daveo4porsche

ah so the heart of your position is buying an EV is pointless and EV adoption will not change anything, but continues dependance of fossil fuels also doesn't change anything. Nothing we can do will have any effect.

EV's are pointless - gotcha

limegreen

I agree that at the current moment EV's will not change anything in regards to the well documented natural shift in climate. Do we play a roll in the environment , absolutely , a massive one in fact, we have infested this planet like a plague and I won't argue that for a second. , but we impact it in so many different ways that it's really hard to sit here watching the automotive industry take the brunt of the blame.

These EV's to me serve as nothing more than the typical " treat the symptom and NOT the problem " approach that major governments have utilized for far too long. Buying an EV to me serves as a concession to a broken system loaded with hypocrisy.

If you've ever observed a Tesla or Prius pull off the highway from a 1+ hr commute into a sprawling mansion that just 2 people live in and thought that seemed laughably conflicting then you'll understand my point.

groundhog

Dave, I never said EVs are pointless - just as I never said the planet wasn't warming up - in fact I pointed out it was, and when the trend to warming occurred and added some historical context. Keep in mind the US is largely habitable due to the last 10,000 years of global warming. Moreover, we will be dependant on fossil fuels for a long time to come, vast swathes of the planet have very poor electrical infrastructure and barely serviceable roads. These areas including most developing countries will be reliant on fossil fuels because they are cheap and effective e.g. its easy to carry your energy around in a Jerry can. EVs are not cheap and effective.

EVs are a niche based first world view of a solution and don't even address the root of the problem and as a consequence will have limited impact.

Petevb

daveo4porsche

when dealing with big problem it sometimes help to push thought experiments to the extreme - I refuse to believe reducing our carbon emissions will have no effect - I however agree at current levels EV adoption is like "pissing in the ocean" - but all trends start with the first small incremental changes…

given the following thought experiment I believe zero carbon emissions is the goal and it will have an effect if we wanted to achieve it - how do we get there in theory (not a recommendation - a thought experiment - I'm at NOT debating the cost/practicality of this thought experience - but it a zero emission proposal that makes minimal compromises to all aspects of existing personal/industrial transportation)

1. move to 100% Nuclear power world wide - no more burning fossil fuels for power generation - zero emissions - 7/24 (works with it's cloudy or night time) - reliable - definitely zero carbon emissions and can scale - none of that green hippy renewables crap - we're going to irradiate crap!!! and make vast quantities of steam with it and run our electric generators at full tilt! TeraWatts for everyone everywhere all the time in quants that would embarrass 1st world nations - you'll run your AC in the winter just because you can - zero emissions!!!!
2. use these vast quantities of electricity to make hydrogen from water - again zero emissions and renewable - (we're ignoring the inefficiency of using electricity to make hydrogen vs. just using it in a battery - again thought experiement )
3. burn hydrogen instead of fossil fuels for all existing ICE applications (cars, jets, plans, trains) - we can keep our cars and the ICE design/advantages - no turbos required - bring back the NA's - burning hydrogen produces water vapor (clouds) - zero carbon and zero pollutants! Run your GT3 with impunity - and we don't need no stinkin turbos for emissions reasons because there are no emissions!!! Keep the exhaust the transmission, and the soul of the automobile - and you can fill up quickly cause we'll replace all those gas stations with hydrogen stations!! 10 min fill up you can iron butt for 16 hours to get to Vegas!!! No long fast charging stations!
4. use fossil fuels for their other applications for producing products based on hydrocarbons (plastics, rubber all the products that are the modern miracles of the Industrial Age!

that approach would remove _MOST_ carbon emissions and dramatically curtail CO2 contributions and remove pollutants to the atmosphere and not even require EV's - I can't believe that anyone with an understanding of any physics (conservation of mass and the laws of thermodynamics) would believe that would have no impact globally! It's just scientifically not possible for our current approach to not have an impact (burning vast quantities of fossil fuels with CO2 and toxic pollutants as a result), and an approach like this not curtailing that impact - this is a technically viable approach and has free if any compromises as it relates to transportation. I'm not even moving to fuel cells which are 50% efficient EV's - I'm keeping the 18% efficient flat-6 running at 9,000 RPM spark plugs and exhaust noise included!!!

