Auto companies prepping for "nightmare" of dual US vehicle standards

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Well, we're looking at about 65 trillion and that's far far too low because there's "what happens after what happens after" consideration. What I'm talking about is that climate is a crisis multiplier. You have direct consequences such as crop failure which leads to failure in the agriculture sector which leads to increased costs and shortages which leads to unemployment increasing to cut costs which leads to further economic catastrophe and on and on. Like climate change itself, the adverse economic effects would be subject to ever-increasing positive feedback which makes the dubious estimate of 92 trillion to break the fatal cycle a mere pittance.

Oh, everyone gets to die, because that increase rate is being driven by things like melting permafrost, which is one factor driving up the heat content of oceans again at an increasing rate. The major oxygen producing organism, phytoplankton are already dying accounting for changes in whale migration. At some point, the O2 levels become too low to support higher life and that's us. Once this is observed in lower O2 percentages then only God can fix it. There is no human agency that can stop which is, in essence, a planetary sided runaway train. The math of chaotic system demands that the central tendency, the "attractor" so to speak will move to a higher energy point before it establishes equilibrium and that is certainly going to be at a point beyond sustainability of human and higher life.

So when I say we have perhaps 20 to 30 years I am not exaggerating. We may already be beyond the point of no return, but I have to hope we can complete (not start) work in the next couple of decades if it costs 500 trillion.

giphy.gif


Fear mongering about polar bears and humanity dying doesn't get my kids to fit in a Smart4Two car.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
It would have been shorter and more honest to say you don't give a damn what other people need or want and you'd prefer people go without cars then go without amenities that you can afford but they can't. If they can't afford the passenger avoidance (PA) tech for example they'll either go without or buy an older car which will get worse MPG. If you think that's a better outcome than allowing them to buy a car without PA then I guess that's one less person in the traffic jam ahead you, right?

Neither automatic breaking or pedestrian (though I'd be interested in passenger) avoidance is required in the US, AFAIK. It's increasingly becoming standard equipment though as dozens of other countries require it anyway.

Also yes, as per usual I hate the poors. Hate them so so much. You've got me. I know how worried about them you truly are as a member of the FYGM confederacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
giphy.gif


Fear mongering about polar bears and humanity dying doesn't get my kids to fit in a Smart4Two car.

Then I hope you don't have children. A few years ago climate change existing would have been fermenting. Hey, you don't have to like the truth, the science and reality, but it doesn't care about you either.

I've already given a mechanism where you and your family could get a car it can fit in, but you don't like the answer.

As was said to Richard III, they can "despair and die". It seems to be the path you pick for them.

Now tell us that science is a lie because you don't like it and your path for them will be completely described.
 
Jun 18, 2000
11,155
733
126
So let me ask a simple question to anyone in this thread and let's get your honest answer. Let's say that companies would spend $N in achieving the 54MPG CAFE standard. Would we not be better off spending that same $N on building out infrastructure to remove the primary obstacles that remain in more widespread electric vehicle adoption instead of trying to gain the increasingly more difficult fuel efficiency gains for ICE vehicles? At what point can you just admit we're reaching a point of diminishing returns on that front?

Because that would be socialism, amirite? The liberal agenda and their social engineering, etc.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
Well, we're looking at about 65 trillion and that's far far too low because there's "what happens after what happens after" consideration. What I'm talking about is that climate is a crisis multiplier. You have direct consequences such as crop failure which leads to failure in the agriculture sector which leads to increased costs and shortages which leads to unemployment increasing to cut costs which leads to further economic catastrophe and on and on. Like climate change itself, the adverse economic effects would be subject to ever-increasing positive feedback which makes the dubious estimate of 92 trillion to break the fatal cycle a mere pittance.

Oh, everyone gets to die, because that increase rate is being driven by things like melting permafrost, which is one factor driving up the heat content of oceans again at an increasing rate. The major oxygen producing organism, phytoplankton are already dying accounting for changes in whale migration. At some point, the O2 levels become too low to support higher life and that's us. Once this is observed in lower O2 percentages then only God can fix it. There is no human agency that can stop which is, in essence, a planetary sized runaway train. The math of chaotic system demands that the central tendency, the "attractor" so to speak will move to a higher energy point before it establishes equilibrium and that is certainly going to be at a point beyond sustainability of human and higher life.

