Stelantis pushback

[silver billet]

Let me stir the post that I started:
All the rare metal/mineral extraction, with different mining methods, all the processing and process waste, all the energy used in the manufacture, packaging, transportation et al, plus all the manufacture of all the solar panels and construction of solar farms, etc., etc., that is needed to charge all the electric vehicles that are/will be MANDATED, will never be less than the pollution that is created by all the fossil fuel vehicles that are on the road today and the next 10 years.
A blending of electric and fossil fuel vehicles, which a person can CHOOSE in order to meet their individual needs, is a workable solution, and is what is happening now, and without a MANDATE.
Besides, depending on the politician you listen to, it's all the methane that cows give off that are part of the cause.
(Maybe we could put all the cows in a barn and trap the methane and burn it in our cars)

I see lots of words bolded like "mandate" and "choose". Choice is nice, but "tragedy of the commons" is a real thing. Mandates when used correctly, are a good thing. Without them, we'd all be getting 10 MPG running v10's and getting high off the exhaust.

I'd like to see some citations for your assertions that electric cars will cause more pollution than ICE. And let's assume you're correct (which I don't believe you are, or at the least, I've never seen evidence for this), you also need to look out farther than 10 years. ICE engines have reached a stalemate. They'll never get better, they've had 100 years to iterate and improve, electric cars and battery tech are just getting started.

 

[Threesuns1]

Have to get one of those "lunar" panels for charging a car overnight.

 

[Trooper4]

I see lots of words bolded like "mandate" and "choose". Choice is nice, but "tragedy of the commons" is a real thing. Mandates when used correctly, are a good thing. Without them, we'd all be getting 10 MPG running v10's and getting high off the exhaust.

I'd like to see some citations for your assertions that electric cars will cause more pollution than ICE. And let's assume you're correct (which I don't believe you are, or at the least, I've never seen evidence for this), you also need to look out farther than 10 years. ICE engines have reached a stalemate. They'll never get better, they've had 100 years to iterate and improve, electric cars and battery tech are just getting started.

AAhhh! Spoken like a true believer in socialisms.
(But wait, the government will take care of us, and, you know it always has our best interests at heart.)

 

[Trooper4]

Have to get one of those "lunar" panels for charging a car overnight.

For the wife's Prius we have overnight to charge. Unfortunately when doing the snowbird thing, I don't have the time to set at a charger every time I get low. And, chargers are not in the most convenient place to pull in with a fiver. Just entirely too many limitations to a battery powered truck.

 

[jimothy]

I see lots of words bolded like "mandate" and "choose". Choice is nice, but "tragedy of the commons" is a real thing. Mandates when used correctly, are a good thing. Without them, we'd all be getting 10 MPG running v10's and getting high off the exhaust.

That is absurd. A lot of people don’t want to drive a 10 MPG vehicle and voluntarily drive more fuel efficient vehicles. In fact, manufacturers advertise their vehicles fuel efficiency because there’s a market for it.

Why not show us some citations your assertions?

 

[Drivinfast247]

I see lots of words bolded like "mandate" and "choose". Choice is nice, but "tragedy of the commons" is a real thing. Mandates when used correctly, are a good thing. Without them, we'd all be getting 10 MPG running v10's and getting high off the exhaust.

I'd like to see some citations for your assertions that electric cars will cause more pollution than ICE. And let's assume you're correct (which I don't believe you are, or at the least, I've never seen evidence for this), you also need to look out farther than 10 years. ICE engines have reached a stalemate. They'll never get better, they've had 100 years to iterate and improve, electric cars and battery tech are just getting started.

Not with gas prices the way they are. The people would demand gas for .10c/gallon or a vehicle that gets 20+ mpg.

 

[silver billet]

AAhhh! Spoken like a true believer in socialisms.
(But wait, the government will take care of us, and, you know it always has our best interests at heart.)

The unfortunate reality is that we need gov't mandates to control pollution, people and companies will not do it by themselves.

That is absurd. A lot of people don’t want to drive a 10 MPG vehicle and voluntarily drive more fuel efficient vehicles. In fact, manufacturers advertise their vehicles fuel efficiency because there’s a market for it.

Why not show us some citations your assertions?

All of the pollution control devices on our cars and trucks, that was all a result of gov't mandates. EGR emisisons on diesels, catalytic converters etc.

We don't need citations for this because we can look back and see what happened. Projecting costs for 10 years down the road, I'm going to need some expert consensus on that before I just blindly accept some random guys statement on the internet.

Not with gas prices the way they are. The people would demand gas for .10c/gallon or a vehicle that gets 20+ mpg.

Obviously I was exaggerating. Point is, all those SRT engines we love so much, they're getting tossed not because people are demanding 40 mpg, but because it's too expensive for FCA to produce those. They can't afford to pay for the emissions and low mpg due to regulatation and mandates. Without those, they would build these SRTs for as long as people keep buying them. So the demand to produce them is there, despite the horrifying MPG ratings, but they're stopping production anyway, due to regulation.