If this thought experiment got you thinking then job done - it's impossible for me to understand that anyone would believe an approach like this would have zero impact on a global scale on warming, pollutants, and all the well documented outcomes of our current system.

I reject the argument that small changes make no difference. The exact same arguments were levels at early emission regulations changes - they will make no difference and it's a natural by product of what we doing - it will take too long to replace all the cars - it's pointless. And yet 20/30/40 years later we have vastly more cars on the roads driving more mile and measurably less air pollution, visible, invisible, and toxins as measured anywhere. Personal transportation emits vast quantities of CO2 and other TOXIC chemicals - it's not the entire contribution but it's a significant (30%) part of the total emissions problems. Progress is rarely made all at once you tackle problems incrementally building the change you ultimately want to achieve, and you look back and what appears to minor inconsequential changes when added up over time result in dramatic differences:

50 years of 911 evolution demonstrate that (1st version vs. 991). each version small incremental changes, but over time vast differences - even the 991.1 GT3 vs. 991.2 GT3 aren't the same car....
40 years of pollution controls demonstrate that approach works also

It's way to easy for people to reject all possible change, because none of it individually will make a difference - that approach leads to stagnation and waits for what will never happen, which is one solution that solves all the problem rather than some of it. Successful approaches take incremental wins where they can find them (and they are significant) and then don't stop with that but keep pushing for that goal…but you have to have a shared goal which brings me to my next point.

the fundamental problem I've come to understand in my conversations with you all here is that we don't share the same goals. My goals is moving to zero carbon (and other toxic) pollutants with an expectation that there will be a difference and that a zero (or near zero) carbon/toxins emission goal is a shared belief. And that doing so will have an impact. I also believe the scientific data overwhelming presented effectively makes the case that we are having and impact, and so changing our behavior will also have an impact.

but it appears there are some/many who believe some amount of change will have no impact and it's not worth trying. We'll have to agree to disagree on that perspective but that it is a perspective. I reject the argument that it's futile to try, and I reject the argument that we are not having any impact.

and if you agree that the thought experiment achieves the goal of zero emissions, but that even that magic want approach (ignoring obvious problems with the thought experiment) would have no impact - then you are lost to me and 97% of the scientific community for any rational conversation.

Am I hearing that few/some/most/all people on this board do NOT believe/agree reducing carbon emissions (and toxic polllutants) is a goal? And even if we could get to zero it doesn't matter? And therefore this whole exercise is pointless? We should just keep burning fossil fuels because they are having no appreciable impact?

whiz944

Regardless of ones opinions on man-made global warming, to me it is simple. It is stupid to burn our natural resources when we don't have to. EVs, in particular their battery and digital motor control technology, have reached the point where they are not only viable, but preferred. As more folks discover this, there will be a rapid "S curve" adoption rate. The traditional manufactures are terrified because they have invested in decades of ICE production capabilities that are rapidly becoming obsolete. The dealers are terrified because much of their service revenue, where a lot of their profits lie, is going to disappear.

I used to be a big fan of nuke. But nuke is having a hard time competing against renewables and also fracked natural gas. Some governments are starting to actually subsidize nuke plants to keep them open. California is down to its last nuke plant - and (sadly) it is slated for closure in just a few years. Nationwide, coal is on its way out no matter what happens politically in WDC. (Good riddance.)

daveo4porsche

@whiz944 - I agree with you - but you might have missed the point of the thought experiment - and there are trade offs that are real and debatable for both Renewables and EV's - so let's put those aside and get to what I perceive to be the core problem.