So when I say we have perhaps 20 to 30 years I am not exaggerating. We may already be beyond the point of no return, but I have to hope we can complete (not start) work in the next couple of decades if it costs 500 trillion.

Well, if we put aside pollutants and over fishing for a moment and just focus on CO2, then I'd say it ain't over til it's over.

Scrubbing CO2 from the air is possible, if we are truly convinced that CO2 itself will pan out the way you say it does - into an Extinction Level Event, then we can reverse its buildup in the atmosphere. Convincing people it's going to kill them is the hard part. I myself am not convinced of that, at least not that CO2 alone will kill off the ocean. That's going to need one compelling argument.

CO2 - > Rising Temps -> Melting Ice / Rising Oceans / New Weather Patterns. That's solid and sold.
CO2 -> Dead Oceans -> Dead Planet. Is the IPCC telling us this?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Because that would be socialism, amirite? The liberal agenda and their social engineering, etc.

Do you understand the difference between infrastructure spending that benefits everyone vs. taking money from one person to give to another especially if your secondary reason is just to hurt the first guy because he has “too much”? Seems lots here interpret general welfare to mean “whatever the fvck I want to do.”
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,999
1,520
136
I humbly disagree, they can already 'competitively' replace ICE vehicles. Right now the big issue is lack of a used market for those that cannot afford to drop 30k on a vehicle, and individuals that live in places where electricity isn't freely available where they park, which are both very understandable issues. Virtually nobody really needs the mileage listed, and/or can live with spending 20 minutes recharging on a long trip vs 20 minutes fueling up, taking a piss, grabbing more Doritos, etc. I really think people overestimate how much of a 'problem' a 300-mile range with recharging is.


One may make a 20 minute stop with a gas fueled car, but you certainly dont tie up the pump for the entire 20 minutes like you would with the electric car. And of course, there are far more gas stations with more pumps per station than charging stations. Bottom line: you may have a serious wait to get access to a charger, even in the few locations that have one.

20 min is also a *very* optimistic estimate of the time to recharge, and 300 mile range is very optimistic as well, especially in winter in cold climates.
  • "For many electric cars, you can add up to 100 miles of range in ~35 minutes with a 50kW rapid charger.
Source: https://pod-point.com/guides/driver/how-long-to-charge-an-electric-car ] recharge time [/URL]

Right now, I view all electric cars as expensive toys (Tesla) or second cars for in city use. Hybrids and plug in hybrids are a very efficient solution, and much more practical.
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,999
1,520
136
It would have been shorter and more honest to say you don't give a damn what other people need or want and you'd prefer people go without cars then go without amenities that you can afford but they can't. If they can't afford the passenger avoidance (PA) tech for example they'll either go without or buy an older car which will get worse MPG. If you think that's a better outcome than allowing them to buy a car without PA then I guess that's one less person in the traffic jam ahead you, right?
All you have to do to get "passenger avoidance" is to keep the doors locked. I think you mean pedestrian avoidance. In any case, many of these driver assistance technologies are either optional or have become standard with minimal increase in list price. The real price increase (and relative efficiency decrease) in recent years has come from the obsession with Sport Utilities and Pickup Trucks.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
CO2 -> Dead Oceans -> Dead Planet. Is the IPCC telling us this?

The IPCC isn't saying that because it blindingly obvious. BTW, not all life will be gone. There are organisms which exist in volcanic vents and the top of Everest. Some macroscopic life will survive but removing enough oxygen with your dead ocean that humans suffocate is pretty dire. It isn't trees that produce the most oxygen on the planet and it's easy to look up, like the increased heat content of the oceans, melting permafrost etc does. There's currently no way to predict that endpoint other than to say it's not going to stop as the process continues.

Dead ocean = dead you.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
One may make a 20 minute stop with a gas fueled car, but you certainly dont tie up the pump for the entire 20 minutes like you would with the electric car. And of course, there are far more gas stations with more pumps per station than charging stations. Bottom line: you may have a serious wait to get access to a charger, even in the few locations that have one.

