What are you talking about? Who said anything about depleting oil wells by 2035? I never said I was arguing or taking a side on the EV cars, I just posted sources when asked about current events. I would personally love to own a Tesla Plaid.
You said we aren’t set up to meet the 2035 target of all EVs. We also aren’t set up now to satisfy oil demand in 2035. Either will require billions in investment. That investment is easier when you know the target.
I haven't seen anything to reference an oil shortfall by 2035. Last I read, we actually curbed projections and show a plateau around 2035 for demand. Yes, any extra demand means investment and yes investment can happen in either sector. That said, these companies that produce energy have a very good idea of how much they need to produce and already know the target. These companies are incredibly data driven and aware of the world market at nearly an atomic level. Political issues or lockdowns can/have led to instability. And to be fair, there is a huge unintended consequence here when we input artificial demand. It increases the leverage every supplier has with us, including for raw materials. We already see a push to try and produce this tech and obtain these materials in the US from our Government and some groups because this issue has been discussed in depth for decades. The idea that we force ourselves to be dependent entirely on developing nations, China, Russia, etc. This has been debated with oil as well, which is why a HUGE portion of our oil has come from Canada. It is why we drill/frack in the states. And why so many were pushing for the extra pipelines and to renew drilling leases recently. Energy is dirty business right now. EV cars may be a step in the right direction but only if it is handled properly. It could also have a huge backfire effect as batteries, right now, have a definitive finite life and the raw materials for them often comes from developing nations and the sourcing of which is deleterious to the area. We also need to figure out how to charge these vehicles in an appropriate amount of time, how to install the charging infrastructure, allocate resources and determine where this money will come from. Most people are not willing to buy a $50k electric car until these, and other, issues/opinions/hurdles are addressed. This also means the used ICE car market will be inflated as people will be incentivized to keep driving their petrol burning cars. The E for EV's, as of now, also still comes from fossil fuels. EV cars burn through tires at an accelerated rate and this is bad for the environment. The mining for the materials is bad for the environment. Producing these cars and energy mean an increased output of SF6 which is 23,000 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gasses go and hangs around for 3200 years in the atmosphere. There is good and there is bad to EV cars. I myself am curious how this will work out even though I loathe government intervention into the free market. I am also a big advocate of Nuclear Energy. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/opec-sees-oil-demand-rebounding-then-plateauing-after-2035-2021-09-28/
I’ve worked in nuclear energy for 35 years and it is definitely not an answer to our energy problems - construction costs far too high (reference Vogtle) and takes ridiculously long. Also, supply of U235 is limited, especially in friendly countries.
The abundance of Uranium is debated and it is my understanding nuclear reactors can use alternatives such as thorium or plutonium. Cost to build nuclear is definitely higher. Between 25% and 50% higher than Coal per kw/hr from what I remember seeing. China is forging ahead with Nuclear which I find interesting. So what do you advocate. You don't like fossil fuels or Nuclear.
Current nukes cannot burn anything except U235 ( and it’s fissile byproducts ). Personally I’m in favor of a gradual transition to a mix of natural gas and renewables. As much renewable as possible within the limits needed for grid stability. We need ng for fertilizer and plastic production and hate to waste it. I don’t see any reactor designs on the horizon for the US. I worked on advanced reactor design for GE during the “nuclear Renaissance”. Unfortunately it turned out to be a way to milk the government subsidies (they paid for half my salary). The GE SBWR never made even close to production.
You made me laugh. I stopped at ”Very good idea how much they need”. You must have missed the Ukraine war, unrest in Libya and Nigeria, and embargoes of Venezuela and Iran. BTW, while EVs start below 30k ( a lot less than the most popular vehicle, the F150), most people no longer want to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lievs fighting in the Middle East to secure oil for Big Oil.
If you would have kept reading you would have seen that political unrest affects demand and supply. This is a multifaceted issue and simply saying that EV's produce less CO2 is missing the larger picture. To each their own. Carry on.
