[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by chris719

Ignoring valuation, my point was that Toyota gives no reason to believe they are particularly smart or visionary. IBM still exists too, but they are a shell of their former self.

I see nothing from Toyota in the past 10 years that indicate they are anything but a fading power.

I think they are playing the car market the same way short-sellers make money on stocks. They are counting on being in a strong position 10 years from now due to everyone else being "wrong", and are preparing to clean house when that time comes.

Short selling is a risky strategy, but can be exceedingly profitable, or financially disastrous.

Similar to betting big on un-invented technological solutions being discovered, developed, and hitting the market at a certain time.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I think they are playing the car market the same way short-sellers make money on stocks. They are counting on being in a strong position 10 years from now due to everyone else being "wrong", and are preparing to clean house when that time comes.

Short selling is a risky strategy, but can be exceedingly profitable, or financially disastrous.

Similar to betting big on un-invented technological solutions being discovered, developed, and hitting the market at a certain time.

They are shorting the market due to poor bets on their part. As a result, they don't have anything ready to compete.

They literally squandered the lead they had with the Prius. If they had made proper bets they should have been able to swat Tesla to keep them as a niche player.

Much like how if MS was paying attention they could have seen that computing was on the verge of shifting from being focused on the Business market to being focused on the Consumer market with mobile devices as the conduit.

The problem with growing to be the leader in any major market. You lose the ability to stay nimble and follow where the market is going. You're too focused on thinking you're big enough to force the market into submission.

It costs me < $1 to "fill up" my PHEV 530e from a flat EV battery which has a range that is roughly equal to two gallons of premium gas. Which is currently $4/g.

[tturedraider]

LogicalApex, just a curiosity question. How long have you lived in Philadelphia/New England/on the east coast?

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

LogicalApex, just a curiosity question. How long have you lived in Philadelphia/New England/on the east coast?

All my life, in my late 30s.

[tturedraider]

I think that explains at least a little bit of our different perceptions of EVs. I think it’s pretty obvious I don’t like them. And I’ll avoid owning one as long as humanly possible. Maybe if the battery performance improves DRAMATICALLY. However, I do like BMW’s PHEVs. I’ve driven a pretty good number of them.

I am from Texas. I lived there all of my life with two “breaks”. I was stationed from one coast to the other while I was on active duty in the Army. And I drove from one duty station to the next. This was way before gps. I had a Rand Atlas that I used to plan my trips. Then about eleven years ago I moved to Chicago. Maybe a little bit surprisingly because one of the main things I love about the city is their public transportation. There is a Red Line stop literally across the street from my condo building. I take the train all the time.

Anyway, being from Texas I will drive 800 - 1,000 miles and hardly give it a second thought. I usually drive back to Texas from Chicago at least once a year. That’s a 1,150 mile drive. I don’t mind and rather like driving long distances. And I stop for fuel for five minutes virtually anywhere and anytime I want to. EVs give me serious range anxiety. And even though batteries have improved to some degree and claimed ranges have improved they have not improved enough to meet my needs when I’m driving a long distance.

I was stationed at Fort Devens, Massachusetts and at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. One cool thing about being stationed in New England was that I could drive virtually anywhere in two - three hours. And cross three states doing it. And one of the interesting things I discovered about folks on the east coast was that, generally speaking, if they have a two hour drive to make they plan for it. My drive from Fort Worth to Lubbock, where my parents lived, was 325 miles and just under five hours. I made that drive at the drop of a hat and barely gave it any thought.

Anyway, all that said to say I think you and I probably have different expectations of what we want our cars to do for us. Until I can get in an EV and drive 1,000 miles or more and have zero reason to have range anxiety and have the ability to refuel/recharge as quickly and conveniently as with an ICE I’ll have no interest in owning one.

Then, of course, there’s the noises a good inline six motor makes, but I won’t get into that.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by TheMaxXHD

Pretty bad takes, from both sides of the coin here. I’d write a whole new a long comment on this but just refer to my previous post in this thread.

Ultimately with gas in general, there is a push away from oil/gas. Remove the car for the moment and just view it from a purely gas perspective. There is a drive towards different types of energies, alternatives to gas. Some alternatives better than others. Some better than gas, some worse than gas.

