Wonder if truck makers will start making 10001 # 1/2 tons.

JRscooby wrote:

Groover wrote:
"3 decades later, air in most places is cleaner, and a lot more cars driving a lot more miles. It is a fact the pollution controls have helped.
Now was the auto industry and technology ready for the regulations? Bell no! My '73 Nova burned nearly twice as much gas as my '72 Super Cheyenne. But because of market forces and government regulations ICE cars run much cleaner, and burn much less fuel."

I agree that we are better off with current technology than what we had in the 1960's but there is an irony in this statement. By forcing control of selected emissions but ignoring others we ruined gas mileage for about 15 years and greatly accelerated global warming which now is the most intractable problem to deal with. To keep those gas guzzlers going we imported a lot of fuel and exchanged a lot of our wealth to those oil producing countries, damaging our economy and enriching many who have used it to harm us.

I would have greatly preferred doing like most other countries and first going straight to the source of the problem by taxing oil consumption in a meaningful way. Not a sudden slam but well planned and scheduled to phase in over 10-15 years so that everyone new what was coming and could plan for it. What we got instead were cars like my mother's 1978 Chrysler that dipped as low as 2mpg around town in cold weather. Sometimes forcing change too quickly just creates more problems.

I see irony in saying we should have slow change. For example you youngsters may not know it, and likely will not read what I say because history is not taught in schools, and is not allowed on this site. But at one time a evil organization called OPEC proved to the world they could pretty much destroy the economies of the world. The man that was president at that time put solar panels on the roof of the White House. How much more developed would the solar industry be if a major consumer like US government put it's power behind it for 40 years? Where would the EV industry be now if the next president would of said "In 10 years 25% of cars bought by Gov will be EV. Any company that can't supply the EVs will not supply the ICE vehicles? That would of made a market for millions of EVs every year for the last 30 years.
But instead, remove the panels from WH, and make sure the power of OPEC is returned to the oil companies.

I am very flattered that you think that I am a youngster. If that fits me then you must be geriatric. OPEC is the primary organization that I referred to as the beneficiary of the poor decisions that were made in the 1970s. That same President that put up the solar panels on the White House as a symbolic move made a lot of other poor decisions that led to both a lot global warming and his removal after one term, even though the two weren't yet connected.

The way I see it is that our nation has a phobia of attacking the
root source of much of our problems which simply put is fuel consumption. The best way to do that is through a fuel tax, not in addition to other taxes but in lieu of them. Then let capitalism work. Virtually every other nation has done that and has a lot more to show for their efforts than we do.

Groover wrote:
"3 decades later, air in most places is cleaner, and a lot more cars driving a lot more miles. It is a fact the pollution controls have helped.
Now was the auto industry and technology ready for the regulations? Bell no! My '73 Nova burned nearly twice as much gas as my '72 Super Cheyenne. But because of market forces and government regulations ICE cars run much cleaner, and burn much less fuel."

I agree that we are better off with current technology than what we had in the 1960's but there is an irony in this statement. By forcing control of selected emissions but ignoring others we ruined gas mileage for about 15 years and greatly accelerated global warming which now is the most intractable problem to deal with. To keep those gas guzzlers going we imported a lot of fuel and exchanged a lot of our wealth to those oil producing countries, damaging our economy and enriching many who have used it to harm us.

I would have greatly preferred doing like most other countries and first going straight to the source of the problem by taxing oil consumption in a meaningful way. Not a sudden slam but well planned and scheduled to phase in over 10-15 years so that everyone new what was coming and could plan for it. What we got instead were cars like my mother's 1978 Chrysler that dipped as low as 2mpg around town in cold weather. Sometimes forcing change too quickly just creates more problems.

I see irony in saying we should have slow change. For example you youngsters may not know it, and likely will not read what I say because history is not taught in schools, and is not allowed on this site. But at one time a evil organization called OPEC proved to the world they could pretty much destroy the economies of the world. The man that was president at that time put solar panels on the roof of the White House. How much more developed would the solar industry be if a major consumer like US government put it's power behind it for 40 years? Where would the EV industry be now if the next president would of said "In 10 years 25% of cars bought by Gov will be EV. Any company that can't supply the EVs will not supply the ICE vehicles? That would of made a market for millions of EVs every year for the last 30 years.
But instead, remove the panels from WH, and make sure the power of OPEC is returned to the oil companies.