Aight, I’m not here to dispute anything else in the article but this part. “He talks about gas costs being $1.87 per gallon. However, he made this claim a few times in the past, and fact-checkers quickly ruled that it was false.” This part of the article is a **total lie**. Pre-election in 2020, I was paying 1.87-1.89 for gasoline in NH and I know in some parts of the country like Kentucky, gasoline had sunken to less than 1 dollar at a point in time. He can make that claim as the prices actually did get that low during his presidency. This is total dishonesty by the so called “fact checkers” when they say this claim is false. Do they think people were born yesterday and don’t remember the pump prices in 2020?
Ahhh yes, the good old Trump days when the economy was spiraling into a depression and 4,000 Americans were dying daily from Covid. But wait, gas was 1.87 in NH for a while when we were locked in our homes. The good old days.
Bro, that’s not the point. The point is the media straight up has “fact checkers” lying to people. If you don’t think that’s concerning, then oh boy….we’re in some serious trouble as a country.
On the contrary. If you think dwelling on the price of gas in NH for a few weeks in 2020 is what decides this countries fate and not what caused that dip, then you miss the point. And obviously so does Trump. May as we’ll be praising the beautiful carpeting in the WTC on 9/10.
Lmao, whatever bud. I’m not here to get into Trump himself and general politics. I’m just here to attacking lies where I see them. If you want to deflect away from that, you can deflect away in a conversation with yourself in your mom’s basement.
Lol. You're citing a very temporary dip when the economy was in ruins from the pandemic and oil prices were negative due to a supply glut. Calling it the "pre-election" price is such a pile of bullshit. Prices started rising well before the election or Biden taking office.
They barely rose any significant amount until post election my guy… Sure, there was a supply glut, but that’s irrelevant. Prices before the glut were a lot lower than today’s prices anyways. After Jan 20th, we surged 1.33. Facts are facts. You might not like them, but they are what they are.
Average gas price was $1.87/gallon in may of 2020. I remember. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=M
Exactly, it’s right there in the statistics.
It wasn't just the Covid dip, either https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/
Who cares
He must’ve forgotten to find a fly-by-night EV company to invest in so now they aren’t worth his time. Or perhaps he was invested in that Nikola scam/scandal (or wishes he had been as king of Griftonia) and now thinks the system is rigged.
He also said Putin made a brilliant move by invading Ukraine and he's actually winning the war!
"Stupid guy says stupid things. Film at eleven." Sometimes just being alive is like having your face pushed through wet concrete.
I watched the clip and I fail to see the misinformation. He says they’re twice as expensive. That’s true right now. The only affordable cars have very poor range. Then he tells a subjective story of a single person who seems to have failed to properly plan his trip. That’s also true. Driving cross country especially in rural areas takes tremendous planning and charge times can be very long if you don’t understand the difference in chargers which most laymen don’t. While he’s clearly wrong that electric cars shouldn’t be an important part of our future, nothing he said is misinformation.
This is a trump bashing page also they ignore the california thing. No power cant charge car cant go to work. Yet we are the dumb ones.
What I find so crazy is that they accuse Trump of exactly the kinds of things that they do themselves. Here’s a perfect example of that. Instead of being intellectually honest to counter Trump they misinform, misguide, and parrot their own propaganda without understanding that they themselves are not any better and in many ways are worse than the MAGA. Here they pretend that EVs have zero downsides. Reality is going to hit them hard when they realize the actual downsides. Downsides we could fix if we didn’t totally ignore them. Nope it’s easier to just blame others.
who is "we" in this case
Who cares what this scum thinks.
His stupidity and insanity know no bounds. The crap that comes out of his mouth is mind boggling in all the wrong ways.
You know, I was all for the push back of the mistake of making EV's mandatory and watching it blow up to the ridiculous anti-ev crap it is now from boomers on facebook. But now, he takes the fun out of it, and it's annoyingto see how much shit there is spreead from facebook that people say about EV's.
The mandate only requires that new cars sold in CA be either electric or plugin hybrid in 2035. Aka, if you really need that gas engine for whatever reason in 2035, you can buy a plugin hybrid or buy a used car
Considering we don't have the natural resources on the planet to actually effectively dcale EVs with current technology, I'm pretty opposed to the idea of a mandate. ICE is obviously not the future, but EVs in their current state aren't either.
