Ford finally gets it

[Isaac Zachary]

I think the EV future is a bit blurry.

"GM gets it" but they've been under public critisism for the few Bolt fires that have happened. It doesn't matter how many Bolts actually caught on fire, the public may lose trust in the brand for what might have been jumping into the EV mainstream a bit too early.

Hopefully it doesn't end up that way for GM and hopefully something similar doesn't happen to Ford.

[redpoint5]

GM limited their EV sales and didn't market them. Hardly anyone knows of the GM fires, which were actually LG fires that affected other brands. I suppose it's not foolish for other brands to jump into the game with limited numbers and minimal advertising.

The Bolt fiasco is unfortunate, but fortunately doesn't impact many vehicles relatively speaking. Had GM sold a million a year like Tesla, that would be a bigger problem.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I think the EV future is a bit blurry.

Me too. Well, besides a more traditional fuel (or even biofuels and the upcoming synthetic fuels) holding a better energy-density than batteries, I'd still bet the nearing future will render hybrids a more reasonable option in a longer term. As they may also respond well to the usage of capacitors, which can handle faster cycles of charge and discharge, and capacitors may have a greater chemical stability, hybrids may become mainstream easier than full-EVs. I was talking about it with a Haitian guy today, and the increased market share of automatics even in Brazil and Europe is also favoring hybrids (even though in Brazil their presence is still increasing at a slow path, mostly owing to luxury models with a plug-in hybrid powertrain being cost-competitive due to lower taxes).

[redpoint5]

Part of the problem is that we're not designed for very long term thinking. Certainly better than every other creature, but still not optimally so. For that reason, the higher upfront cost of hybrids and plug-in hybrids is an impediment to our near-term planning capabilities.

[freebeard]

Part of the problem is that we're not designed for very long term thinking.

We have the example, of Buckminster Fuller's Design Science Revolution and Scott Adams processes vs goals.

"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people." - Socrates or Eleanor Roosevelt?

[MeteorGray]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I think the EV future is a bit blurry.

"GM gets it" but they've been under public critisism for the few Bolt fires that have happened. It doesn't matter how many Bolts actually caught on fire, the public may lose trust in the brand for what might have been jumping into the EV mainstream a bit too early.

Hopefully it doesn't end up that way for GM and hopefully something similar doesn't happen to Ford.

I think the EV future is blurry as well; not because modern batteries or motors wouldn't be suitable for much of the need, but because there is no consensus on where the fuel will come from to generate the electricity and the infrastructure to get it delivered where it is needed. And all this must be done on the scale that will allow electricity to supplant the gigantic gasoline and diesel consumption we need.

Anyone thinking it's coming from wind and sun "renewables" is not answering the question. That's only begging it.

Nuclear could do it, but there's the Jane Fonda Intellectual Society ready to pounce.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

the higher upfront cost of hybrids and plug-in hybrids is an impediment to our near-term planning capabilities

I see political volatility as a higher challenge to set a reasonable and achievable long-term goal.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by MeteorGray

I think the EV future is blurry as well; not because modern batteries or motors wouldn't be suitable for much of the need, but because there is no consensus on where the fuel will come from to generate the electricity and the infrastructure to get it delivered where it is needed.

OTOH I think the fungibility of sources for electricity is it's strength.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by MeteorGray

I think the EV future is blurry as well; not because modern batteries or motors wouldn't be suitable for much of the need, but because there is no consensus on where the fuel will come from to generate the electricity and the infrastructure to get it delivered where it is needed. And all this must be done on the scale that will allow electricity to supplant the gigantic gasoline and diesel consumption we need.

Anyone thinking it's coming from wind and sun "renewables" is not answering the question. That's only begging it.

Nuclear could do it, but there's the Jane Fonda Intellectual Society ready to pounce.

I would want to emphasize that whatever the BTU equivalent that is currently required for gasoline and diesel fuels, can be cut by a factor of around 350% with electric propulsion.
The BSFC-e of an EV is running at 1/3rd-to- 1/4 that of the ICE it replaces.
Every 100-gallons of fossil fuel can be replaced by 25-to-33-gallons-e of electrons.
If the 'source' of the electrons is the Sun, then this fusion- crude oil is free for capturing and storage. Additional up front costs are absorbed by year-3, and after that, there's no fuel source, even coal, which can compete.
$ 3,000,000,000,000 spent on renewables, over 10-years, costs 28.4-cents per capita/day ( 3- trillion, divided by 10 ( years ) , divided by 365 ( days/year ), divided by 328,000 citizens ).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The global warming economic impact of Lake Mead / Hoover Dam, affects 40-million Americans, an $ 1.4-trillion / yr alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021 dollars, the cost of direct air capture and burial of the excess atmospheric carbon dioxide, is $395- trillion.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The global warming economic impact of Lake Mead / Hoover Dam, affects 40-million Americans, an $ 1.4-trillion / yr alone.

No evidence could ever substantiate that made up claim.

As faulty as it still is, the most accurate way to measure impact to people is the big metrics on a global scale (we are talking about global warming, and not Lake Mead warming after all) on things like life expectancy, GDP per capita, calories per capita, and other measures of health and well-being.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021 dollars, the cost of direct air capture and burial of the excess atmospheric carbon dioxide, is $395- trillion.

I don't trust this either. What is powering this carbon capture technology? Diesel powered machines? Having not researched anything, common sense tells me it would be cheaper to avoid emitting CO2 in the first place than sequestering already dilute gasses from the air.