"3 decades later, air in most places is cleaner, and a lot more cars driving a lot more miles. It is a fact the pollution controls have helped.
Now was the auto industry and technology ready for the regulations? Bell no! My '73 Nova burned nearly twice as much gas as my '72 Super Cheyenne. But because of market forces and government regulations ICE cars run much cleaner, and burn much less fuel."

I agree that we are better off with current technology than what we had in the 1960's but there is an irony in this statement. By forcing control of selected emissions but ignoring others we ruined gas mileage for about 15 years and greatly accelerated global warming which now is the most intractable problem to deal with. To keep those gas guzzlers going we imported a lot of fuel and exchanged a lot of our wealth to those oil producing countries, damaging our economy and enriching many who have used it to harm us.

I would have greatly preferred doing like most other countries and first going straight to the source of the problem by taxing oil consumption in a meaningful way. Not a sudden slam but well planned and scheduled to phase in over 10-15 years so that everyone new what was coming and could plan for it. What we got instead were cars like my mother's 1978 Chrysler that dipped as low as 2mpg around town in cold weather. Sometimes forcing change too quickly just creates more problems.

JRscooby wrote:

For at least a hundred years the American standard of living has been based on US using more resources as a percentage of the population then the rest of the world. And most of the energy we have used has been burning fuels, degrading air world wide. We can't keep forcing our way of life on the rest of the world.

For at least a hundred years America produced much of the goods consumed by the world. Now we have shifted much of that production, wealth and pollution to Asia. We can't just beat our liberal chests and proclaim all the wonderful things we have done.

Now we are engaged in shifting energy production so we can dump on rural areas and say how pretty our cities are. Some can't see the woods for the trees.

wnjj wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

KD4UPL wrote:
It's amazing how someone can think their way of life needs to imposed on everyone else even though they don't understand other people's way of life.

Yes, the whole world must comply with our way of life, no matter if our grandkids have no clean air or water

The 1970’s called. They want their clean air and water argument back.

Back in the '60s, working in fields about 50-60 miles from downtown KC. Week-10 days without rain, we could see the haze over the city. Pollution controls started, and we witched about "ruining our life" Mid '70s, running OTR, I saw the haze over cities all over the country. 3 decades later, air in most places is cleaner, and a lot more cars driving a lot more miles. It is a fact the pollution controls have helped.
Now was the auto industry and technology ready for the regulations? Bell no! My '73 Nova burned nearly twice as much gas as my '72 Super Cheyenne. But because of market forces and government regulations ICE cars run much cleaner, and burn much less fuel.
For at least a hundred years the American standard of living has been based on US using more resources as a percentage of the population then the rest of the world. And most of the energy we have used has been burning fuels, degrading air world wide. We can't keep forcing our way of life on the rest of the world.

free radical wrote:

rhagfo wrote:

Tyler0215 wrote:
Another example of putting the cart before the horse. Are there plans underway to charge all the new EV's?
Last week in Texas proved how vulnarable the power grid is.

X2, and not thinking with the whole brain.
Currently electric "Appears" to be the big savior, but it is the hidden, not thought out consequences that is the issue.
Highways, pay per mile, but how to track?
The Grid, will it be ready.
Solar, fantastic in the southern states, but the further north, the less efficient.
Then what about ice storms? Texas, and parts of Oregon and Washington, were hit with ice storms in the last several weeks.
Then there is the producing and disposal of the batteries to operate.

Pay per mile can be tracked with each cars odometer,no?
All batteries can be recycled just as we do now.
Northern parts such as Alberta and Manitoba get enough sunshine even in winter to make solar feasible.
West coast BC not so much
If we can put men in space I would think we can make the grid work too,
btw isnt Texas grid separated from other states?

Well odometers can be altered, they would need to be sealed in some manner.
Well recycling of lithium is just getting started.
Solar there is a difference between feasible and efficient.
Well we were without power here in western Oregon for nine days, others are still without power, and still many lines down.