Now put the car back in the equation. Where does that leave the gas car? Well, we can’t predict the future. We can only guess based on trends and where technology looks like it’s going, but there may, and will be curveballs. Likely by the time we can reasonably answer this question, it will be irrelevant, because the answer by that point will be obvious.

Apple Carplay didn’t exist before 2014, we would have had no idea that built in navigation on vehicles would matter less now that we have phone apps that can project onto the dash, now just about every car has that. Built in nav accuracy and fluidness was a prime selling point and development for vehicles before the carplay/android auto era, it was a dramatic shift that happened so quickly in only a few short years.

Now try to guess what is gonna happen to EVs 10 years from now.

Unless y’all have some sort of time machine you aren’t telling people about, in which case, tell future me I said hi

Most people don't understand what "moving away" from gasoline means. Petroleum refineries just can't magically change the distribution in percentages of distillates on a whim. The mass adoption of EV is not only going to disrupt the electrical power industry, it is also going to disrupt agriculture, commercial air travel, clothing, food, telecommunications, and every other industry that touches our lives.

[10"]

Originally Posted by chris719

This is a common take, and it's nonsense. The story we are to believe is that a small nascent industry and its backers financially outmuscled and outlobbied an entrenched automotive industry and ICE vendor supply chain AND the likes of Exxon Mobil, Shell/BP, etc. combined?

Tesla can't even defeat the lobbying efforts of car dealerships in most states, but somehow this is all a conspiracy to ditch ICE? lol

This thread is just full of people who are upset about change. The writing is on the wall; denying reality and spending all this effort conjuring up excuses is not going to help.

not conspiracy at all—

It seems you are not familiar with the driving forces of disruptive business models—and are under optimistic delusion that holistic reasons are the driving force behind "change". A 'cute' simplicity!

[2022M550i]

With all this EV hype, I never read anything about the byproduct of electric motors, ozone. Thats going to be tomorrows crisis. I also think the dependence on one energy source, electricity, is nuts and a huge security risk. All it will take is one hack to cripple parts of the country. The ignorance is staggering. I can go on for hours about this.

Im all for a mix of EV's and ICE's. Final thought…where is the end to end analysis showing how EV's will save the planet and by how much more than if we continue with ICE's? You will never find it because there is no free ride when it comes to energy consumption/production. If they actually did the analysis, you would see its an even wash.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

They are shorting the market due to poor bets on their part. As a result, they don't have anything ready to compete.

They literally squandered the lead they had with the Prius. If they had made proper bets they should have been able to swat Tesla to keep them as a niche player.

I'm curious why you say that. Sales of the Prius are down, what do you believe is the reason?

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

I think that explains at least a little bit of our different perceptions of EVs. I think it’s pretty obvious I don’t like them. And I’ll avoid owning one as long as humanly possible. Maybe if the battery performance improves DRAMATICALLY. However, I do like BMW’s PHEVs. I’ve driven a pretty good number of them.

I am from Texas. I lived there all of my life with two “breaks”. I was stationed from one coast to the other while I was on active duty in the Army. And I drove from one duty station to the next. This was way before gps. I had a Rand Atlas that I used to plan my trips. Then about eleven years ago I moved to Chicago. Maybe a little bit surprisingly because one of the main things I love about the city is their public transportation. There is a Red Line stop literally across the street from my condo building. I take the train all the time.

Anyway, being from Texas I will drive 800 - 1,000 miles and hardly give it a second thought. I usually drive back to Texas from Chicago at least once a year. That’s a 1,150 mile drive. I don’t mind and rather like driving long distances. And I stop for fuel for five minutes virtually anywhere and anytime I want to. EVs give me serious range anxiety. And even though batteries have improved to some degree and claimed ranges have improved they have not improved enough to meet my needs when I’m driving a long distance.

I was stationed at Fort Devens, Massachusetts and at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. One cool thing about being stationed in New England was that I could drive virtually anywhere in two - three hours. And cross three states doing it. And one of the interesting things I discovered about folks on the east coast was that, generally speaking, if they have a two hour drive to make they plan for it. My drive from Fort Worth to Lubbock, where my parents lived, was 325 miles and just under five hours. I made that drive at the drop of a hat and barely gave it any thought.

