depami

If current solar technology made sense, government wouldn't need to incentivize it, private industry would run with it on their own their own.
Wake up! It's a scam!

Speedtoys

New cars have never been made for markets where only used cars are affordable, so it's not an issue what poor(er) people can/cannot afford in a new car.

Gas stations didnt grow instantly either, it was an infrastructure that grew at a required pace as well. Did you know that in 1920, America had only 15,000 gas stations and only half that number of curbside pumps, and there were only 7.5M cars. Is it safe to assume that these numbers grew in some form of relationship to each other?

-The EV infra is growing at an amazing rate, you can google it.
-EV charge times are falling as technology improves, you can google it.

Im neither pro or against EV or ICE, just that ignoring the progress EV tech has made, to judge the future..is not wise. It's a losing bet. These same arguments were there 2, 5, 10yrs ago, and nobody would have won a bet based on these arguments then, or now. The tech has not peaked, nor the adoption rate, or the market competition that accelerates both and lowers costs.


To that point, the approximate # of EV chargers today at ~161,562, for 3M cars. You DONT expect that to also have some form of relationship with each other? There is no EV infrastructure problem that is not already being resolved at a fantastic pace. Hydrogen is another issue..maybe it'll work, maybe it wont. But compressed gas a a fuel works everywhere else..why not in the US..is a uniquely US problem, and not one (like many) we should be proud of. We spend more time arguing why we CAN'T do something than how we can.

the problems and the solutions belong to our kids..they'll work it out...we'll be arguing over what we dont want to understand well into our shuffleboard days.

Speedtoys

Either way why the us "cant" is about to get political, and a mod will have an aneurysm over it. So it is what it is..and in 5yrs these "why it sucks" arguments will be as null as they were 5yrs ago when they were made then, and we somehow continued to resolve them.

bronto

We're kind of on the same page here. This stuff will be solved eventually. But right now it's a huge problem. I do think that hydrogen - maybe ICE, but probably fuel cell - is the most promising of the solutions of the future. But right now it's a huge market problem. Plugin electrics aren't the solution on a large scale unless there's a revolution in technology. Either in charge times, battery capacity, or motor efficiency. Gradual evolution won't be fast enough; by the time that happens there will be something else completely different that's way better.

Bigfoot928

No I haven't signed up because the solar panel efficiency isn't fully baked yet. They don't even out with electricity costs yet, and the electric companies don't always pay you for the power you generate over what you use, so you pay for panels and batteries, and then you are supplementing the grid at your cost to maintain with no cost benefit.

Government hasn't solved crap. our ****head in chief killed our ability to self sustain on fossil fuels until we can figure out and improve the grids. CA and TX can't operate without rolling blackouts and don't even start about how Commifornia has it figured out.

Petza914

I actually have very little interest in debating this whole thing. I don't like EVs and have 9 ICE cars which will last me the 40 years until I can no longer drive. I'll let my kids sort it out.

Speedtoys

its -a- problem, but I dont think it's huge. (Hydrogen is, across the board tho).

"Gradual evolution"
Agreed, good news is that the technical evolution has not been gradual. EV technology is on the same evolutionary track as the space race was. Broaden that to aviation in general, it ONLY took 65 years, 7 months, 3 days from first flight, to setting foot on the moon. The focused rise in EV technology is barely 25yrs old, with the Prius really laying the marker for serious modern market development...and the EV marketplace hasn't looked back since. Where do you think EV technology will be a matching 41 years?

That's a real thinker in that context...

depami

If that even happened.

bronto

No. Just no. This is not government's job to pick winners and losers, whether it's a business, industry, technology or someone's idea of "progress". Politics always worms it's way into the process and we end up with something less than what we should get. These people are good at winning elections, not running industries or economies. They do OK at setting rules but manipulating incentives to achieve a desired outcome just results in corruption, or a boondoggle at best. If they were all philosopher kings it might work, but they aren't any smarter than you and I, and in some cases much, much dumber. All you have to do is look at the current state of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago or New York.

Speedtoys

You're constraining this to a "winners and losers" condition, but that's not what I said. That's a specious argument.
In sort of a timeline order:
Roads (everywhere, city, county)
Railroads (land grants at least, and at most straight out per mile rewards that private business profited on)
Paved roads (everywhere)
Interstate system (everywhere)
....

I can keep going..it's a HUGE distraction to say that its a winners/losers action...That's an argument 'a side' wants to make when they dont like the topic...when in fact, Gov's job is to do what people on their own can't, or won't do, for the common good. Now..how it DOES it, is a factor in the quality people that voters put there..but it doesn't change that it's Gov's job to incentivize large things, for the common good. Leave this at the high level, not the dumbed down bumper sticker level...and we likely agree.