Humans as a group can accomplish amazing things when they have a shared/common goal. However even as a group when that goal is not shared we are easily distracted by focusing on minute details of any proposed solution because we lack the shared goal.

the only technologies that are viable and "plug" compatible with today's industry/personal/transporation and power grid is Nuclear, it's also the only technology that also happens to be zero emission, and it's technically feasible to keep 99.9% of our basic existing car designs but convert to burning hydrogen. we can air drop Nuke's in everywhere and eradicate all fossil fuel burning consumption with minor design change to our existing infrastructure - and achieve the goal of zero carbon emissions. That should have an impact on global climate change and therefore achieve the goal, and since that's the goal it's a possible solution....but that should only be undertaken if you believe it will have an impact...if you don't believe it will have an impact then it's completely unnecessary.

so the test is: Do we share the common goal that we need to reduce our carbon emissions? And will reducing those carbon emissions have an meaningful impact?

if we can't agree on the goals we'll continue to snipe at each other because we lack solution development for the common goal - and those that don't share the goal will state the proposed solutions are un-necessary and pointless.

Now you either believe that will have huge impact, and is therefore a possible solution for a worthwhile goal - or you believe that will have no impact and is therefore un-necessary - but it clearly achieves the goal of no more fossil fuel burning with the minimal disruption to existing systems.

So the question is do we share the goal that reducing emissions (carbon and otherwise) is the goal? If you don't share that goal - then all of this is an unnecessary exercise for no desired outcome. And we'll continue to talk across each other with out understand the root problem is we lack a shared goal and therefore will make mostly irrelevant cristisms on the proposed solutions because we don't understand the goal and why that solution's trade offs are reasonable.

a lot of this EV and zero emissions and renewable pushes are premised on the Policy goals of less carbon emissions - from there we are working on solutions for that broad but specific goal. if you don't agree with the goal you don't agree with the policy, and you're doomed to a failure to communicate.

I'm firmly in the camp that we must reduce emissions (carbon and otherwise) and support policies and technologies towards those goals,. and yes that's an agenda, but it's an agenda with a purpose which is to reduce our impact due to atmospheric emissions - so far EV's are the best worst solution that achieves all that needs to be achieved to transition "off" of fossil fuels with minimal disruption…but they come with baggage, since I agree with he policy goal I believe the baggage is mostly acceptable because where EV's don't work we can continue to use ICE's, and most people don't use their ICE in a manner where an EV won't work for them. Therefore incremental improvement towards the broad but specific goal makes the change justified, understanding it's doesn't solve the whole problem, but does move use a few steps closer to the goal…

but if we lack a shared goal - reducing carbon emissions - all of our policies are wrong and therefore the solutions we are pursuing are wrong. But if we share the policy goal we can discuss where or not there are better solutions towards the goals (hydrogen burning cars efficiency be dammed it achieves the goal) than the one's we are proposing, but keep the goal in mind.

So do you share the goal of reducing carbon emissions, getting them to zero if possible? so do you punk? - paraphrasing Dirty Harry Clint Eastwood cause he's certainly not for the goal of reducing carbon emissions.

Petevb

Of course not. 42% of Americans do not believe global warming is man made. People require extraordinary evidence to convince them of something that's not in their own self-interest, and even if convinced we're selfish animals: sacrificing for the greater good, especially when the consequences appear uncertain and far away, is not in our nature. It's no surprise that climate change is a political issue when you consider the demographics of who's impacted most:

Global warming didn't start as a political issue- Republicans and Democrats were aligned. Once those who stood to loose huge amounts of money got involved that changed rapidly.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ing-earth.html
There is no political will for change on the scale needed, and while I wish all power to those who attempt to muster it I fundamentally do not believe they will be successful.

The only way true change will be accomplished is if it's in most people's economic best interest. That means the costs to them are so high that they are spurred into action. The other option is to make alternative energy cheaper, so there's an economic incentive to change. That's how real change is accomplished: when oil became cheaper than whale blubber the energy industry changed virtually overnight.