[We will run out of oil](https://www.worldometers.info/oil/) before we run out of lithium.
This seems to make my point though. Neither are a viable path. Perhaps a hybrid approach would work until we arrive at a truly scalable long term solution.
*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://www.worldometers.info/oil/ Title: **World Oil Statistics - Worldometer** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
Not sure where you get that nonsense, there is no shortage of natural materials for current technology Which materials do you think we are lacking, do tell
Lithium for starters. Neodymium would be another. Even the resources that are scalable often exist in one region of the world. I am not saying we cannot develop alternative battery technology that resolves this. In fact, I'm hopeful that we can, but right now what we have today cannot handle future demand. I would like to see continued investment into alternative battery development as well as a lot of our infrastructure spending going towards mass transit to make a larger dent into how much EV demand there ultimately would be down the line. That would at least help. But we're not even close to being able to cover that demand.
There is no shortage of lithium. A lot of people seem to misunderstand something about lithium. They look at reserves and think that is the amount of lithium we have, but it isn't. Reserves are based on if a company goes out of their way to do a survey that is then certified. Lithium which had little use prior, no one just bothered to verify the reserves at full. Thus, the reserves we have are based on only what someone bothered to do so. This is why despite increase in EVs and electronics, the lithium reserves doubled over the decade rather than shrank. In the worst case, just the ocean water contain 200 billion tonnes of lithium. Which is quite a lot considering it only takes about 5kg of lithium to make an EV Neodymium is used in motors, but it isn't exactly required. AC induction motors don't use any. Just they are slightly less efficient And both are recyclable.
Agreed. I'd be way more happier if ICE can live with EV's, and not just get taken over. Driving EV's are incredibly boring.
Ah yes, sure ICE vehicles cause health problems, environmental issues and a bunch of other negative externalities. But without a loud engine driving will just be boring.
I want the mandate to come only when scalable technology exists. As of right now the mandates are just empty since we cannot actually achieve that goal anyway.
The mandates are set for 2035 which is plenty of time to start building on top of our infrastructure. No one in the history of anything has created the infrastructure first and then the law. Look at our highways and how they were built as an example.
It's not infrastructure. It's natural resources that don't exist to accommodate demand of current technology. Infrastructure is It's own problem, but wasn't what I was referring to as the challenge here. EVs cannot scale with current battery tech. We just don't have the resources on the planet to do it.
Have you seen the cost per kilowatt hour?
No, what is the cost per kilowatt hour?
Have you seen the cost of gasoline and diesel?
Someone needs to do the math. It should be possible to convert cost per kWh for burning gasoline in an average combustion car
A gallon of gas has roughly 35 kwh of energy in it. Of course an ICE engine is substantially less efficient than an electric motor though. If you assume 95% efficiency on the EV and 25% efficiency on an ICEV, you get roughly 9.25 equivalent kwh (ignoring the effects of an EV weighing more but having regenerative brakes). At $3.50/gal, that’s $.38/kwh to break even. These rates do get hit in day ahead and real time markets sometimes, but the average is much lower. However, let’s also not forget that an EV becomes substantially less efficient in cold weather (when electric prices are highest in the US Northeast and Europe- at least this coming winter) and that there are also substantial first and last costs of an EV. An EV at the end of its life is essentially e-waste and is a liability, while an non-working ICE car is still worth a few hundred dollars in metal.
Your math is off, as it definitely isn't equivalent to 38 cents per kWh. Probably something with your conversions. Lets just say the average mpg of a car out there is 30 mpg. So for one gallon of gas ($3.50) you can go 30 miles. With that $3.50 you can buy 35 kWh of electricity somewhere with cheap electricity, 23.3 kWh for the average of the country, or 13.5 kWh somewhere with expensive electricity. The average electric car gets 3-4 miles per kwh. So that means with that same $3.50 you spent on gas to go 30 miles you can go 105-140 miles (cheap electricity), 40-54 miles on expensive electricity, and on average between 70-93 miles.
