When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
No one viewing this forum will ever see a 100% EV transition. Its just a shame that Porsche is stripping the ICE 718 from its lineup, as many cant afford to go up a notch to an ICE 911, so say goodbye to the so called entry level models that ppl can afford in their current/next gen form.
What will happen to the greater portion of our population that reside within the city limits...? High Rises, Apartments, Town Homes, there is no infrastructure to handle the demand, not to mention how the hell will the power grid keep up, and who will end up paying for it? Next big wave of vehicle related theft will be surrounded by the cables running to the cars being snipped and sold for their contents. If pollution is the primary concern, the government should focus on public transportation (planes/buses) and the trucking industry first.
I for one will most likely own a full EV one day, and Im looking forward to it, but my city slicker self has many years before I cross that bridge, and it will not be a sports car (so I say).
Our current Administration does have a major push to eliminate the ICE and mandate the BEV in the name of "Climate Change".... Those who do not see this need to take their head out of the EV Cloud, put down their EV Cool-aid, and pay attention to what new regulations have been implemented and those being proposed..... Just a few comments from folks on the latest EPA Auto Emission regulations;
“Let’s call the proposed [EPA ] regulation what it really is: a de facto electric vehicle mandate. Why? Because unless automakers dramatically increase their production of EVs in the years ahead, they’ll have no way of complying with EPA’s ambitious proposed standards.”
—Geoff Cooper, President and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association
“Auto Innovators does not believe [the proposed EPA standards] can be met without substantially increasing the cost of vehicles, reducing consumer choice, and disadvantaging major portions of the United States population and territory… Taken together, the proposed GHG and criteria pollutant standards are so stringent as to set a de facto BEV mandate.”
—John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation
“The proposed [EPA] rule intends to limit the amount of pollution each automaker is allowed to generate, effectively outlawing the internal combustion engine (ICE)–coercing the auto industry into producing more Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and strong-arming consumers into buying them… Due to the speed of the transition to electric vehicles in EPA’s proposal, tens of thousands of America’s best manufacturing jobs are at risk…”
—Anna Fendley, United Steelworkers
“President Joe Biden’s EPA has announced an aggressive new auto tailpipe emissions rule that would ban most new cars and trucks that don’t run on batteries … Is there anything less American than taking away gasoline-powered cars?”
—Travis Fisher, HF Center for Energy, Climate & Environment
@Schn3ll What you forgot to mention is the NASA study that shows the Sun is burning brighter, and continues it's cycle of ever increasing energy output - Like all Stars do. Thus the earth is being exposed to increasing levels energy from the sun each year.... This might also be a contributor to Climate Change that gets left out of the discussion because it does not fit the "Reduce Carbon" agenda.
Our current Administration does have a major push to eliminate the ICE and mandate the BEV in the name of "Climate Change".... Those who do not see this need to take their head out of the EV Cloud, put down their EV Cool-aid, and pay attention to what new regulations have been implemented and those being proposed..... Just a few comments from folks on the latest EPA Auto Emission regulations;
“Let’s call the proposed [EPA ] regulation what it really is: a de facto electric vehicle mandate. Why? Because unless automakers dramatically increase their production of EVs in the years ahead, they’ll have no way of complying with EPA’s ambitious proposed standards.”
—Geoff Cooper, President and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association
“Auto Innovators does not believe [the proposed EPA standards] can be met without substantially increasing the cost of vehicles, reducing consumer choice, and disadvantaging major portions of the United States population and territory… Taken together, the proposed GHG and criteria pollutant standards are so stringent as to set a de facto BEV mandate.”
—John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation
“The proposed [EPA] rule intends to limit the amount of pollution each automaker is allowed to generate, effectively outlawing the internal combustion engine (ICE)–coercing the auto industry into producing more Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and strong-arming consumers into buying them… Due to the speed of the transition to electric vehicles in EPA’s proposal, tens of thousands of America’s best manufacturing jobs are at risk…”
—Anna Fendley, United Steelworkers
“President Joe Biden’s EPA has announced an aggressive new auto tailpipe emissions rule that would ban most new cars and trucks that don’t run on batteries … Is there anything less American than taking away gasoline-powered cars?”
—Travis Fisher, HF Center for Energy, Climate & Environment
@Schn3ll What you forgot to mention is the NASA study that shows the Sun is burning brighter, and continues it's cycle of ever increasing energy output - Like all Stars do. Thus the earth is being exposed to increasing levels energy from the sun each year.... This might also be a contributor to Climate Change that gets left out of the discussion because it does not fit the "Reduce Carbon" agenda.