Nuclear is a pipe dream for that reason- it's fundamentally more expensive even before you consider the other impacts. However as renewables more and more become cheaper than the alternatives their adoption will increase exponentially. Solar PV is now by far the least expensive way of generating electricity in the world in good, sunny areas, and its fully installed cost has been coming down at a 23% learning rate- 23% cheaper for every doubling of total installed capacity. And because of this it is growing at an exponential rate: over 10x as much solar will be installed this year vs 10 years ago, over 100 GW. Solar thermal technologies for industrial process heat are on similar decline curves, and the result is that a dent is beginning to be made:

It's only a dent, but without storage and with current costs these technologies are only cheaper currently in certain circumstances. Project that 23% learning rate forwards, however, and that will no longer be the case.

If you watch the video I linked earlier you'll get a sense for how far we truly need to go. As air quality deteriorates due to fires and water issues increase political will will harden, but it's all far to slow to have an impact. Cost reduction in energy production and energy efficiency is our only hope- making the difficult choices that much less difficult so that people are willing and able to make them.

whiz944

I'm a techie, not a wacko tree hugger. So technology and economics of it are my main interest. I've been following both EV and grid development for years. It is gratifying to see it all starting to come together.

Solar is becoming the most inexpensive way to generate electricity. Of course it only works when the sun is shining. So storage is becoming increasingly important. We've been doing it with pumped storage for ages. But battery storage at the grid level is just starting to become feasible. There isn't a lot of it yet - but it is growing.

Wind power has also become cheap. I toured "Route 66" a year ago, from Chicago to Barstow, and was just amazed at the number of windmills out in western Texas. Apparently there are utility plans out there where electricity is literally free during the night time. We have installed a lot of wind power here in California too. Interestingly, it is more of a nighttime resource than a daylight resource - so to some extent balances out the solar.

Nuke is a great base load generator, but it doesn't follow demand swings very well. Here in California you can already see in the Cal ISO stats where there are days in the spring and fall, we have more solar power than we can use. We actually pay other states to take our excess. As more solar is added, on both sides of the meter, those days will be increasingly common. That is why the utilities are pushing back against net metering, and also why time-of-use rates are shifting their peaks to the evening hours. (I had PG&E E-7 TOU for many years where the peak was noon-6 PM. It was great for me - especially after I installed a solar system. But out of sync with the current realities of the grid. So those of us on E-7 got thrown off it a few years ago.)

I get where you are coming from that excess nuke could be used to generate hydrogen. (Desalinate water too.) I think hydrogen may play a role in the future, but not as big as people think. It is far costlier to generate the electricity to either use hydrolysis or do methane reformation, deal with all the containment (10,000 psi!) and transportation issues, and run it through a relatively inefficient fuel cell than to simply store the electricity in a battery and use it directly. I have no doubt you've seen a few of the Toyota FC cars running around. There is actually a gas station with a H2 dispenser about a mile from my house - so in theory I could live with one for at least local driving. But if Toyota wasn't picking up the tab for H2 for the first three years of the lease (and who would actually buy one), the costs are several times that of gasoline. Whereas with a EV, I can plug into my house when I come home, leave in the morning with a "full tank" of electrons, and the cost is a fraction of what gas would cost.

Bottom line is that at least from a transportation point of view, I've found that giving up hydrocarbons for the majority of our daily driving is no sacrifice at all. In fact there are many advantages to it. The 400,000+ folks who plunked down $1k for Model 3 reservations two years ago apparently feel the same way.

groundhog

Pete, clearly you have both EQ and IQ.

EQ is important because it allows a person to put themselves in the other persons shoes. In the US, up until the end of June there were something like 800,000 new sales of Ford F series trucks and Dodge Rams. This should inform the debate but it doesn't, it tends to irritate those that don't see a large part of the US population has a different view point. Perhaps these sales figures in-part reflect that - its immaterial whether that view point is correct or incorrect. It exists.

Why is that important? If EV owners want to effect change they need to consider what Joe average thinks - unfortunately most don't seem to be able to do this largely because they see the world, its history and evolution through a very narrow prism. They see Joe average but they don't know Joe average. Some thoughts on this matter.