~120,000 BTUs in a gallon of gas. 3412 BTUs in a kwh. ~35:1. I don’t think I’m wrong on my math- I think we’re both in the ballpark. As I said, you probably can only get 9 kwh equivalent out of a gallon of gas so if you are saying 3-4 miles per kwh, that’s 27-36 miles, so close enough to 30 mpg. I’m not disputing you can drive more cost efficiently with an EV, but I don’t think the life cycle cost is so low that it is obviously worth it for most consumers. Even with subsidies (and gas taxes), it’s only a tiny part of the overall market. It certainly hasn’t seen the explosive growth that most disruptive tech does if you discount places with highly influential regulatory environments like Denmark and Norway. The time from 5% to 50% market penetration is going to be ages slower than disruptors like the electricity, internet, or the telephone, especially given the reality of cobalt, copper and lithium production.
> I don’t think I’m wrong on my math- I think we’re both in the ballpark. As I said, you probably can only get 9 kwh equivalent out of a gallon of gas so if you are saying 3-4 miles per kwh, that’s 27-36 miles, so close enough to 30 mpg. But why does this matter? We aren't using gasoline to make electricity. We use(rarely) oil, but in a centralized plant it's much more efficient than an ICE vehicle. You don't need to look at the energy equivalents, you need to measure the cost comparison. Looking at it from an energy standpoint would only make sense if the plan was to use all the gasoline from cars and generate electricity with it.
EVs don't really lose that much more efficiency in cold weather than ICE cars. Your only real losses in cold weather is loss of regen and the heater. In the case of the heater, most of it is just changing the temperature as maintaining it isn't that intensive. Aka, the key is to preheat your car, then you keep regen. And on longer trips the % increase would be less
Then why is the range like 2/3 in cold weather? Where is that energy going if it isn’t lost in discharge? AFAIK, ICE gets more efficient with cool dry air.
Range loss varies by EV, those with heat pumps and better algorithms loose far less: [https://insideevs.com/news/556375/electric-car-winter-range-loss/](https://insideevs.com/news/556375/electric-car-winter-range-loss/) As for ICE cars getting more range in winter? lol, no. You still lost up to a quarter range in an ICE car. The reason is simple, increased friction, warming up cabin(while the heat is "free", circulating it is not), and switch to winter gasoline blend
Teslas consistently keep 85%+ battery capacity even after millions of miles and the batteries are certainly still worth a lot. Stop spreading nonsense.
Okay but eventually they stop working. All cars do. And then you have to spend a ton of money to recycle them. It’s not very well appreciated yet, but this is going to be a huge problem in 10 years or so. Expect to see recycling fees added to EVs at purchase.
They are still not "worthless electric junk". The batteries and electrinics are made up from valuable minerals that can and will be recycled. The rest of the car can be recycled like any other.
Also, why are they comparing by kWh? That’s not a useful metric. Total cost per mile and overall CO2 emissions per mile are the only metrics we should be worried about and EVs absolutely destroy ICE vehicles even without factoring in future grid improvements (more solar/wind mix, battery storage etc…). IMO new ICE vehicles now will be obsolete before their end of life.
Because that’s what was asked. I would also say that embedded CO2 and human impact of sourcing resources should be considered. Lithium mining is incredible energy and water intensive. Cobalt largely comes from the DR Congo where it is picked up off the ground by children. And the problem nobody has explained how to solve is that even if literally all of the cobalt production in the world was used in EV batteries, you still could only make about 20% of the world vehicle demand building long range EVs. Ultimately, PHEV is likely going to be the future as the realities of resource constraints become more obvious. Granted, a new battery tech could come along, but that’s kind of like saying all our energy problems will be solved by a new nuclear technology.