Anyway, all that said to say I think you and I probably have different expectations of what we want our cars to do for us. Until I can get in an EV and drive 1,000 miles or more and have zero reason to have range anxiety and have the ability to refuel/recharge as quickly and conveniently as with an ICE I’ll have no interest in owning one.

Then, of course, there’s the noises a good inline six motor makes, but I won’t get into that.

We have more in common than you might think.

I lived in the city proper when I got my 530e in 2019 with no dedicated garage, street parking, and regular 1K mile road trips to see family. I strongly considered BEV, but my initial concerns were all charging related. At home I could add a EV charger to the curb in front of my house, but would actually using it be a challenge? On my 1K mile drives charge times of over an hour would be too much to bear every few hundred miles.

The PHEV would let me tip my toe into the EV world without having too much “risk”. Gas was there for long road trips or if my neighbors block my charger all the time.

My neighbors turned out to be fantastic. They would move their cars as often as possible to give me a chance to charge. Even after I told them it is a PHEV. That was much soother than I anticipated. At all the on the highway stops I make for food and bathroom breaks they’ve added Level 3 charging over the last couple of years so I can stop on the highway and charge a BEV (not my PHEV).

Looking at getting a BEV for my wife as I’m not yet ready to replace my 5-Series. The new Chevy Equinox EV can charge from 0-100% in under 30 minutes. It has a range of over 300 miles. There has been massive gains in recharge time and charger availability so I don’t have as much anxiety as I used to have. With those times what I’d like to see is range itself increased to over 600 miles on a charge. The latest rumors is that BMW is testing 600 mile BEVs for their lineup. I’ll stop for 30 minutes within 600 miles to have a bathroom break, walk the dog, and/or get a coffee usually.

I agree with you that a nice engine sounds fantastic. I’m sure we’ll have collectors cars with great engines to hear for the rest of our lifetimes. You’re not missing much not being able to hear the exhaust note of a Toyota Camry though once it goes BEV. I’m sure the Camry driver won’t miss it either.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I'm curious why you say that. Sales of the Prius are down, what do you believe is the reason?

The Prius was the best selling car in the EV space for over a decade. Toyota also had done a great job with driveline efficiency on the car as well. They let it languish as a mild-hybrid until a year or two back when they finally introduced the PHEV version the Prius Prime when everyone else had already moved to BEVs.

If they were moving correctly they should have introduced the Prime years ago as BEVs were making their entry with Tesla’s rise. This would have allowed them to counter Tesla aggressively while range anxiety concerns were at their peak. It would have also allowed them to perfect a EV drivetrain to further compete with.

Now they are left as the last automaker getting into the mix so far behind that their best hope is an acquisition to keep up.

It is just like how Microsoft saw the smartphone market as never going beyond the business market. Who else would pay $500+ for a phone!? Only to be left with their pants down and forced to leave the market entirely.

And that’s with them having had all the pieces to build a strong competitor from day 1. Hell Android was created as an open source alternative to Windows Mobile and Google purchased it later to enter the market as everyone saw the consumer shift except the incumbent.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

We have more in common than you might think.

I lived in the city proper when I got my 530e in 2019 with no dedicated garage, street parking, and regular 1K mile road trips to see family. I strongly considered BEV, but my initial concerns were all charging related. At home I could add a EV charger to the curb in front of my house, but would actually using it be a challenge? On my 1K mile drives charge times of over an hour would be too much to bear every few hundred miles.

The PHEV would let me tip my toe into the EV world without having too much “risk”. Gas was there for long road trips or if my neighbors block my charger all the time.

My neighbors turned out to be fantastic. They would move their cars as often as possible to give me a chance to charge. Even after I told them it is a PHEV. That was much soother than I anticipated. At all the on the highway stops I make for food and bathroom breaks theyÂ’ve added Level 3 charging over the last couple of years so I can stop on the highway and charge a BEV (not my PHEV).