 

[jimothy]

We don't need citations for this because we can look back and see what happened. Projecting costs for 10 years down the road, I'm going to need some expert consensus on that before I just blindly accept some random guys statement on the internet.

You said we’d all be driving 10 mpg cars with V10 engines. That’s a bold claim, and one that demands citations.

Likewise, you said that no technology or company would ever be superseded without subsidies. Also a bold claim, and one that is easily falsifiable.

Then you get called out for making clearly false claims, and instead of defending your original claim, you argue different points, which you expect us to blindly accept.

 

[silver billet]

You said we’d all be driving 10 mpg cars with V10 engines. That’s a bold claim, and one that demands citations.

Likewise, you said that no technology or company would ever be superseded without subsidies. Also a bold claim, and one that is easily falsifiable.

Then you get called out for making clearly false claims, and instead of defending your original claim, you argue different points, which you expect us to blindly accept.

Yeah I'm sorry, if this is the first time you've run into hyperbole then I don't know what to tell you, just move on.

 

[jimothy]

Yeah I'm sorry, if this is the first time you've run into hyperbole then I don't know what to tell you, just move on.

Oh far from it. I’m used to people using hyperbole to justify government intervention. But such BS still needs to be called out.

 

[millerbjm]

Looking at my December utility bill I sure am glad my truck doesn't run on natural gas! Justvadded a plug-in pacifica to the garage and saved a bundle on fuel costs through off-peak charging but all those gains were offset by the more than 2x increase in the cost of natural gas for heating!

 

[silver billet]

Oh far from it. I’m used to people using hyperbole to justify government intervention. But such BS still needs to be called out.

No. I used a tiny little exaggeration to illustrate my point and you get stuck arguing the illustration, completely missing my point. Without gov't mandates, we'd have no catalytic converters, no EGR emissions controls for diesels, we'd be using R22 freon in our AC, we'd still have pollution in our great lakes, and so on.

Businesses understand one thing; money. Specifically the "next quarter". They don't care about emissions or anything else. That is why you need regulation to control them.

You can have regulation without socialism.

 

[jimothy]

No. I used a tiny little exaggeration to illustrate my point and you get stuck arguing the illustration, completely missing my point. Without gov't mandates, we'd have no catalytic converters, no EGR emissions controls for diesels, we'd be using R22 freon in our AC, we'd still have pollution in our great lakes, and so on.

Businesses understand one thing; money. Specifically the "next quarter". They don't care about emissions or anything else. That is why you need regulation to control them.

You can have regulation without socialism.

If "we'd all be getting 10 MPG running v10's" is a slight exaggeration for "without regulation, some people would drive high performance, fuel hungry vehicles while others will voluntarily choose to drive economical, fuel efficient vehicles with small engines delivering 50+ MPG," then I agree and I accept your apology. If, on the other hand, your point was that people wouldn't voluntarily choose to drive fuel efficient vehicles without government regulation, then your point is incorrect.

Likewise, if "It's a 100% certainty that new technology can never overcome a massively entrenched player in given market" was a slight exaggeration for "new technologies have always disrupted entrenched players in a given market, including several times within our lifetimes," then again, I agree and we have nothing to argue about.

As for your claim that without regulation, we wouldn't have catalytic converters, this is also demonstrably false. The EPA didn't create a regulation and then the cat converter sprang into existence. Rather, the cat converter was invented, patented, and improved by profit seeking individuals and companies who care about money as well as the environment, and who, like any entrepreneur, recognized that responding to a need is good business.

Decades later, the EPA, seeing that cat converters exist (and were already in use, albeit not yet widespread), made them required equipment. But regulation did not create the technology; private individuals and companies did.

"I was exaggerating" is not an excuse. It's not that 10 MPG was an exaggeration, and that the actually number would be higher. You implied that people would not voluntarily choose fuel efficient vehicles without regulation, and that's simply wrong.

 

[djevox]

If "we'd all be getting 10 MPG running v10's" is a slight exaggeration for "without regulation, some people would drive high performance, fuel hungry vehicles while others will voluntarily choose to drive economical, fuel efficient vehicles with small engines delivering 50+ MPG," then I agree and I accept your apology. If, on the other hand, your point was that people wouldn't voluntarily choose to drive fuel efficient vehicles without government regulation, then your point is incorrect.

Likewise, if "It's a 100% certainty that new technology can never overcome a massively entrenched player in given market" was a slight exaggeration for "new technologies have always disrupted entrenched players in a given market, including several times within our lifetimes," then again, I agree and we have nothing to argue about.

As for your claim that without regulation, we wouldn't have catalytic converters, this is also demonstrably false. The EPA didn't create a regulation and then the cat converter sprang into existence. Rather, the cat converter was invented, patented, and improved by profit seeking individuals and companies who care about money as well as the environment, and who, like any entrepreneur, recognized that responding to a need is good business.

Decades later, the EPA, seeing that cat converters exist (and were already in use, albeit not yet widespread), made them required equipment. But regulation did not create the technology; private individuals and companies did.