20 min is also a *very* optimistic estimate of the time to recharge, and 300 mile range is very optimistic as well, especially in winter in cold climates.
  • "For many electric cars, you can add up to 100 miles of range in ~35 minutes with a 50kW rapid charger.
Source: https://pod-point.com/guides/driver/how-long-to-charge-an-electric-car ] recharge time [/URL]

Right now, I view all electric cars as expensive toys (Tesla) or second cars for in city use. Hybrids and plug in hybrids are a very efficient solution, and much more practical.
You aren't wrong, fortunately 50kW chargers aren't the 'max' for these. Tesla's superchargers are 120kW, and odds are if you're 'road tripping' you're going to be hitting up one of these rather than a 3rd party (which you often find at places like malls or workcenters). That should presumably give a recharge time of around 200 miles/half hour, which isn't unreasonable. I've never been on a road trip where I've had 200 miles of uninterrupted travel without bathroom breaks anyhow.

I'd expect that yes, right now, if literally everyone ended up with an electric car, you'd have lines at the charge stations. This is similar to how things were a century ago when not everyone had vehicles at all. Now, lo and behold there's gas stations everywhere. I suspect the same will apply as adoption of electrics increases. This is hardly a 'sky is falling' situation.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
You aren't wrong, fortunately 50kW chargers aren't the 'max' for these. Tesla's superchargers are 120kW, and odds are if you're 'road tripping' you're going to be hitting up one of these rather than a 3rd party (which you often find at places like malls or workcenters). That should presumably give a recharge time of around 200 miles/half hour, which isn't unreasonable. I've never been on a road trip where I've had 200 miles of uninterrupted travel without bathroom breaks anyhow.

I'd expect that yes, right now, if literally everyone ended up with an electric car, you'd have lines at the charge stations. This is similar to how things were a century ago when not everyone had vehicles at all. Now, lo and behold there's gas stations everywhere. I suspect the same will apply as adoption of electrics increases. This is hardly a 'sky is falling' situation.

Yeah, fast charging is improving pretty rapidly. Really the constraints are what manufacturers are putting on the cars less than the fast charging hardware itself. My i3 maxes out at 50kW but more current vehicles can to 100/150kW. On the top end Porsche and BMW are rolling out 450kW charging. I'm sure Tesla won't be sitting at 120kW for long either.

Electrify America is turning up a lot of it's network recently so the availability of non-Tesla fast charging is getting better. They added one at a midpoint where I usually stop for food on a 200mi drive so pretty convenient and hardly used the range extender even though it was cold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Yeah, fast charging is improving pretty rapidly. Really the constraints are what manufacturers are putting on the cars less than the fast charging hardware itself. My i3 maxes out at 50kW but more current vehicles can to 100/150kW. On the top end Porsche and BMW are rolling out 450kW charging. I'm sure Tesla won't be sitting at 120kW for long either.

Electrify America is turning up a lot of it's network recently so the availability of non-Tesla fast charging is getting better. They added one at a midpoint where I usually stop for food on a 200mi drive so pretty convenient and hardly used the range extender even though it was cold.

My wife has the i3 as well (though without the Range Extender). We actually got super lucky that one of the only fast chargers is right by our house.

Probably what also needs to drastically change is that houses/garages need to be better equipped for charging at higher kw. Them charging fees aren't cheap :( When it costs just as much to charge the i3 as it does to fill up a sedan gas tank... yeah, that's not good.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
The IPCC isn't saying that because it blindingly obvious.

Like... ice melting at a higher temp is not blindingly obvious? They speak of that, which although socially and economically devastating, is nothing compared to an Extinction Level Event (ELE).

Dead ocean = dead you.

Yet they say nothing on this? So it comes down to, not the IPCC or scientists, but you telling us this. Nothing could be more important than the Earth becoming uninhabitable, and it falls to you to warn us. If I am to join your camp I'd like it to be more than a party of 1. There needs to be a sound argument put forth with data.