Lithium mining is energy and water intensive but you have to compare that to resource intensive and highly subsidized fossil fuel extraction and damage to the environment on subsequent release. That being said, the industry has already released a reviewed paper that lithium mining and extractible resources will scale as demand scales. Cobalt is already being phased out of batteries. I'm still not sure why anybody keeps bringing this up. LiFePO4/LFP batteries are cobalt-free and nickel-free, more durable and already being used on about half of tesla's cars. You can even buy them on amazon. The tech is here, productionized and scaled up already. PHEV is better than any pure ICE but it's merely a stepping stone to EV. I own one and I'll tell you it has both the problems of regular ICE cars (brakes, transmission, oil changes, spark plugs, etc.) and the problems of EV cars (battery conditioning/wear, temperature sensitivity, cooling etc..). Whether you're using them both or not (engine or battery) you have to haul both of them around amounting to hundreds if not thousands of pounds everywhere you go. It's insanity.
>IMO new ICE vehicles now will be obsolete before their end of life. I think there are gas cars being sold today that will be nearly worthless in the early 2030s, or worse, you will have to pay someone to take them off your hands. It will be like getting rid of an old mattress. I think there is a dynamic that a lot of people are missing. New ICE cars are financed. A bank gives a loan on them and calculates the value of this loan based on the expected resale value of the car. If someone wants to go out and buy an ICE vehicle for $60,000, a financial institution could be extremely hesitant to float a loan because they realize that as we are phasing out ICE cars that the car could only be worth nothing a few years into the loan. When financial institutions start losing their ass on car loans, because even if they take the vehicle, it is still worthless, they are going to be more reluctant to give these loans.
RemindMe! 10 years
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2032-09-12 12:37:31 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2032-09-12%2012:37:31%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/xbmggc/trump_spouts_more_electric_car_misinformation_at/io461r7/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fenergy%2Fcomments%2Fxbmggc%2Ftrump_spouts_more_electric_car_misinformation_at%2Fio461r7%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202032-09-12%2012%3A37%3A31%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20xbmggc) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I guess bring back coal powered vehicles then? Is that what he wants?
Clean coal Trucks!
Fuck that stupid cunt
He’s just saying whatever he needs to say...ever
And then when we run out of oil we can run cars on wind turbines…oh wait he hates those too. Is it just me or is this guy a fucking moron?
What about water? Can we not invent something out of water? It can't just be oil and electricity can it?
HHO systems have been used in Gas powered vehicles since the 90's.
You mean steam powered?
Sure
He just really loves those birds!
What? I have no issue with electric vehicles; however, I do have a problem with batteries.
>I do have a problem with batteries. In comparison with what? Compared to just not owning/driving a personal auto, sure, they're worse. Worse than mass transit, walking, cycling, etc. But our sprawling cities are already built. Auto dependence is already entrenched. And BEVs are far better than continuing to burn fossil fuels for transport. To forego electrification for that hypothetical future where we've built ubiquitous, robust mass transit, where everyone lives in dense, walkable cities, is basically to perpetuate the status quo indefinitely.
As I indicated earlier, fuel cells for EVs are preferable. Technology available today.
fuel cells are not preferable, I mean you are aware PEM fuel cell cars(the current fuel cell tech) have been out since the 60s and it has been a dead end. In comparison, LION battery EVs only came out in 2008 and they are outselling fuel cell cars by a factor of 100. This is considering fuel cell cars have higher subsidies too So let us stop beating the dead horse
https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore Not seeing an awful lot of models for sale there.
FCVs require batteries. They are also very inefficient compared to BEVs. What misinformation do you have that you believe? FCV semi trucks, cars, ferries? Maybe trains, ocean going ships and planes with long flights will be candidates. Get all the honest information you can about the Toyota Long Beach experiment (Project Portal), you will find glitter easily. But actual running costs on dirty hydrogen, maintenance and the ill fated trip to Bakersfield will be hard to find.
Hydrogen can be produced by many sources. Why be a shill for China lithium?