Looking at getting a BEV for my wife as IÂ’m not yet ready to replace my 5-Series. The new Chevy Equinox EV can charge from 0-100% in under 30 minutes. It has a range of over 300 miles. There has been massive gains in recharge time and charger availability so I donÂ’t have as much anxiety as I used to have. With those times what IÂ’d like to see is range itself increased to over 600 miles on a charge. The latest rumors is that BMW is testing 600 mile BEVs for their lineup. IÂ’ll stop for 30 minutes within 600 miles to have a bathroom break, walk the dog, and/or get a coffee usually.

I agree with you that a nice engine sounds fantastic. IÂ’m sure weÂ’ll have collectors cars with great engines to hear for the rest of our lifetimes. YouÂ’re not missing much not being able to hear the exhaust note of a Toyota Camry though once it goes BEV. IÂ’m sure the Camry driver wonÂ’t miss it either.



The Prius was the best selling car in the EV space for over a decade. Toyota also had done a great job with driveline efficiency on the car as well. They let it languish as a mild-hybrid until a year or two back when they finally introduced the PHEV version the Prius Prime when everyone else had already moved to BEVs.

If they were moving correctly they should have introduced the Prime years ago as BEVs were making their entry with TeslaÂ’s rise. This would have allowed them to counter Tesla aggressively while range anxiety concerns were at their peak. It would have also allowed them to perfect a EV drivetrain to further compete with.

Now they are left as the last automaker getting into the mix so far behind that their best hope is an acquisition to keep up.

It is just like how Microsoft saw the smartphone market as never going beyond the business market. Who else would pay $500+ for a phone!? Only to be left with their pants down and forced to leave the market entirely.

And thatÂ’s with them having had all the pieces to build a strong competitor from day 1. Hell Android was created as an open source alternative to Windows Mobile and Google purchased it later to enter the market as everyone saw the consumer shift except the incumbent.

I thought they were selling what people wanted at first, and now what they want isn't cheap EV's anymore. Cheap EV's suck, jsut like cheap ICE's suck. but one is cheaper and easier to live with than the other.

Looking at the market for others in that same segment, the trend is towards moderate to high end ($$$) EV's, or inexpensive ICE's. The middle seems to have disappeared. I don't think that is Toyota's fault.

My opinion; the market changed such that the Prius was now in a market with fewer customers. Toyota makes cars, not customers. Making it more desirable by moving up-market was possible, but that market is still actually small compared to market they were in already, so why chase diminishing returns. That they don't have a moderate to high end ($$$) EV is a calculated choice. It's not like they don't know how to make an EV, or how to sell & service cars. Even at it's now-diminished market volume with their Prius, they still outsell the model S 4:1.

The states and Fed can dictate what is made, but no one can dictate what people want to buy. When people still don't want moderate to high end ($$$) EV's, what else will they buy? I think Toyota has a plan for that, a plan that so many others don't seem to even be considering. Until Tesla starts making affordable EV's, Toyota will have a good market share position by changing nothing.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I thought they were selling what people wanted at first, and now what they want isn't cheap EV's anymore. Cheap EV's suck, jsut like cheap ICE's suck. but one is cheaper and easier to live with than the other.

Looking at the market for others in that same segment, the trend is towards moderate to high end ($$$) EV's, or inexpensive ICE's. The middle seems to have disappeared. I don't think that is Toyota's fault.

My opinion; the market changed such that the Prius was now in a market with fewer customers. Toyota makes cars, not customers. Making it more desirable by moving up-market was possible, but that market is still actually small compared to market they were in already, so why chase diminishing returns. That they don't have a moderate to high end ($$$) EV is a calculated choice. It's not like they don't know how to make an EV, or how to sell & service cars. Even at it's now-diminished market volume with their Prius, they still outsell the model S 4:1.

The states and Fed can dictate what is made, but no one can dictate what people want to buy. When people still don't want moderate to high end ($$$) EV's, what else will they buy? I think Toyota has a plan for that, a plan that so many others don't seem to even be considering. Until Tesla starts making affordable EV's, Toyota will have a good market share position by changing nothing.