A good high level (where Im coming from) discussion on the issue:
https://pressbooks.oer.hawaii.edu/pr...ge-innovation/

bronto

Then tell me what exactly you're talking about. All of the things listed above are what you would call public infrastructure, things for which you cannot reasonably compute a return on investment but that do reduce economic friction. If you're referring to blue sky technological research that doesn't get patented, I'd be on board.

depami

I'll take ownership of the "dumbed down bumper sticker level" and stick to my belief that government "doing what is right for the common good" is COMMUNISM and that is not "American". The problem is that most of government is corrupt and "government incentivizing" is simply putting laws and programs into place to line their own pockets.

UKenGB

I think we should keep politics out of this and stick to some facts:-

Lithium is not rare.

'Rare Earth' elements are also not rare and in any case, not used in batteries.

Rechargeable batteries at 'end of life' still contain EVERYTHING with which they started out and can be recycled 100%. Think about that. The requirements for new raw materials to make batteries will dwindle as the old batteries can simply be recycled into new ones. Eventually there will be NO need to source/dig/extract ANY new raw materials.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles have batteries and drive like a 'Battery only' EV. Oh and they also require a very expensive and short lived Fuel Cell that is worse in every way than simply a larger battery.

A Hydrogen powered car carries Hydrogen in special tanks at 10,000 psi which is more than the pressure that recently crushed the Titan deep sea submersible with all those in it and you're basically sitting on those tanks.

Hydrogen is a terrible idea as an energy source/medium. Yes it can be used in all the ways being suggested, but that still doesn't make it a good idea. If you don't understand why and think it's just a combustible gas like any other, stop believing the BS propaganda coming from the oil and gas industry (who have a vested interest in the use of Hydrogen) and go learn some real Physics. Forget Hydrogen.

Oil is a finite resource and WILL run out. Not for a few years, but it IS finite and we need it more for other goods than simply burning it (which introduces many more problems like air pollution) just to move stuff around as now there ARE alternatives for that. It is an absolute fact that it will run out and any argument to the contrary is based on ignorance (in the true sense of the word) or selfishness, i.e. simply pushing the problem down the road for later generations to sort out.

The Universe (and its Physics) doesn't care that you love the ICE and/or Hydrogen.

Stating that EVs don't work, are unsustainable, the national grids cannot support them etc. is naive in the extreme and like when people complained that we'd never be able to easily obtain that petrol stuff needed to run those new fangled automobiles. Things change. Batteries are already twice the energy density and 10% of the price of not much more than 10 years ago. Cars with over 500 ml range and recharge times of about 10 minutes are already in the foreseeable future.

EVs are on average perhaps 10% heavier than the EQUIVALENT ICE powered vehicle and can be less than that (and will be in the future). Cars have become heavier due to all the safety regulations and because of all the fancy junk the manufacturers throw in there.

Statistically an ICE powered vehicle is 61 times more likely to spontaneously catch fire than an EV.

Energy is THE issue. We need better ways of producing/obtaining it. Renewables like wind and solar are working successfully and will continue to do so (what makes anyone think otherwise). Some countries are already producing the majority of their electricity from renewables.

Everything we do needs to be infinitely sustainable or we are simply creating problems for the future. Not our future, or anyone currently alive, but if humans are to survive on this planet, then what about thousands of years in the future, millions even? If we continue down our current path it's not looking good for those future generations. Ultimately the Sun will run out and die and take the entire Solar System with it so if we haven't found anywhere else to live by then, we are doomed. But in the meantime, we need to make sure we don't hasten that end by wrecking our current (and only) abode. 'Infinite Sustainability' is the only way forward. Yet we're still arguing about absolute facts like fossil fuel eventually running out.

Then we have 'opinions':-

Politics (which we'll avoid here).

"I like the Internal Combustion Engine"

"I like using the gearbox and clutch"

"I don't like EVs"

"I like pink cars"

As I said, those are simply opinions and everyone is entitled to their own. However, don't base opinions on lies and other falsehoods. Understand the facts, then make your opinions based on those facts.

Stumacher 928

Hey that's me. Yeah, it'll be a long project and I expect many dozens of episodes.
Long time Porsche fan and 928 tragic - I've owned 11 Porsche, 6 of which 928S or 928S4, currently own four including this basket-case.
Before I get accused of heresy, this was a car that would never have seen the road again. The plan is to save a 928, not ruin one.
People say - for the money it's going to cost you, why don't you just buy yourself a nice 928 and a Tesla as well. That'll be cheaper. And they'd probably be right. But that's not the point. I want to try to retain all good things we like about 928s, lose the things we don't like so much, and still have a car with real character and performance that exceeds a GTS in a car weighing less than 1400kg. And, yes, the V8 sound. More on that later.
Regarding the electric 944 in Wales, I spoke to them and that car cost over a frightening 100,000 UK pounds to convert. It's a lovely job but boy oh boy. $$$
Thanks for your interest everyone. Stand by for more episodes. Stu

Stumacher 928

Noted. I will. But those tyres will be going straight to the bin. Two of them date from last century and the other two from 2001. They've all been flat since 2003 but to my surprise are holding pressure.