General thoughts on ICE depreciation?

[2nd 392]

Were market forces and therefore freedom of choice allowed to prevail nobody would care what vehicle anyone bought and these discussions would not exist other than what vehicle is the best choice for your needs

Sponsored

 

[Fatalis12B]

Sounds like whataboutism. Usually followed by the ostrich strategy to dealing with global warming. Leave a note to your great grandchildren explaining it to them. Make sure that the note is in a waterproof container because you live in a costal state.

 

[2nd 392]

B

Me thinks ICE will “go away” about the same time EVs work in Fairbanks all year (without garaging) and have good range while keeping the cabin warm. One size does not fit all.

Buy a dogsled, the “buy an electric car” response (when Pres. was asked about high fuel prices) won’t work for Alaska.

 

[pablo_max3045]

I wonder if all the people writing about the unfair advantage to electric cars and "letting the market decide" have even the smallest idea how much money in subsidies, both direct and indirect, the oil and automotive industry has enjoyed over the last 40 years.
Literally trillions of dollars.
634 billion in 2020 alone. Not to mention the bailouts and TARP.

You're right, it is not an even playing field.. but in the exact opposite way you mean. You would need to prop up the EV market for a lot longer.

I would agree that the batteries currently on the market are only suitable for a subset of the population. In the the next 5-7 years though, things will looks a lot different. There are several makers, like BYD and CATL in pre-product for solid state batteries.

Regarding the electric grid. I personally think the shit energy grid is a point in EVs favor.
We need to update the grid as a matter of national security alone. Updating the grid means a lot of jobs for a lot of people over the next 10-20 years. I would sure as shit rather spend my tax money on that then most of the other shit it is spent on.

Fear not though. I am sure in 20 years time you will still be driving your ICE car, complaining to everyone who will listen about these newfangled EVs and how everything was better your your day while your grandkids roll their eyes.

 

[Kyle]

Technology can advance at incredibly rapid rates when there is broad public support. Battery and charging tech is advancing to make batteries last longer and charging times shorter but the problem, imo, isn't on that aspect of transitioning to fully electric vehicles for the masses. I think it's on the infrastructure side.

There are already problems with being able to produce enough electricity and adding hundreds of thousands, and even millions of new, fully electric vehicles to the grid will only exacerbate the problem. If we really wanted to do it, we need to invest in the ability to generate more electricity in a more efficient manner and imo, that means nuclear but I don't see the support for that. If they want fully electric fleets on the road in the next decade, we should be breaking ground for new nuclear facilities right now.
Just my opinion though.

 

[Sgt Beavis]

I just read that article and I hope it is a case of bad writing. It says they’ll ban registrations by 2030. Soooo basically anyone that can’t afford one of these EXPENSIVE EVs is screwed. They’re basically giving the finger to anyone in a middle to lower income. If this covers commercial vehicles, or trucks, then that’ll be another failure. Even if, in 2030, battery tech is ready for heavier workloads it won’t be mass produced enough to meet demand.

To be clear, I‘m in on EVs. I’ve got an order in on the Rivian R1T and if Jeep builds an EV Wrangler, I’ll seriously consider buying it. But this kind of regulation is just stupid.

 

[jjvincent]

Technology can advance at incredibly rapid rates when there is broad public support. Battery and charging tech is advancing to make batteries last longer and charging times shorter but the problem, imo, isn't on that aspect of transitioning to fully electric vehicles for the masses. I think it's on the infrastructure side.

There are already problems with being able to produce enough electricity and adding hundreds of thousands, and even millions of new, fully electric vehicles to the grid will only exacerbate the problem. If we really wanted to do it, we need to invest in the ability to generate more electricity in a more efficient manner and imo, that means nuclear but I don't see the support for that. If they want fully electric fleets on the road in the next decade, we should be breaking ground for new nuclear facilities right now.
Just my opinion though.

This is what happened when we went to horseless carriages. The infrastructure was not there for them. It took many years to build that in. Even by 1920, the horseless carriage was pretty much an urban mode of transportation. Taking a cross country trip tool lots of planning because you needed gasoline. That was something that was not readily available like it is today. Plus, in the urban areas, we eliminated electric trolleys in favor of cars. Then we moved people out in suburbs, thus needed to build the road and gasoline delivery systems. We did that.

I think that most people need to understand history and the time frame that building up infrastructure took. EV's will not take over for a long time but they will become an alternate method of transportation which will grow. It will take at least a generation for this to happen. Think about it, the infrastructure was not there for cell phones back in (let's say) 1990. Look at what we have done in that period of time.

 

[roaniecowpony]

Technology can advance at incredibly rapid rates when there is broad public support. Battery and charging tech is advancing to make batteries last longer and charging times shorter but the problem, imo, isn't on that aspect of transitioning to fully electric vehicles for the masses. I think it's on the infrastructure side.

There are already problems with being able to produce enough electricity and adding hundreds of thousands, and even millions of new, fully electric vehicles to the grid will only exacerbate the problem. If we really wanted to do it, we need to invest in the ability to generate more electricity in a more efficient manner and imo, that means nuclear but I don't see the support for that. If they want fully electric fleets on the road in the next decade, we should be breaking ground for new nuclear facilities right now.
Just my opinion though.