Two things come to mind. First, life was probably doing just fine 1 million years ago when CO2 was this high. However, since then life probably evolved and adapted to a lower temperature. Okay... Two, we've probably sped up the process to happen much faster than life can adapt. Resulting in more outright death than slow and gradual replacement by stronger species.

Your position has merit, I'd just like it peer reviewed and given a consensus.
Because if we're meant to stop an ELE, then even nuclear winter is a better option to put on the table. If it comes down to it. This is no game.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
Like... ice melting at a higher temp is not blindingly obvious? They speak of that, which although socially and economically devastating, is nothing compared to an Extinction Level Event (ELE).



Yet they say nothing on this? So it comes down to, not the IPCC or scientists, but you telling us this. Nothing could be more important than the Earth becoming uninhabitable, and it falls to you to warn us. If I am to join your camp I'd like it to be more than a party of 1. There needs to be a sound argument put forth with data.

Two things come to mind. First, life was probably doing just fine 1 million years ago when CO2 was this high. However, since then life probably evolved and adapted to a lower temperature. Okay... Two, we've probably sped up the process to happen much faster than life can adapt. Resulting in more outright death than slow and gradual replacement by stronger species.

Your position has merit, I'd just like it peer reviewed and given a consensus.
Because if we're meant to stop an ELE, then even nuclear winter is a better option to put on the table. If it comes down to it. This is no game.
Huh? Scientists have been screaming this from the mountaintop for like the last four decades. This isn't some party of one, it's a part of a huge number of very established and respected climatologists, oceanic biologists, along with every other kind of biologist you can imagine.

Yeah life was fine 1m years ago when CO2 was this high but it had millions of years to adapt. We've reversed a million years of carbon sequestration in 200 years. Shit's gonna get real, fast.

This is all peer reviewed, given consensus, and has merit. You either haven't been listening or have been living under a rock.

Insects:
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/02/12/insect-species-dying-off-research
Oceans:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-in-earth-rsquo-s-oceans-could-begin-by-2100/
Amphibians:
https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1406
Reptiles (and amphibians):
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/42/13003
Plants:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org...y/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
This is all peer reviewed, given consensus, and has merit. You either haven't been listening or have been living under a rock.

Insect mass die offs are not due to temperatures. It's due to actual poisons, pollution, and land use changes.
That is a WHOLE OTHER SUBJECT than CO2. You have conflated it all into one garbled mess.

I'd suggest you stick the IPCC guidance on Climate Change.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,116
14,484
146
The IPCC isn't saying that because it blindingly obvious. BTW, not all life will be gone. There are organisms which exist in volcanic vents and the top of Everest. Some macroscopic life will survive but removing enough oxygen with your dead ocean that humans suffocate is pretty dire. It isn't trees that produce the most oxygen on the planet and it's easy to look up, like the increased heat content of the oceans, melting permafrost etc does. There's currently no way to predict that endpoint other than to say it's not going to stop as the process continues.

Dead ocean = dead you.


I’m trying to understand the timeframe of the risk to humanity from the loss of phytoplankton.

  • The mass of the atmosphere is 5.148X10^18kg.
  • O2 is currently 20.95% of the Atm or 1.0785X10^18kg
  • According to this link OSHA says the minimum safe % of O2 is 19.5% which would put Atmospheric O2 at 1.00386X10^18kg
  • Meaning we would have to lose 7.46x10^18kg of O2 before noticing the effects.

So how long would that take?

Per Wiki the oxygen cycle has balancing gains and losses from all sources of 3X10^14kg per year.

Of that, photo synthesis from the ocean provides 1.35X10^14kg of O2. (For comparison land based photosynthesis provides a bit more at 1.65X10^14kg of O2)

So if we lost all ocean photosynthesis tomorrow it would take about 450 years before we would notice an ill effect (headaches, mental impairments, exhaust quicker than normal). Although I will point out that humans can adapt to lower O2 levels like those who live at high altitudes. So it would likely be longer.

(Death occurs at 6% O2 which would take ~4600 years.)

So how fast are we losing phytoplankton?