KD4UPL wrote:
I assume these laws are written by young urbanites who never venture far from pavement. It's amazing how someone can think their way of life needs to imposed on everyone else even though they don't understand other people's way of life.
I know plenty of people who drive their trucks to their off grid hunting camp, ride around in the mountains all week, etc. Where exactly are they going to recharge? Logging companies, farmers, ranchers, excavators, etc. all regularly operate motor vehicles, particularly 1500 trucks, in very remote areas with no electrical infrastructure for long periods of time.
This will likely drive 1500 truck buyers to 2500 and larger trucks making them even more expensive for us working stiffs who need them to make a living, not just cruise around town looking cool.

What do you mean no charging station- All those outlying vehicles will have a built in gas generator to charge batteries, and a build in gas tank to run it. No problem :) :) Just find a gas station to fill your generator tank so you can charge your EV and drive it.

Fun aside, as we work towards that technology, we also need to understand it's not an over night shift. And we must first perfect the charging ability and more importantly, the root source of that energy. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels, literally.

RobWNY wrote:
How long does it take to recharge an electric car with one of the fast chargers? If traveling across the Country, is recharging as fast as filling a fuel tank or is there significant down time to recharge? I also wonder what the cost of electricity will be when the States stop getting all the tax dollars they are now collecting from a gallon of gas or diesel. Will taxes imposed on electricity to make up that difference in revenue make our home electricity bill become so high that many won't be able to afford it? Many low income families get their electricity shut off frequently now. I can't imagine what it will be like for them in 2035. What will the cost of gas, diesel, propane and home heating oil be because of less demand? What about the Amish community? They don't use electricity and they won't be able to afford petroleum products. I'm not against making our planet a safer and healthier place but are proponents of ending fossil fuel use thinking everything through? Have we done everything we can to reduce emissions in vehicles so gas and diesel can still be used?

Instead of pure ev this would be my choice

100 mpg hybrid electric truck

rhagfo wrote:

Tyler0215 wrote:
Another example of putting the cart before the horse. Are there plans underway to charge all the new EV's?
Last week in Texas proved how vulnarable the power grid is.

X2, and not thinking with the whole brain.
Currently electric "Appears" to be the big savior, but it is the hidden, not thought out consequences that is the issue.
Highways, pay per mile, but how to track?
The Grid, will it be ready.
Solar, fantastic in the southern states, but the further north, the less efficient.
Then what about ice storms? Texas, and parts of Oregon and Washington, were hit with ice storms in the last several weeks.
Then there is the producing and disposal of the batteries to operate.

Pay per mile can be tracked with each cars odometer,no?
All batteries can be recycled just as we do now.
Northern parts such as Alberta and Manitoba get enough sunshine even in winter to make solar feasible.
West coast BC not so much
If we can put men in space I would think we can make the grid work too,
btw isnt Texas grid separated from other states?

RobWNY wrote:
How long does it take to recharge an electric car with one of the fast chargers? If traveling across the Country, is recharging as fast as filling a fuel tank or is there significant down time to recharge? I also wonder what the cost of electricity will be when the States stop getting all the tax dollars they are now collecting from a gallon of gas or diesel. Will taxes imposed on electricity to make up that difference in revenue make our home electricity bill become so high that many won't be able to afford it? Many low income families get their electricity shut off frequently now. I can't imagine what it will be like for them in 2035. What will the cost of gas, diesel, propane and home heating oil be because of less demand? What about the Amish community? They don't use electricity and they won't be able to afford petroleum products. I'm not against making our planet a safer and healthier place but are proponents of ending fossil fuel use thinking everything through? Have we done everything we can to reduce emissions in vehicles so gas and diesel can still be used?

Can’t answer most of those questions. But the first one I’ll take a shot at from from personal experience point of view. EV’s take longer to charge than filling a tank. At least with present technology. Different makes and models take different lengths of time. There is no simple answer. Generally speaking an 800 kilometers travel day takes us no longer or shorter than it did when we travelled the same trip with our Jeep Grand Cherokee. But we travel a little different. We still take two 10 or 15 minute pee/coffee breaks and a 20 minute lunch break. The only difference is we charge during those times. I can’t testify to longer days as we try to avoid anywhere over about 800 or so kilometers. This is in a Tesla model 3 AWD. We haven’t travelled long distances in other EV’s. so don’t know what that’s like.

Hope that helps.