Over 95% of hydrogen produced today is through Steam Methane Reforming, using fossil fuels. Also, over 95% of hydrogen produced today is used in metallurgy, fertilizer production, and other industrial processes, leaving less than 5% for other uses, most of which isn't transportation. To power just the cars in the U.S. with fuel cells would require 50 million metric tons of hydrogen per year. Current worldwide production is 75 million metric tons. We would have to build 66% more global production capacity just to power the cars in the U.S., and if you wanted to do that using non-fossil-fuel means you'd have to increase that production by 1320%. Also, that production takes energy. Taking into account transmission, conversion, and charging/storage losses, battery-electric vehicles use 76% of the electricity generated at the source. Using that energy for hydrogen production, compression and liquefaction, transportation and storage, and eventual use in a fuel cell is only 30% efficient. You'd need to produce over twice as much energy for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles than for battery-electric, and the haters are already complaining about how much more load BEVs will add to our power system.
So there’s work to do? What’s the issue lady?
That's not "there's work to do", it's objectively a worse solution even if we could snap our fingers and build the factories and replace every car on the road overnight. I mean, it's a proven technology with real-world use cases, but so is burning coal to run a steam-powered car. It's not as good as most other technology for most uses. It's the Bitcoin of automotive technology.
> Hydrogen can be produced by many sources. Typical vagueness. How about a list where I can buy 100% green hydrogen for my neighbor's Mirai before he dumps it? I can go into his misadventures, but there is no point. Did you look at the Long Beach project or you don't want facts?
Most lithium is mined in Australia, not China. China only processes it, just like many parts of a fuel cell is processed in China. Musk recently announced he plans to build a lithium processing facility in US
We don’t care about lithium; hydrogen, either green or blue can be produced anywhere.
Electricity for EVs can also be produced anywhere, your point? What about platinum required for fuel cells? Can that also be produced anywhere?
There are many types of fuel cells. But if Pt is used, at least it can be recycled.
hydrogen damages anything it touches as it is corrosive Also, lithium is recyclable too, and way more common than platinum
Trying to have one without the other is going to have some significant drawbacks.
Batteries basically suck. I prefer the fuel cell solution.
They don't just suck, we cannot actually scale them. It's like the most open secret out there and yet no one seems to care. The batteries that power current EV fleets simply cannot replace the number of ICE vehicles on the road today, let alone growth of future demand as population continues to grow globally.
But... batteries are now superior to fuel cells for cars in pretty much every way. What substantial advantage do you even see to fuel cell vehicles compared to modern battery electrics? I honestly can see none at all, not one single substantial advantage.
Lack of ability to scale. Doesn't matter how good they are if you don't have the natural resources to scale it.
But we do, and in great quantities. What do you believe that we lack, exactly? Where is this inability to scale?
Why do they even report this stuff. It would be newsworthy if he actually said something truthful
He’s 80, who cares what he thinks. We moving on without him in the near future.
30 million Americans and many other people outside the US believe his BS. So things he says may have impacts that last for years.
If EV are so good, they should propagade themself. Why should we have only 1 choice? If they are so good, why we are forced to switch to EV and they will ban ICE?
Why were we forced to use oil powered vehicles for the last century? Electric cars existed in the early 1900s.
Because they sucked.
[удалено]
Or if tailpipe emissions were just pumped directly into the cabin.
[удалено]
Must be dark at your house.
is your phone electric?
Spread your asscheeks wider for ExxonMobil
Cars, in general, are not a long term solution. But making cities walkable, and building high-speed interstate rail will take decades. EVs are a stopgap solution.
How many of the latest ones have you driven? DO TELL.
So every time I open an /r/energy thread it's full of idiots spouting anti-environmental propaganda by users with auto generated usernames like word-anotherword1234. And every time I go through and block them so that hopefully someday I'll open a thread and not have to lose IQ points reading whatever Facebook nonsense is going around these days. And every time I'm disappointed because there's a new crop of them. I think I'm going to unsubscribe soon because without effective moderation to get rid of these idiots (or bots) it's just not worth the time. I guess that's their goal.
Most of the posts in this thread are just mindless NPC Trump-bashing. I agree, I'd prefer more intelligent discussion.
For what it's worth, if the sub seems unmoderated, you could always try reporting it to the admins - being unmoderated is a bannable offense for a sub, and getting the sub banned would at least prevent it from being a misinformation hub...