Take a look at what Chevy is doing. Take a look at what Tesla is trying to do with the Model 3. Take a look at what a lot of manufacturers are doing right now. The BEV that’s being built and marketed now is the low to mid-tier vehicle.

Vehicles like the Chevy Bolt EV, Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model 3, and others…

Toyota had a chance to charge a premium for a BEV with their brand history and a chance to price in the the slight premium that people were willing to pay for EVs. That would have allowed them to build a large patent portfolio to license to other OEMs or limit the ability of entrants like Tesla to eclipse them.

They ignored the market. Just like MS did.

Now people routinely pay over $1K for cell phones where in 2005 paying for one at all was a foreign concept (consumers got them free or heavily discounted in exchange for lengthy service contracts)…

What killed Toyota is what made them the winner in the ICE world. They are extremely slow moving and don’t embrace change quickly. It allows them to build heavily optimized supply chains and very reliable vehicles as they are only slightly refining a previous iteration. Not pushing the envelope with new stuff all the time. The classic reason why we’re driving BMWs and not Toyota cars… EVs are throwing all of that out of the window. You now need to iterate quickly as new ground is constantly being broken. Not their strength.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

What killed Toyota is what made them the winner in the ICE world. They are extremely slow moving and don’t embrace change quickly. It allows them to build heavily optimized supply chains and very reliable vehicles as they are only slightly refining a previous iteration. Not pushing the envelope with new stuff all the time. The classic reason why we’re driving BMWs and not Toyota cars… EVs are throwing all of that out of the window. You now need to iterate quickly as new ground is constantly being broken. Not their strength.

I guess I just don't understand you then, they are the world leader in automotive market share. 4 times BMW, and tesla didn't even make the list. quality/style/sexyness (all subjective) aside, Toyota builds what people buy better than anyone:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ng-automakers/

This list will be different 10 years from now, no doubt about that, but thinking they have already killed themselves seems a bit premature.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I guess I just don't understand you then, they are the world leader in automotive market share. 4 times BMW, and tesla didn't even make the list. quality/style/sexyness (all subjective) aside, Toyota builds what people buy better than anyone:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ng-automakers/

This list will be different 10 years from now, no doubt about that, but thinking they have already killed themselves seems a bit premature.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm looking forward to where the market is going and Toyota isn't in the right place to benefit from that market direction for reasons I shared earlier.

I know I keep using smartphones as an analogy, but it fits well here. In 2005 Nokia was the world's largest phone maker and it was expected they'd continue to be. Fast forward to now and Nokia is completely out of the cell phone business from a consumer perspective.

Toyota sells a lot of cars now, but what you're doing today isn't what matters so much. It is what you're doing tomorrow that matters.

If the market moves slower could Toyota benefit from that? Perhaps. But I don't see the market shifting back to a landscape that would be favorable to them unless they made some smart acquisitions. The EV shift is going to radically redefine what a car is to people in a way the ICE can't compete with. So they'd be able to sell them, but not at a premium.

Cars are going through a transition, as I mentioned earlier, where they are being moved from only being able to drive you from point A to point B to being a lot more. As the EV shift to a car that can always be "powered on" is going to be prove to be extremely disruptive.

Even the thought that ICE matters to enthusiasts who love the groan of an engine and the rumble of power from it is an increasingly smaller portion of the automotive market. The enthusiast landscape, including here, are rife with complaints that enthusiast focused cars are a dying breed as the majority of car buyers don't care enough. The majority are welcoming the new functions and aren't going to look back and enthusiasts who care will be able to spend the money to access ICE tech. Including, I'm sure, rebuilds and refinements to those used ICE cars long after the last one is officially sold.

Just like how I thought in 2007 that no one would want a phone without a keyboard... Here we are. Where no phone comes with one anymore.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm looking forward to where the market is going and Toyota isn't in the right place to benefit from that market direction for reasons I shared earlier.

I think Toyota doesn't agree with you about where the market is going. You are sure you are right, I get that. They are sure they are right too...

And they have been making their own ground up EV's for twice as long as Tesla. It's not like they can't, won't, or aren't ready to. They simply aren't going all-in on them. They have a reason, and have explained that reason.

