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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
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.

Phaseouts are coming but they are still so far off in most places that automakers are screwing around. Though the Chinese mandates are somewhat lighting a fire under their ass over there.

If anyplace adopts a phaseout it will be CA first. I think they should and milestone it so that the car companies can't string it out and panic people with a cliff at the deadline.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
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?

I've linked to some items which are of concerns above. What we need to do is differentiate between the more immediate causation and a timeframe of more distant effects.

How fast are we losing phytoplankton? At a rate fast enough to cause changes in oceanic migrations. Phytoplankton do have seasonal patterns but their growth is limited by many conditions and with these tiny organisms boxed into an ever decreasing region the overall quantity is down.

I'll also remind you that when that 2300 prediction was made it would have missed two important things, that the actual heat content of the oceans is far higher than believed and that there is an increasing rate of methane release which was trapped by ice. How fast will things change? Well the models will have be be modified to account, but we're talking about big changes without doubt.

Trumpian half truth science-NOAA

Let's look at the immediate effects on the environment- The Gulf of Mexico "Dead zone"

PHOTO-%20dead%20zone%20map-NOAA-700x345-Landscape.jpg


The explanation for this is agricultural runoff and I'll leave it to others to find out why as this is already a long post.

What is verboten is the explanation beyond the obvious and that the changes in flooding patterns increase nitrogen release simply by there being increased motive means by flooding to increase nutrient release by ANY source, natural or not if it exists in the soil. As storms increase with climate change worldwide so will erosion and so will nutrients that drive growth and consume oxygen for growth. If one understands increasing storms will occur then this is a primary result, a pattern which must continue and expand.

Anyway, things will get warmer faster and climate change is a crisis multiplier as I've said with this being a direct example.

How fast can the environment and the human organism adapt? We'll find out but the lastest facts suggest it's going to happen on an increasingly short timescale.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
One last thing on climate and what I've referenced and more-

If you have or know someone who has access to a college or university academic database, doing a lit search is time-consuming but ultimately the best way to access current papers. A second choice would be a large public library however they too are relatively limited as far as current papers go, especially pre-press.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Phaseouts are coming but they are still so far off in most places that automakers are screwing around. Though the Chinese mandates are somewhat lighting a fire under their ass over there.

If anyplace adopts a phaseout it will be CA first. I think they should and milestone it so that the car companies can't string it out and panic people with a cliff at the deadline.

Since eliminating ICE seems to be your goal anyway you should rip off the bandaid now and ban them. The poors will be fucked but that’s acceptable collateral damage.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
The main thing we can all agree about climate change is that it is a super complex system and we simply don't know all the answers. Literally everything on the planet interacts with it. A small change in wind currents can have a huge global effect, and it is almost impossible to predict exactly what that effect will be.

So, what we can say with confidence is that it is happening, and it is not going to be good for us. The timeframes when it will become bad for us is all over the place, and just how bad it is going to be for us when is just as uncertain. So I guess the question we have to ask is, how often do we want to toss the dice when if we come up craps we might all die?

The smart move would seem to be to get ahead of this literally apocalyptic problem and not keep putting it off because we can't be certain when it will happen. We are playing Russian Roulette with the entire world. It feels like a really poor decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
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.

I'm guessing that's your AMEX Platinum? That's the main one I know with a $200 travel credit. Either way I always use that credit by buying $200 in Southwest gift cards.

We really need to get a L2 Charger installed in our garage... But for now the L1 overnight seems to suffice.


It really is insane to buy electric (or atleast, the i3) brand new. The pricing is absolutely insane. We were looking at a couple of used ones - ended up getting one that was shipped all the way from Atlanta, GA for ~$16k.

Prior to buying it though, we stopped by our BMW dealership to test drive and see the pricing for shits and giggles... I want to say the dealership said pricing was.. $58k or something? I nearly choked and held in tons of laughter. My god, you don't see depreciation that bad anywhere.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
What I dont understand about their complaint. Nobody is forcing them to sell a less fuel efficient car in states not CA. I suppose their fear is their competitor will do such a thing. But has that ever happened in this market before? I honestly dont know if anybody wants to chime in.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
I'm guessing that's your AMEX Platinum? That's the main one I know with a $200 travel credit. Either way I always use that credit by buying $200 in Southwest gift cards.

We really need to get a L2 Charger installed in our garage... But for now the L1 overnight seems to suffice.


It really is insane to buy electric (or atleast, the i3) brand new. The pricing is absolutely insane. We were looking at a couple of used ones - ended up getting one that was shipped all the way from Atlanta, GA for ~$16k.

Prior to buying it though, we stopped by our BMW dealership to test drive and see the pricing for shits and giggles... I want to say the dealership said pricing was.. $58k or something? I nearly choked and held in tons of laughter. My god, you don't see depreciation that bad anywhere.


I think it was the Chase Sapphire Reserve.

We could get by with an L1 charger right now since there are entire days the car goes nowhere so a 14 hour charge cycle isn't really a concern. I got the L2 since I didn't know what the future held at the time as far as commuting.