(1) Joe and Joette often live from wage packet to wage packet and at best have contingency savings
(2) Average household debt is near all time highs (I'll leave public debt to one side) - something like $US60 to 65k per capita
(3) To Joe and Joette $55,000 for a model 3 is an extravagance - when they can buy a second hand ICE (name your choice) for half that
(4) To Joe and Joette cash in hand now is far more important than saving the planet from an existential threat
(5) To Joe and Joette - rich guys buy Porsche sports cars and Tesla EVs
(6) To Joe and Joette - rich guys are getting a subsidy on what they consider a luxury item.

Its at the point economics, practicality and other factors such as space, design, layout even colour make sense to Joe and Joette that EVs will have an impact. If you try and force them to buy something on the basis of saving the planet they will baulk, unequivocally so if in the round its significantly more expensive in their minds than their current ICE. Perception always trumps reality.

So how will EVs succeed (and this is in relation to certain markets - to large parts of the planet India, South America, Africa it irrelevant)

(1) They will have to play on an even field with other power sources and means of transportation
(2) They will have to be practical and do the things people want e.g. people are buying SUVs and pick-up trucks not sedans and sports cars
(3) They will have to be designed to catch the eye of Joe and Joette and fit their budgets
(4) Battery storage and solar panel prices will have to come down significantly - the batteries are required for two reasons (1) to store solar and (2) moderate/limit upload to many grids (stability) - going fully off grid will not eventuate for most
(5) EVs will only succeed when economics meets needs.

whiz944

Or Joe and Joette could buy a nice used Chevy Volt for $10-15k and have a very nice "gateway drug" to EVs. With a Volt, a huge percentage of ones daily driving can be done as an EV. Yet when you suddenly need to visit your sick mother two states away, it can use gas at 40-50 mpg. Since this is a Porsche forum, and presumably we all like cars that are fun to drive, Volts, especially Gen 2, are actually fun cars compared to the soul-less hybrids from Toyota and the like.

groundhog

Exactly, now to pose another question - why aren't they doing it? In fact, from an environmental stand point wouldn't it be better if all of us did this? (if you look at the full manufacturing cycle) and better still, do this and jettison our ICE vehicles.

Post script - I read an article that stated the average Model S P85D owner had on average three other vehicles (I'll see if I can find the source).

whiz944

I don't pretend to know all the answers. It has only been 15 years since Eberhard and Tarpenning decided to try loading a few thousand Li-ion laptop batteries into an EV - leading to the Tesla Roadster. And it has only been 8 years since the Volt and Leaf hit the market. (GM did a really good job on the Volt. Nissan less so.) So this is all pretty new to us consumers. Most of the manufacturers haven't made it especially easy to buy a compelling plug-in. A lot of hacked conversions of existing vehicles, that are often only available in California at selected dealers, in very limited quantities. Then there are the dealers themselves who often have no interest in selling them. It is kind of like finding the plans for the hyperspace bypass in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy... So a lot of word of mouth, I guess...

Nationwide, plug-ins are about 1.5% of new car sales (and growing.) But here in Silicon Valley, it is somewhere between 15-20% of new car sales. The community where I live is even higher than that. I literally can not drive out of my neighborhood without seeing a few. (See: https://www.theicct.org/sites/defaul...g-20180507.pdf)

I should also note that VW has actually been running ads promoting EVs lately. It isn't because they want to. It is part of the Dieselgate settlement that they have to.

Considering the demographic that owns $100k+ cars, it wouldn't surprise me. Besides the two plug-ins, I own four other vehicles. (Two SUVs - one of which needs to get sold, and two two-seaters - one of which is my old P-car.)

Archimedes

whiz944

A Volt certainly doesn't solve all problems for all people. But it is a great commuter car for a lot of us. If Joe and Joette need a vehicle that can tow a bass boat, three kids, dog, and camping supplies, I'd recommend a Suburban.