Interestingly, they did plan to be ahead of this curve, and changed their mind. It's not that they have no vision, it's that their vision changed. Look at this 5 year old article from Toyota itself :


Electrification across the entire Toyota and Lexus line-up
By around 2030, Toyota aims to have sales of more than 5.5 million electrified vehicles, including more than 1 million zero-emission vehicles (BEVs, FCEVs).
Additionally, by around 2025, every model in the Toyota and Lexus line-up around the world will be available either as a dedicated electrified model or have an electrified option. This will be achieved by increasing the number of dedicated HEV, PHEV, BEV, and FCEV models and by generalizing the availability of HEV, PHEV and/or BEV options to all its models.
As a result, the number of models developed without an electrified version will be zero.

https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/co.../20353243.html

It's not for a lack of institutional ability to think the problem through or plan ahead. It's reaction market forces and economic reality. A calculated outcome.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I think Toyota doesn't agree with you about where the market is going. You are sure you are right, I get that. They are sure they are right too...

And they have been making their own ground up EV's for twice as long as Tesla. It's not like they can't, won't, or aren't ready to. They simply aren't going all-in on them. They have a reason, and have explained that reason.

Interestingly, they did plan to be ahead of this curve, and changed their mind. It's not that they have no vision, it's that their vision changed. Look at this 5 year old article from Toyota itself :


Electrification across the entire Toyota and Lexus line-up
By around 2030, Toyota aims to have sales of more than 5.5 million electrified vehicles, including more than 1 million zero-emission vehicles (BEVs, FCEVs).
Additionally, by around 2025, every model in the Toyota and Lexus line-up around the world will be available either as a dedicated electrified model or have an electrified option. This will be achieved by increasing the number of dedicated HEV, PHEV, BEV, and FCEV models and by generalizing the availability of HEV, PHEV and/or BEV options to all its models.
As a result, the number of models developed without an electrified version will be zero.

https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/co.../20353243.html

It's not for a lack of institutional ability to think the problem through or plan ahead. It's reaction market forces and economic reality. A calculated outcome.

The prevailing headwinds suggest strongly they are wrong, but we will learn over time.

You can’t have winners without losers

[chad86tsi]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...7f1406b516821f

This isn't the future, this is today:

For at least 10 days in a row beginning in late August, the Alert asked Californians to voluntarily reduce their energy consumption, even requesting that electric vehicle owners limit charging to protect the state’s electric grid from power outages. It was not the first time, nor will it be the last.

MIDTERMS 2022: TRACKING THE ISSUES THAT MATTER TO VOTERS AHEAD OF ELECTION DAY

Largely to blame is California’s heavy reliance on intermittent wind and solar power, coupled with a lack of dispatchable sources of electricity to use when the sun sets or the wind does not blow.

Last year, in its rush to transition from coal and natural gas, the Golden State made itself twice as dependent upon wind and solar as the rest of the country. States should view California as a lesson in what can happen if the transition to renewable power is too fast and goes too far. If not, grid reliability will be compromised, leaving consumers to anticipate Flex Alerts as the new normal.

Impartial grid operators and regulators have warned for years that the pace of the grid transition from coal and other traditional fuels to wind and solar is too rapid. In its 2021 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation warned that large sections of the country might face electricity shortfalls for the next 10 years. The fault lies, in part, to the retirement of generating capacity that can run almost continuously and provide essential reliability services that wind and solar cannot.

To make matters worse, NERC’s warning did not consider the massive number of coal power plants expected to retire by the end of the decade. In fact, our analysis found that number to be almost four times greater than what NERC reported. In addition, new Environmental Protection Agency regulations are likely to increase coal retirements even more.

While the retirement of conventional resources might be inevitable, we must allow time for retiring power plants to be replaced with equally dependable electricity sources. Otherwise, the U.S. will have a less reliable and resilient grid. As NERC CEO Jim Robb has said about electricity, “It’s seven percent of the economy, but it’s the first seven percent because without it, nothing else works.”

Some point to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as the answer to delivering the renewable technology and infrastructure necessary to complete the grid transition. But while the IRA provides billions of dollars to incentivize the adoption of wind and solar, history shows that the obstacle of time is not easily overcome.