Are you saying that reducing carbon emissions should not be prioritized and expedited? What do you expect the climate to be like in 50 or 100 years if we don’t make reductions to our emissions?
Yes, the government is mandating that new cars be electric in the future. They are not banning existing ICE cars, but will incentivize EV use and disincentivize ICE use to reduce emissions. This is alongside reducing the carbon footprint of electricity generation and other industries. The goal is to slow down or limit human-caused climate change that is already having damaging effects around the world.
Are you saying that reducing carbon emissions should not be prioritized and expedited? What do you expect the climate to be like in 50 or 100 years if we don’t make reductions to our emissions?
I would say that and the result would be probably an imperceptible difference to today. Just far less wasteful spending.
Anyone fear-mongering a different and more catastrophic outcome is a charlatan and at best a "useful idiot" for the powers that be. Even Bill Gates is scaling back his doomsday rhetoric on the climate agenda.
Maybe those carbon based life-forms wanting to reduce their carbon footprint so badly that they want to deface priceless artwork or block traffic could maybe... start with themselves
If Porsche can build a sports car with electric propulsion that is exciting to drive and stimulating to the senses,
I'd consider buying one but at this time consider me skeptical.
For what it's worth, an interesting opinion on EV impact on climate change from American Thinker: The Electric Car Con Explained - American Thinker
Tay-con Conned by Porsche and the EV world. Plummeting resale value. Wreck and your repair bill will likely be much higher than an ICE model would. Mmm hmmm
Are you saying that reducing carbon emissions should not be prioritized and expedited? What do you expect the climate to be like in 50 or 100 years if we don’t make reductions to our emissions?
Currently, driving an EV does not reduce Carbon Emissions, and anyone who thinks in does is misinformed (a nice way of saying ignorant). Where does the Electricity come from? The US, still generates most of its electrical power by burning fossil fuels, and will continue to do so for the next 50 years. If you want to drive an EV and reduce Carbon emissions - by some land and put up your own solar panels and charge you car without our current electrical grid. Then hope the sun shines enough to meet your EV power demands.
Producing a typical EV (with a 75-kWh battery pack) emits more than seven tons of CO2 emissions on the battery alone. Total CO2 emissions to manufacture a typical EV are more than 2.6 times that of a typical ICE vehicle* (*McKinsey & Company).
EVs are not the answer for significant Carbon Emission reduction.... if we really need CO2 Emission reduction in the first place.
Originally Posted by wizee
Yes, the government is mandating that new cars be electric in the future. They are not banning existing ICE cars, but will incentivize EV use and disincentivize ICE use to reduce emissions. This is alongside reducing the carbon footprint of electricity generation and other industries. The goal is to slow down or limit human-caused climate change that is already having damaging effects around the world.
The US government is proposing to ban ICE vehicle production within 10 years or sooner. (reference the latest EPA proposals) Since EVs do not significantly reduced Carbon emissions, why force the expensive shift for no benefit?
Currently, driving an EV does not reduce Carbon Emissions, and anyone who thinks in does is misinformed (a nice way of saying ignorant). Where does the Electricity come from? The US, still generates most of its electrical power by burning fossil fuels, and will continue to do so for the next 50 years. If you want to drive an EV and reduce Carbon emissions - by some land and put up your own solar panels and charge you car without our current electrical grid. Then hope the sun shines enough to meet your EV power demands.
Producing a typical EV (with a 75-kWh battery pack) emits more than seven tons of CO2 emissions on the battery alone. Total CO2 emissions to manufacture a typical EV are more than 2.6 times that of a typical ICE vehicle* (*McKinsey & Company).
EVs are not the answer for significant Carbon Emission reduction.... if we really need CO2 Emission reduction in the first place.
The US government is proposing to ban ICE vehicle production within 10 years or sooner. (reference the latest EPA proposals) Since EVs do not significantly reduced Carbon emissions, why force the expensive shift for no benefit?
simply isn't true....even when you try to introduce all the outside factors in producing them and the tried and true dirty electricity angle.
There is much to learn still in terms the actual causes for why temperature changes on earth and to what extent humans influence it - anyone who says otherwise is a fraud (for example, the sun has a much larger influence then previously suggested). Studies have shown that for an EV to be less pollutant over its lifespan vs. a gas vehicle, it takes roughly 80k miles (not great), at the same time, gas engines have never been cleaner (GPF and multiple Catalytic converters). I do agree pollution is something we need to address, but gas cars, especially modern ones, are far from the biggest culprit.