From what I can find fast enough that it’s worrying (40% since 1950 at this link) but nothing that says it will all die off. Not even during studies that assume no mitigation’s and an almost 10C increases in air temps by 2300 (Link). Mostly the changes force the remaining phytoplankton to migrate into cooler waters.

So while I’m not saying phytoplankton die off isn’t a major problem I’m having trouble seeing it the way you do. If nothing is done large swathes of land will have summer temperatures routinely above 130F making them inhospitable for civilization before we even feel the first effects of dropping O2.

Can you point me to the study that’s got you concerned?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Here's some background

Here is a relationship between oxygen levels and phytoplankton.

The abstract-

Ocean dynamics is known to have a strong effect on the global climate change and on the composition of the atmosphere. In particular, it is estimated that about 70 % of the atmospheric oxygen is produced in the oceans due to the photosynthetic activity of phytoplankton. However, the rate of oxygen production depends on water temperature and hence can be affected by the global warming. In this paper, we address this issue theoretically by considering a model of a coupled plankton–oxygen dynamics where the rate of oxygen production slowly changes with time to account for the ocean warming. We show that a sustainable oxygen production is only possible in an intermediate range of the production rate. If, in the course of time, the oxygen production rate becomes too low or too high, the system’s dynamics changes abruptly, resulting in the oxygen depletion and plankton extinction. Our results indicate that the depletion of atmospheric oxygen on global scale (which, if happens, obviously can kill most of life on Earth) is another possible catastrophic consequence of the global warming, a global ecological disaster that has been overlooked.


Something else to see.

Oceanic dead zones increasing significantly

This is what's happening with relatively low temperature changes

Methane- a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and not cow farts here.

The problem with the IPCC is that is that it doesn't take into account fast changing scenarios as much as necessary

In this result are articles about Siberian permafrost melt and methane.

That pretty much smacked people in the face as an unknown left out of models and they aren't adapted to account for a vast but ultimately unknown quantity of temperature increasing gas which is about 90x more potent than CO2.

That's some of the positive feedback, this time from unanticipated adverse effects of minor warming.

The problem with the IPCC is not that it's alarmist but is a political animal as well. Incorporating understood but which cannot currently be added to the best models is problematic. Already we have Trump organizing his secret "science" climate panel. No, the IPCC will be very conservative so using it as a "handbook" on a fully accurate source is problematic as relatively new data is not accounted for, making for a lowball estimate.

Eventually these factors will be modeled and incorporated, however, the data on permafrost melt alone shows the reality is far worse than it seems.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
Insect mass die offs are not due to temperatures. It's due to actual poisons, pollution, and land use changes.
That is a WHOLE OTHER SUBJECT than CO2. You have conflated it all into one garbled mess.

I'd suggest you stick the IPCC guidance on Climate Change.
Per the paper in the article I linked:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320718313636
Land use changes is the primary factor, and overwhelming for most biomes. In tropical biomes, climate change is still a substantial driver.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
My wife has the i3 as well (though without the Range Extender). We actually got super lucky that one of the only fast chargers is right by our house.

Probably what also needs to drastically change is that houses/garages need to be better equipped for charging at higher kw. Them charging fees aren't cheap :( When it costs just as much to charge the i3 as it does to fill up a sedan gas tank... yeah, that's not good.

It makes sense that fast chargers are pricier given the investment and limited numbers for now. 95% of my charging is done at home anyway where I have a L2 at 7.7kW. We're moving soon and are likely to buy a used i3 for a 2nd car because the new town is much more car dependent, still amazing what you can get them for gently used.

Fun fact though I recently learned that EV charging at Electrify America chargers counts on the travel credit for one of the credit cards I hold ($200 worth annually). It's a high annual fee card that I mostly use for other benefits but nice to know.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,122
1,594
126
It all comes down to the business practices of auto manufacturers. Cars are no longer designed for greater efficiency, safety, etc. and priced appropriately. Instead, they're designed for specific price points. Add to it consumer "let them eat cake" attitudes and, you get our current situation. Nothing will change until it's too late. The only solution I see is for government to force auto makers to stop using ICE.