For example, the U.S. currently has more than 200,000 miles of transmission lines, but research from Princeton University concludes we will need 60% more by 2030 — and possibly even as much as 200% more — to achieve President Biden’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Yet over the last decade, we have added only 1,800 miles of new transmission lines each year. Permitting is part of the problem with federal authorization of large transmission projects because in many cases it takes more than a decade for approval.

Yes, the grid is transitioning, but the integrity of the electric system requires a diverse energy mix. Coal helps provide the reliable and resilient power necessary to meet consumer demand during the transition to zero-emissions generation. But if we continue the headlong pace to prematurely abandon thermal resources like coal, then California’s Flex Alerts will be our nation’s future.

Michelle Bloodworth is president and CEO of America’s Power, a partnership of industries involved in producing electricity from coal.


Good luck charging these EV's, we can barely keep the lights on as it is.

If only somebody spoke up about these risks...

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

I am always deeply confused by concerns like yours. Which overplay the negatives and ignore the rapid technical improvements and positives. Delaying the shift to EVs isn't really an option and that's even ignoring the realities of climate change.

China is the largest EV market in the world and the largest car market as well. Ignoring the shift to EVs would leave us only to buy the leftover technology that isn't being developed for the largest markets. Since the Chinese market is growing the automotive market will chase that market and not a mature market like the US. Business 101...

Same reason you didn't see the auto industry drop the EV shift when Trump rolled back to EV shift Obama put in place and the industry lobbied him for. It didn't matter what the US was doing since the global markets were growth is have moved...

The challenges of charging in cities, battery lifespan, and recyclability are all being actively worked on now that there is guaranteed demand to ensure a profit for the companies who crack the puzzles. For instance, there are EVs out to market now that can charge in 30 minutes from 0 - 100%. That means you could realistically have charging stations that could charge an urban EV within 10-15 minutes to enough charge to last a week or more. Today.

These charging stations can be, and are being built, at shopping centers and other areas. Meaning in the future people may skip gas stations, but instead charge while doing things they need to drive to anyway.

The world changes because those with vision force the rest of us to eventually see their vision. Similar to how no one could have seen the world we have now with smartphones and their power when PDAs came out in the early 90s or even when Windows Mobile smartphones came out in the early 2000s. Yet today they've completely rewritten telecommunications and all of their shortcomings are distant memories as they've been solved. So much so that Apple smartphone CPUs outperform the most powerful Intel chips in desktop computers today...

EVs will reduce our dependence on foreign oil increasing national security...

Really wild how our own Government's 9/11 commission investigation confirmed a link between Saudi and the 9/11 hijackers, but we levied no punishment on Saudi Arabia due to how dependent we are on their oil...

Don't fight the tide...

When the breadlines start in China (before the end of the decade) you think they're going to be rushing to buy EVs? The whole world is pulling out of China. It is fast becoming A market and no longer THE market.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Cos270

When the breadlines start in China (before the end of the decade) you think they're going to be rushing to buy EVs? The whole world is pulling out of China. It is fast becoming A market and no longer THE market.

They won't be driving at all anymore. It will be a creation of a new class of citizens.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...7f1406b516821f

This isn't the future, this is today:

For at least 10 days in a row beginning in late August, the Alert asked Californians to voluntarily reduce their energy consumption, even requesting that electric vehicle owners limit charging to protect the state’s electric grid from power outages. It was not the first time, nor will it be the last.

MIDTERMS 2022: TRACKING THE ISSUES THAT MATTER TO VOTERS AHEAD OF ELECTION DAY

Largely to blame is California’s heavy reliance on intermittent wind and solar power, coupled with a lack of dispatchable sources of electricity to use when the sun sets or the wind does not blow.

Last year, in its rush to transition from coal and natural gas, the Golden State made itself twice as dependent upon wind and solar as the rest of the country. States should view California as a lesson in what can happen if the transition to renewable power is too fast and goes too far. If not, grid reliability will be compromised, leaving consumers to anticipate Flex Alerts as the new normal.