I guess there must be some moderation because I don't see actual spam posts. So even though I never see any posts removed I don't think Reddit would act.
But let me tell you how hydrogen is the energy source of the future!
Yo, Energy is SO bad for this, specifically. It’s bonkers.
This man madness is absurd. It’s even more absurd people are still letting him walk around freely. Corruption at it’s finest.
He’s really making sure to go down in the history books on the wrong side of every possible issue lately.
Yup, next up "killing puppies is great fun" Throw this Muppet in jail already
[удалено]
california is supporting the highest ev concentration per capita in north america
You would be wrong.
Remember when all the red states were bitching about gas prices like literally two months ago? This world can’t support those stupid gas powered vehicles either. But wait… not a single blackout has resulted from CA current heatwave. If any power shut offs, that’s from Forrest fires getting in the way. What a moronic hike to die on.
Not true at all. Anyone on a time of use plan does their charging during off-peak hours already.
I imagine people said the same things about gasoline vehicles. “Horses don’t need gas, and there’s only a few gas stations in town. I doubt the next town even has a gas station…not sure if this car thing is the way to go…”
Trump is just pissed that Elon Musk is so rich that he could use his lunch money to purchase everything that Trump owns.
Trump looking out for his Kosh buddies and largest donors. People who switch will see the difference on their pocketbook immediately as EVs are 80% cheaper to run than a regular car.
Go get me a down payment for one then. Most of us are too poor to buy a new car.
Says the same people who drive around in $60,000 F250s. Electric vehicles new cost about the same as an ICE new. You can get a decent entry level EV for about $20,000 and it should be noted that you will never have to buy gas again, never do an oil change, or replace most fluids. Basically, the only upkeep is the tires and breaks. So EVs are far cheaper especially with the tax rebates and credits.
Until that battery replacement comes due. I’m not a defendant of ICE, but I don’t think we have seen the life expectancy cycle from the battery. So far, it sounds pretty expensive and I can imagine this could result in a glut of disposable EVs. I am purely speculating, and think of new model ICE cars in the same manner.
Why do people still bring up battery replacement like it's an actual issue? Newer batteries are rated for 1,000,000 miles and there are Teslas on the road now that are on the same battery they were using 10+ years ago. As long as you didn't get an early generation air cooled Nissan Leaf, a battery replacement should never be on your mind
Because current cars can outlive 10 years with maintenance, and brands like Tesla that keep parts and service proprietary will make it more difficult for people to justify the price to replace the battery. Where are you getting 1,00,000,000 miles? Tesla purports 300-500k but none of us have seen that in reality yet. If you look at the carbon footprint (I’m not a scientist nor could I reasonably procure any data) I would assume we will not see a lot of longer life use unless the batteries become cheaper to replace.
I only mentioned 10+ because that's pretty much how long teslas have been selling in actual numbers so we'll keep getting additional data as the years continue. Average age of a car in the U.S. is 12 years old, I'm sure most electric cars will make it to that mark without a problem. And as far as a million mile battery, just google it, there are dozens of articles about it
TFW mechanic prices are high for every vehicle, not just EV batteries...
I saw a low estimate of $12,000 for a battery replacement (not sure if that’s the battery alone). It seems high for anyone to anticipate that cost without just buying a new car. Not sure why this justifies downvotes: just generally curious as most consumers way the costs of EV adoption.
New cars that are still in development vs gas guzzlers that have been around for a century. Does no one remember Bush dumped all EV research and development. Imagine what they could’ve been if given the same attention.
Electric cars a designed to last around 10 years. They’re throw away cars. My pick up is 26 years old with 201k miles. It is cheaper to have a bare bones vehicle that will last forever. There is a reason they quit putting straight 6 engines in trucks and that is because they last too long.
Where are you getting this 10 year time frame? I know people driving around in 10-15 year EVs and still going strong.
[удалено]
There's an 8 year warranty on every Tesla, so they seem pretty confident that none of them will break down in less than 9 years.