I worked for 10-11 years in nuc on the R&D of fuel production 40 years ago. Wife too. As many of you, I've followed closely the events of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Frankly, I don't see any support for building nuc generating plants. I can't even recall any politicians even mentioning the thought since Fukushima. For good reason too. The cost of nuc power has continued to rise, while solar and wind generation has dropped dramatically to about 1/3 or 1/4 the cost of nuc power. These "renewables" are also quicker to get online by years. I used to be a nuc power advocate, but times have changed.

 

[TX_Ovrlnd]

I worked for 10-11 years in nuc on the R&D of fuel production 40 years ago. Wife too. As many of you, I've followed closely the events of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Frankly, I don't see any support for building nuc generating plants. I can't even recall any politicians even mentioning the thought since Fukushima. For good reason too. The cost of nuc power has continued to rise, while solar and wind generation has dropped dramatically to about 1/3 or 1/4 the cost of nuc power. These "renewables" are also quicker to get online by years. I used to be a nuc power advocate, but times have changed.

3 Mile and Chernobyl were different from Fukushima. Fukushima blew because all their support systems did not account for natural disasters and they failed to maintain the preventative measures they had in place (ex. sea walls). I only know this now because of a case study in geology this semester lol.
I still believe nuclear is better than miles of solar panels or wind mills. It just needs to be more purposefully built with better attention to emergency systems. Costs can change in an instant when subsidies are created or removed, it just depends on what agenda the controlling interest is pushing for.

 

[skiptheroad]

This is what happened when we went to horseless carriages. The infrastructure was not there for them. It took many years to build that in. Even by 1920, the horseless carriage was pretty much an urban mode of transportation. Taking a cross country trip tool lots of planning because you needed gasoline. That was something that was not readily available like it is today. Plus, in the urban areas, we eliminated electric trolleys in favor of cars. Then we moved people out in suburbs, thus needed to build the road and gasoline delivery systems. We did that.

I think that most people need to understand history and the time frame that building up infrastructure took. EV's will not take over for a long time but they will become an alternate method of transportation which will grow. It will take at least a generation for this to happen. Think about it, the infrastructure was not there for cell phones back in (let's say) 1990. Look at what we have done in that period of time.

By "we" do you mean the big three auto manufacturer's? Urban sprawl was invented in Detroit.

 

[tk1700]

How about this, ICE vehicles will appreciate in value as EVs become mandated. There won't be enough infrastructure to support EVs, EV range will be less than ICE, EVs cost significantly more and the sale/availability of new ICE vehicles is reduced or prohibited. that will drive the price of used ICE vehicles up. The only way kill off ICE vehicles is to ban the sale of fuel.

 

[jjvincent]

The cost of nuc power has continued to rise, while solar and wind generation has dropped dramatically to about 1/3 or 1/4 the cost of nuc power.

Remember, people will still complain if you set up a wind or solar farm. It's like when people complained about cell phone towers. I noticed that has sort of gone away as most people use cell phones and thus they are willing to put up with looking at that tower as opposed to 20 years ago when the old timers never understood why you needed a cell phone as the land line is perfect.

Last year when we went out west, we camped right in the middle of a wind farm in Kansas (it was a harvest host where the guy lived in a decommissioned missile silo). It was actually the largest wind farm in Kansas. It was funny to see an oil jack pumping and a wind turbine 1000 ft away. I suspect the electric motors that run those oil jacks are probably powered by the wind turbines.

 

[skiptheroad]

Were market forces and therefore freedom of choice allowed to prevail nobody would care what vehicle anyone bought and these discussions would not exist other than what vehicle is the best choice for your needs

When it comes to automobiles, public choice has been absent for quite some time thanks to CAFE regulations. I know several people that are still disappointed that Ford and GM decided to stop making sedans, small sporty hatchbacks, and small pickup trucks. CAFE is the reason Jeep has introduced the Grand Cherokee L and the Grand Wagoner L recently. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Wrangler Unlimited L in the near future.

 

[roaniecowpony]

3 Mile and Chernobyl were different from Fukushima. Fukushima blew because all their support systems did not account for natural disasters and they failed to maintain the preventative measures they had in place (ex. sea walls). I only know this now because of a case study in geology this semester lol.
I still believe nuclear is better than miles of solar panels or wind mills. It just needs to be more purposefully built with better attention to emergency systems. Costs can change in an instant when subsidies are created or removed, it just depends on what agenda the controlling interest is pushing for.

All three were different events. But you can see the Japanese have been polarized against nuc now. Not sure what their future power plans look like. I have ties there. Lived north of Fukushima well before that plant was built.

I think we'll continue to see existing nuc power plants operate in the U.S., but new construction will be rare and major upgrades will likely be rare as well. Attrition will eventually start to whittle down nuc plant numbers, since many are 40-50 years old.

 

[av8or]

When it comes to automobiles, public choice has been absent for quite some time thanks to CAFE regulations. I know several people that are still disappointed that Ford and GM decided to stop making sedans, small sporty hatchbacks, and small pickup trucks. CAFE is the reason Jeep has introduced the Grand Cherokee L and the Grand Wagoner L recently. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Wrangler Unlimited L in the near future.

This is so true! Our choices here have been extremely limited by government.

Sponsored