Impartial grid operators and regulators have warned for years that the pace of the grid transition from coal and other traditional fuels to wind and solar is too rapid. In its 2021 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation warned that large sections of the country might face electricity shortfalls for the next 10 years. The fault lies, in part, to the retirement of generating capacity that can run almost continuously and provide essential reliability services that wind and solar cannot.

To make matters worse, NERC’s warning did not consider the massive number of coal power plants expected to retire by the end of the decade. In fact, our analysis found that number to be almost four times greater than what NERC reported. In addition, new Environmental Protection Agency regulations are likely to increase coal retirements even more.

While the retirement of conventional resources might be inevitable, we must allow time for retiring power plants to be replaced with equally dependable electricity sources. Otherwise, the U.S. will have a less reliable and resilient grid. As NERC CEO Jim Robb has said about electricity, “It’s seven percent of the economy, but it’s the first seven percent because without it, nothing else works.”

Some point to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as the answer to delivering the renewable technology and infrastructure necessary to complete the grid transition. But while the IRA provides billions of dollars to incentivize the adoption of wind and solar, history shows that the obstacle of time is not easily overcome.

For example, the U.S. currently has more than 200,000 miles of transmission lines, but research from Princeton University concludes we will need 60% more by 2030 — and possibly even as much as 200% more — to achieve President Biden’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Yet over the last decade, we have added only 1,800 miles of new transmission lines each year. Permitting is part of the problem with federal authorization of large transmission projects because in many cases it takes more than a decade for approval.

Yes, the grid is transitioning, but the integrity of the electric system requires a diverse energy mix. Coal helps provide the reliable and resilient power necessary to meet consumer demand during the transition to zero-emissions generation. But if we continue the headlong pace to prematurely abandon thermal resources like coal, then California’s Flex Alerts will be our nation’s future.

Michelle Bloodworth is president and CEO of America’s Power, a partnership of industries involved in producing electricity from coal.


Good luck charging these EV's, we can barely keep the lights on as it is.

If only somebody spoke up about these risks...

You're still ignoring where the technology is going... As I said in one of my earlier posts... The grid itself is going to change and EVs will offer a lot of new value that will likely make blackouts less common.

There are already bidirectional EV chargers on the market. As they increase in popularity you'll have the ability to pull power from the dormant EV to use to power homes during outages or storms as well as return power to the grid to deal with sudden demand spikes.

https://wallbox.com/en_us/quasar2-dc-charger

https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/28/ar...e-home-market/

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

You're still ignoring where the technology is going... As I said in one of my earlier posts... The grid itself is going to change and EVs will offer a lot of new value that will likely make blackouts less common.

There are already bidirectional EV chargers on the market. As they increase in popularity you'll have the ability to pull power from the dormant EV to use to power homes during outages or storms as well as return power to the grid to deal with sudden demand spikes.

https://wallbox.com/en_us/quasar2-dc-charger

https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/28/ar...e-home-market/

Are you talking about some sort of perpetual-motion/energy device, or do you not realize EV's charge at night where there is no solar and less wind? = carbon charging. Oh, but we are rapidly (almost exponentially) taking carbon out of the grid...

You are leaning on un-invented solutions to problems we already have, and gleefully jumping in face first anyway. Telling anyone who dissents that they are backwards thinking etc? There is nothing backwards about the problems we already have, and until the solutions are market ready, deployed, and scaled appropriately, it's just a dream. Your solutions are coming, but your problems are already here, and no one knows when the solutions arrive, but lets add to the load and let it be the power grid guys problem.



*disclaimer, I work in the energy industry, specifically the national grid. I have a bias, and an insiders view. It's getting worse faster than you think. Even the liberal Pro-EV media outlets are starting to publish that truth.

[G30M]

went to test a Kia EV6 AWD. it is a more relaxing GT car to drive than my 2021 M340i Touring in more ways than 10. there are two or 3 things that are better in the M340i but less than the better points in the EV6.

i have no idea how/why.

now i want one. question is to keep the M340i or have both. most likely keep M340i. also have a 300hp Subaru ICE.

i don't care about the planet. i decatted my Toyota van and ran it like that for 10 years until it died. i also don't like the govt. but unfortunately i think i like EVs!