"I was exaggerating" is not an excuse. It's not that 10 MPG was an exaggeration, and that the actually number would be higher. You implied that people would not voluntarily choose fuel efficient vehicles without regulation, and that's simply wrong.

You’re going hard on this guy, but your claims of ICE engines reaching a stalemate are baseless. How about some citations for that? There’s a saying about pots and kettles that comes to mind…

 

[jimothy]

You’re going hard on this guy, but your claims of ICE engines reaching a stalemate are baseless. How about some citations for that? There’s a saying about pots and kettles that comes to mind…

I never made that claim; that was silver billet. It's clear that ICE development continues, providing both incremental performance and efficiency improvements. For citations, look at the third generation 5.7L Hemi: In 2003, it produced 345 HP and 14 MPG combined, vs 395HP today and 20 MPG combined. Granted, the efficiency gains aren't entirely from improvements to the engine, but clearly, ICE development has not come to a standstill. To claim otherwise would be absurd.

 

[djevox]

I never made that claim; that was silver billet. It's clear that ICE development continues, providing both incremental performance and efficiency improvements. For citations, look at the third generation 5.7L Hemi: In 2003, it produced 345 HP and 14 MPG combined, vs 395HP today and 20 MPG combined. Granted, the efficiency gains aren't entirely from improvements to the engine, but clearly, ICE development has not come to a standstill. To claim otherwise would be absurd.

I’m sorry about that, I mixed up user names.

 

[millerbjm]

Private companies can and do sometimes create new technologies and market disruptors and in many if not most cases some of the initial investment in R&D to bring these new technologies comes from government contracts or grants or many of the inventions that enabled the new tech came from government funded research. 3M, Alliant tech, Honeywell, IBM, Blue Origin, Virgin Atlantic, Space X etc. all have huge contracts with NASA or DOD that give their investors the confidence to add additional capital to the mix. Folks like to argue all one or the other based on personal beliefs or political identities but as is almost always the case the truth lies in the middle. There is a ton of cool research and development into improvements to the ICE happening at Porsche and Koenigsegg because they are high-end or super high-end car companies with potential customers that have no price limitations and want the newest tech but these technologies will likely then make their way into broader use through government funding directly or indirectly. To me the argument is similar to to Urban/Rural divide - anyone who is honest and looks at the facts quickly accepts that you need urban and rural areas to have a healthy society and we are all reliant on each other even if we are ignorant of how the other one lives or what their biggest needs and challenges are. You gotta ask yourself if you really care about the factual answer or just proving your point and then if you decide you want the facts seek out trusted sources with real data and find the answer.

 

[silver billet]

If "we'd all be getting 10 MPG running v10's" is a slight exaggeration for "without regulation, some people would drive high performance, fuel hungry vehicles while others will voluntarily choose to drive economical, fuel efficient vehicles with small engines delivering 50+ MPG," then I agree and I accept your apology. If, on the other hand, your point was that people wouldn't voluntarily choose to drive fuel efficient vehicles without government regulation, then your point is incorrect.

Likewise, if "It's a 100% certainty that new technology can never overcome a massively entrenched player in given market" was a slight exaggeration for "new technologies have always disrupted entrenched players in a given market, including several times within our lifetimes," then again, I agree and we have nothing to argue about.

As for your claim that without regulation, we wouldn't have catalytic converters, this is also demonstrably false. The EPA didn't create a regulation and then the cat converter sprang into existence. Rather, the cat converter was invented, patented, and improved by profit seeking individuals and companies who care about money as well as the environment, and who, like any entrepreneur, recognized that responding to a need is good business.

Decades later, the EPA, seeing that cat converters exist (and were already in use, albeit not yet widespread), made them required equipment. But regulation did not create the technology; private individuals and companies did.

"I was exaggerating" is not an excuse. It's not that 10 MPG was an exaggeration, and that the actually number would be higher. You implied that people would not voluntarily choose fuel efficient vehicles without regulation, and that's simply wrong.

You're getting bent out of shape over something that is very simple: without regulation, companies will put profit before pollution. All the rest you wrote is just smoke and mirrors.

We both know I'm right.

 

[silver billet]

You’re going hard on this guy, but your claims of ICE engines reaching a stalemate are baseless. How about some citations for that? There’s a saying about pots and kettles that comes to mind…

Gas engines are typically around 40% efficient; every gallon of gas you use, only 40% is used to turn the wheels. Diesels slightly higher.

Electric cars are currently at about 80 to 85 percent.

 

[jimothy]

Gas engines are typically around 40% efficient; every gallon of gas you use, only 40% is used to turn the wheels. Diesels slightly higher.

Electric cars are currently at about 80 to 85 percent.

You have to factor in How the electricity is generated. For example, producing electricity from natural gas is 45% efficient (32% for coal). So the combined efficiency for an electric vehicle (assuming 80-85% is accurate) is 34-38% efficient, worse than the 40% ICE efficiency you stated.

Yes, you’d also have to factor in the energy cost to extract, transport, and refine oil, but the same is true for natural gas.