Yes, the i3 is a nuts bargain used and rather fun to drive around town too. When I travel and use rental cars I have to make a point of remembering they don't zip to 40mph from standing in a heartbeat lol.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
What I dont understand about their complaint. Nobody is forcing them to sell a less fuel efficient car in states not CA. I suppose their fear is their competitor will do such a thing. But has that ever happened in this market before? I honestly dont know if anybody wants to chime in.

They're worried about Trump punishing them if they follow CA standards (which is really more than just them since about a dozen states follow CARB).
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Yes, the i3 is a nuts bargain used and rather fun to drive around town too. When I travel and use rental cars I have to make a point of remembering they don't zip to 40mph from standing in a heartbeat lol.

And taking your foot off the gas doesn't equate to a break
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
The varied regen when I get a hybrid rental is actually tougher since like it still works but I have to adjust for the different resistance.
Always been curious, how does the regenerative braking compare to a stick shift engine braking? Is it similar? I've gotten *very* accustomed to engine braking.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
The varied regen when I get a hybrid rental is actually tougher since like it still works but I have to adjust for the different resistance.

Which by the way, do you really like the i3 enough to buy a 2nd one? As in, your garage will just be 2x i3s?

After a kid I can't fit shit in my Acura, it's like an SUV is a requirement with all the shit you have to have for kids these days =/
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Always been curious, how does the regenerative braking compare to a stick shift engine braking? Is it similar? I've gotten *very* accustomed to engine braking.

This is where I confess to never having driven manual.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Which by the way, do you really like the i3 enough to buy a 2nd one? As in, your garage will just be 2x i3s?

After a kid I can't fit shit in my Acura, it's like an SUV is a requirement with all the shit you have to have for kids these days =/

For at least a year yes we'd have two i3s. The current i3 is on lease (the deal was good) and will be coming off the middle of next year. We are undecided about what exactly will replace it but will be another PHEV (BMW has more models coming) or possibly a pure electric if we went with a Model 3.

As a DINK household the most we generally have to carry are some groceries or a cat to the vet so the i3 suits us. If we had kids it would obviously be a different story.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,701
3,727
136
Always been curious, how does the regenerative braking compare to a stick shift engine braking? Is it similar? I've gotten *very* accustomed to engine braking.

My GF drives a Volt, which doesn’t really have a lot of regen unless you pull back a little paddle behind the steering wheel. When you do pull it, it’s way more engine braking than either of my manual cars. It feels more like regular braking and will apply nearly 50kW of regen power slowing down from highway speeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
I thought climate change was an extinction level event type of situation?
Probably, when all the wars break out because of limited water resources and lack of food stuffs, caused by severe droughts, and flooded crops lands. I know how can it be both.?
 

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
My take/rant on the topic, MFT should keep investing on more efficient cars but that is not the only way to reduce emission. Education is the key, teach people how to drive and not treating the gas pedal like an on/off switch look how many people get the rated mpg? Don't let marketing get you into thinking you need a truck/suv/AWD, a fwd sedan or wagon will do just fine. I live in the north with lot of snow, I know.

I drive small 4 bangers car(except one bigger sedan) all my life, long road trip, wild camp, haul a trailer(all cars can at least haul 1000lb, it is a lot!!!) and load all the crazy things. If I 100% need a cargo van to haul stuff I rent one. Why anyone average people need a 200+ HP car is beyond me. If they can afford it then fine, tax them on HP rating, tax them on displacement.

Also I always get at least 15% better than MFT rating, imagine how much less emission we produce if everyone meet MFT rating.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
The smart move would seem to be to get ahead of this literally apocalyptic problem and not keep putting it off because we can't be certain when it will happen. We are playing Russian Roulette with the entire world. It feels like a really poor decision.

The specifics matter, as if we actually and literally thought O2 was being depleted and we needed to stop that, then we'd either solve it through immediate diplomacy throughout the world, or by military force to prevent it. And that military force might necessarily include full scale nuclear war. As there could be no outcome worse than a full blown ELE, we might actually drive ourselves towards many lesser cataclysmic scenarios, as they would have higher survival rates.

I look at renewable energy, I look at the development of electric vehicles, and it all seems promising. In 20 years we might have a much better handle on our CO2 emissions per person. OTOH, we'll have many more people. To counter that we could start to produce, on an industrial scale, CO2 scrubbing from the atmosphere. That seems like a worthy endeavor. It means we have time to slowly roll back and reduce the damage we're doing.

Although, if one wants to be honest, CO2 may not be our most damaging impact on planetary ecosystems. There are larger discussions to be had on quality of life, and the consequences of having as large of a population as we currently do. Lot of land use and land stripping going on to maintain current levels, let alone sustain growth in the future. We are polluting and fishing the oceans to death, stripping them of life, etc. But those are other subjects, not related to our vehicle emissions.

As I said with cars, the future prospects of electric vehicles seem promising.