[dominoM]

Originally Posted by Karmic Man

From an environmental point of view, even by excluding mining materials for batteries or recycling old batteries. 60% of energy generated in the US in 2021 came from burning fossil fuels. Having more EVs on the road will raise the electricity demand a lot higher, requiring even more fossil fuels. EVs just shift the pollution source from ICE to the power stations.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...on%20in%202021.

All true. Except I don't understand how more EVs would equal more fossil fuels (because electric motors are 2x more efficient). But let's be honest, if the world really wants as many EVs on the road as they say they do by 2030, then our mining and electricity infrastructure is not prepared to handle that. It's going to get messy real quick. We'll see I guess.

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by dominoM

All true. Except I don't understand how more EVs would equal more fossil fuels (because electric motors are 2x more efficient). But let's be honest, if the world really wants as many EVs on the road as they say they do by 2030, then our mining and electricity infrastructure is not prepared to handle that. It's going to get messy real quick. We'll see I guess.

Great points. But aren’t they more than 2x more efficient? If I get 17 mpg on my M3, and 85 MPGe on the tesla, is that 5x more efficient? I wonder too if efficiency can be measured by the cost of the commodity. Probably not, but if gas is 3.70 per gallon (premium where I live), and electricity is 0.07 per kWh… to fill up in m3 is $50, in tesla is $5… is the efficiency 10x? Genuinely curious. And footnote we have more hydroelectric power here. In California or places coal and NG dependent, I imagine it’s a much less efficient cycle.

[Rat_House]

Gen z: we don’t want cars
Millennial’s and older: we love the experience of ice engines in our sports cars.
BMW: here’s some performance EVs

Should be a good one to watch play out 🍿

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by dominoM

All true. Except I don't understand how more EVs would equal more fossil fuels (because electric motors are 2x more efficient). But let's be honest, if the world really wants as many EVs on the road as they say they do by 2030, then our mining and electricity infrastructure is not prepared to handle that. It's going to get messy real quick. We'll see I guess.

They may be twice as efficient but they have to cater for extra two or 300kg of additional weight. Brakes wear quicker, as will tyres and the roads they're driven on which all translate into the use of even more fossil fuel based products.

It's not a simple 2-variable equation; there are hundreds of variables which when considered in perspective, put the EV into a deficit position.

In the 50s/60s/70s, when there was a lot more metal in the average family car, it still didn't weigh as much as they do now. Best yet, they lasted for decades.

Our capitalist consumer oriented economy, has now built-in obsolescence for cars to last ten years instead of 40. That too adds much to the stress we're placing on scarce resources.

Sadly, there's no simple solution, just a lot of hot air!

[M3JetPilot]

To clarify a few of my points:

1. I wasn’t saying we shouldn’t go EV nor was I saying all EVs require being driven 100’s of thousands of miles before beating out an ICE car. I am saying the solutions to our abuse of the climate shouldn’t be one dimensional and this is especially true of cars. The EV isn’t the significant solution it was marketed as. Is it part of the solution? Yes, but so could advances in ICE technology that could at least help us long term transition to a different type of car. But we won’t get those advances because the ICE was labeled evil and the manufactures had to begin dumping it because of unwise legislation that set arbitrary dates to kill the ICE. As usual, politicians and misguided climate advocates trying to gain votes and followers to enable their power, even if it still hurts the planet under their new policies.

2. Just to be clear, I do not deny the harm humans are doing to the planet. It is a fact humans are needlessly destroying our home. However, I do deny that the loudest advocates for the environment are good for our planet. They are mostly talk and little effective action. A good example is recycling. Around 14% of the items you put in the recycle bin actually get recycled. The rest goes to the landfill or ocean. Why do we recycle? So politicians can say they did something for the environment and environmental activists can say they forced the politicians to take action. The solution to trash isn’t to be found in the recycle bin. It is far more complex and expensive than giving every house a recycle bin.

3. Partial solutions to environmental destruction only delay our planets death. They do nothing to prevent it. The EV falls into the category of a partial solution at best, an illusion of a solution at worst. Carbon capture, nuclear energy and alternative fuels, to name a few, should all be explored and be on the table. If we stop at environmental “feel-goodisms” as our solutions then we will accomplish nothing long term for the future of our planet.