My thoughts are EVs are significantly worse for the environment because of something you mentioned here. THere is zero incentive to improve gas car efficiency since they'll be banned shortly, so car manufacturers are not improving tech that affects 98% of cars and will likely still be 90% of cars by 2030, and are focusing on EV production to get 2% of vehicles today zero emission onec they hit the road, but only receive a environment payoff when hteir life starts to end, and only we ignore what happens with the batteries. The real science should say your best return is to focus on reducing your largest type. If you can get china to reduce emissions by 5% you're better off than getting nepal to eliminate 100% of emissions. Same thing wiht getting a reduction in ICE cars.
And this all stems from government mandates. Governments forcing stuff to happen rarely makes things better. If the government let EV's take a more natural course of adoption if they truly are better, eventually they'd be adopted anyway.
However, I have believed for a long time and still believe the goal is to not actually convert 1:1 cars to EVs. The goal is to actually remove a significant portion of hte population away from being able to afford a car to begin with. I have seen government policies wiht mass transit over my life be consistently about not making transit better so people use it, but actively making driving worse because thier logic is if you make it bad enough, more people will use transit. Same thing with EVs. They don't work for a significant portion of hte population and I think a lot of people behind pushing EVs so hard know that and are laughing that no one can prove the real goal is to remove people from being able to own a car.
My thoughts are EVs are significantly worse for the environment because of something you mentioned here. THere is zero incentive to improve gas car efficiency since they'll be banned shortly, so car manufacturers are not improving tech that affects 98% of cars and will likely still be 90% of cars by 2030, and are focusing on EV production to get 2% of vehicles today zero emission onec they hit the road, but only receive a environment payoff when hteir life starts to end, and only we ignore what happens with the batteries. The real science should say your best return is to focus on reducing your largest type. If you can get china to reduce emissions by 5% you're better off than getting nepal to eliminate 100% of emissions. Same thing wiht getting a reduction in ICE cars.
And this all stems from government mandates. Governments forcing stuff to happen rarely makes things better. If the government let EV's take a more natural course of adoption if they truly are better, eventually they'd be adopted anyway.
However, I have believed for a long time and still believe the goal is to not actually convert 1:1 cars to EVs. The goal is to actually remove a significant portion of hte population away from being able to afford a car to begin with. I have seen government policies wiht mass transit over my life be consistently about not making transit better so people use it, but actively making driving worse because thier logic is if you make it bad enough, more people will use transit. Same thing with EVs. They don't work for a significant portion of hte population and I think a lot of people behind pushing EVs so hard know that and are laughing that no one can prove the real goal is to remove people from being able to own a car.
Oh no, we have gone down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories.
Why, pray tell, would car companies want people to take mass transit?
By the way. Accounting for inflation, cars are cheaper today and more affordable than they were 20 years ago which is why wenhave more cars than ever on the road and places like China and India are just one big traffic jam.
Car companies dont want people to take mass transit, governments do. They have for a long time. There is the conspiracy theory angle, but it also makes financial sense as roads and sprawl are really expensive. And you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to agree some people in power have agendas that can be quiet harmful to its citizens. Take my country. Our leader declared us a post national state, feels we can sustain over 1% population grown per quarter from immigration, and stagnating business to the point GDP has grown only by about 4% i believe since he came to power in 2015. Meanwhile the US GDP has grown by 45% or so. Our incomes have also stagnated, while the US has seen incomes skyrocket (median incomes were actually on par when he came to power). Housing prices have skyrocketed and the average home in Canada is now 40% more expensive than the US.
And anyway, cars aren't cheaper accounting for inflation where I am. The average new car in my country is 66k. That's up 47% in 4 years. To compare 20 years ago the average cost of a car here in 2004 was $26000. $150 today is equiv to 100 in 2004. Adjusting for inflation we should be paying 39000 for the average car, or less if it's as you said cars are cheaper. So cars are much much more expensive now than they were 20 years ago adjusting for inflation. Even at the end of the bell curve the cheapest car today is about 18g, whereas about 10 years ago there were cars at 10g. A civic in 2004 was about 14g to start here, 2014 about 18g, and today its about 29g.
Oh no, we have gone down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories.
Why, pray tell, would car companies want people to take mass transit?
By the way. Accounting for inflation, cars are cheaper today and more affordable than they were 20 years ago which is why wenhave more cars than ever on the road and places like China and India are just one big traffic jam.
Just a friendly reminder, the thread is in the 718 Technical Section -- so we'd like to talk about the upcoming 718 EV. Associated is anything about the PPE architecture and even the new Macan EV since we'll get some insight to interior and PPE.
There's plenty of general EV discussion in Off Topic, here is an example:
Why is discussing the non-merits of EV's not part of a 718 EV discussion? After all, we are trying to save folks from imitating their brother's foolish Taycan purchases.
01-12-2024, 09:09 AM