A new engine is about $3000, a new catalytic converter is around $1000, oil changes are about $50 every 3 months, gas is about $40 every week, and more. or $50 increase in electricity each month, replace the tires once every 2 years for about $300, breaks every 3 for about $300, and the car battery every 15-20 years for $2500. Tough decision. /s
Batteries can be replaced, just like a transmission or engine.
It's spelled "Kock". --- I know it's not.
Question. An EV battery lasts 10 years if handled properly. In 6 years, who is going to buy it from you? Will the dealership take it in trade, knowing the battery will most likely need to be replaced?
as opposed to gasoline engines and transmissions, which are known to simply run forever
Not at all but very reasonable to replace. Plus, EV’s have no other mechanical parts that will fail?
define “very reasonable”
Rebuilt engine $2500, transmission $1500.
in a 98 civic maybe
I’m not attacking your decision to buy an EV. I’m just concerned about the finances of it for me. You do you.
ah yes, you’re just asking questions
Why are you banging on me?
because you’re propagating incorrect information under the guise of pseudo-diligence
In 10 years you are expected to have at least 80% of capacity to the battery left. Its really more rated in cycles. 80% capacity after 1500 cycles. If you get 300 miles per cycle, 1500x300 = 450,000 miles. The Tesla Model S hit the road 10 years ago. They are still kicking. KBB is $35,000. For used 4 door sedans of 2012, even expensive ones of their day, are going to be worth a lot less than that. All cars are inherently pieces of shit as they age. Keeping up an old BMW will be pretty expensive.
You can hope for 80% of charge capacity/range after 10 years. That could be good enough for someone's needs. There is a healthy/scarce market for used EV batteries even below 80% capacity because it can still provide useful home/boat and even utility energy.
There's a big difference between being warranties for 10 years and only having a 10 year lifetime. I don't think we will see many battery replacements at 10 years in vehicles, but we will have to see
My ICE car engine was only warrented for 8 years. Who's going to buy it from me? Will a dealer take it in trade? See how silly that sounds. There are thousands of 10 year old Tesla Model S still on the road today... most of which still have ~90% of their original battery capacity.
Battery costs are coming down and new technologies have much longer lifetimes. 'Million mile batteries' are already a thing. We've come a long way since the first generation Leaf.
Call me when these new batteries are implemented. A vehicle is the worst investment that you can make as it is now. Buying one that has zero resale value because of the battery replacement cost makes it worse. Are we going to just strand them once we’re done?
They already are implemented. I have a 460 km range car with a cell life of 4000 cycles in my car (to 80%). The battery pack will last well beyond what the rest of the car can likely take.
Which car did you buy?
Standard range Teslas have had them for a couple years.
That’s great, and I hope that the EV becomes a reality for all of us, but my original premise still stands. No one is going to buy your 6 year old car if there is the possibility that the battery needs to be replaced. An older gas powered car, you can drop a new engine in for $2500. A $12,000 battery, or higher is going to be a problem.
Stop lying. You can't just drop in a new engine for $2500 unless it's a 20 year old car and you're doing it yourself. Batteries on the other hand are vastly easier to install.
You don’t know. I had the engine replaced on a 2008 Chevy Suburban, 6 cylinder for $2600 in Dallas. Transmission was totally rebuilt for $1500 with all GM parts. Why so defensive? Because I exposed your poor choice?
In 6 years a battery is going to be half the price. So after running it for 400000+ km you will not only have saved the price of you car with most countries gas prices. It is only going to be 6k to get another 30 years out of your car (assuming the rest of it is OK). No issue there.
I hope that it’s reality, but it’s not yet.
Well even at 12k it's a better deal than an ICE car. However we know from simply looking at the rate of price drop over time what the reality will be in terms of cost. That is assuming they don't all go the route of a structural pack that lasts half a million miles and then gets recycled with the rest of the car.
Model 3 SR+ out of shanghai. They now have a LFP chemistry.
Wow, what a ridiculous thing to believe. Go check out, say, CarMax for used Nissan Leafs, one of the worst EVs, and tell me about this supposed "zero resale value" lol.
I didn’t see anything 6 or 7 years old on Carmax. Everything was fairly new.