[///M TOWN]

Originally Posted by Allenssmart

if climate change is real why does it still snow?
checkmate liberals

FYI… I am not a liberal…

If not real, why did snow crab vamish historically from the northwest, seeking colder waters !?

https://www.kq2.com/news/billions-of...f96c288dd.html

[///M TOWN]

Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad

They may be twice as efficient but they have to cater for extra two or 300kg of additional weight. Brakes wear quicker, as will tyres and the roads they're driven on which all translate into more fossil fuels.

It's not a simple 2-variable equation; there are hundreds of variables which when considered in perspective, put the EV into a deficit position.

In the 50s/60s/70s, when there was a lot more metal in the average family car, it still didn't weigh as much as they do now. Best yet, they lasted for decades.

Our capitalist consumer oriented economy, has now built-in obsolescence for cars to last ten years instead of 40. That too adds much to the stress we're placing on scarce resources.

Sadly, there's no simple solution, just a lot of hot air!

Brakes do not wear quicker, just so you know… It’s actually the opposite !!

😉

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by ///M TOWN

Brakes do not wear quicker, just so you know… It’s actually the opposite !!

😉

Thank you for educating me - I was under the impression that the more weight you carry, the harder brakes have to work to stop you

I stand corrected

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by M3JetPilot

To clarify a few of my points:

1. I wasn’t saying we shouldn’t go EV nor was I saying all EVs require being driven 100’s of thousands of miles before beating out an ICE car. I am saying the solutions to our abuse of the climate shouldn’t be one dimensional and this is especially true of cars. The EV isn’t the significant solution it was marketed as. Is it part of the solution? Yes, but so could advances in ICE technology that could at least help us long term transition to a different type of car. But we won’t get those advances because the ICE was labeled evil and the manufactures had to begin dumping it because of unwise legislation that set arbitrary dates to kill the ICE. As usual, politicians and misguided climate advocates trying to gain votes and followers to enable their power, even if it still hurts the planet under their new policies.

2. Just to be clear, I do not deny the harm humans are doing to the planet. It is a fact humans are needlessly destroying our home. However, I do deny that the loudest advocates for the environment are good for our planet. They are mostly talk and little effective action. A good example is recycling. Around 14% of the items you put in the recycle bin actually get recycled. The rest goes to the landfill or ocean. Why do we recycle? So politicians can say they did something for the environment and environmental activists can say they forced the politicians to take action. The solution to trash isn’t to be found in the recycle bin. It is far more complex and expensive than giving every house a recycle bin.

3. Partial solutions [...]

I love your remarks and salute you for voicing them.

There is one slight correction I wish to propose:

We're not killing the planet!!

The planet was here 4.5 billion years before we came around, and will be here another 3 billion years after we're gone.

We're destroying the ecosystem and our chance of survival with it; that's what we're doing.

Evolution will continue unabated as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Hopefully in two or three million years after we've vanished, the Earth will be heaven again.

[M3JetPilot]

Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad

I love your remarks and salute you for voicing them.

There is one slight correction I wish to propose:

We're not killing the planet!!

The planet was here 4.5 billion years before we came around, and will be here another 3 billion years after we're gone.

We're destroying the ecosystem and our chance of survival with it; that's what we're doing.

Evolution will continue unabated as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Hopefully in two or three million years after we've vanished, the Earth will be heaven again.

Thanks for the kind words and same to you. I get your point but I’m just using the phrase “killing the planet” to say the same thing. Consume all the natural resources, kill off all the life forms, and make it difficult if not impossible for life to continue in any form. That last one would require a nuclear war but hopefully we aren’t that stupid, though recent events make me wonder. If I were to say Mars is a dead planet, would you agree? Sure, the planet is still here but it’s dead as far as complex life as we know it is concerned. If we turn Earth into Mars, I would argue we murdered a planet. I’m curious, why do you think the distinction is important?

For anyone reading this I would also clarify I do not consider myself an environmentalist. I would simply say humans need to be good stewards of the planet. Those who consume indiscriminately and those who would ban consumption are both illogical and unrealistic in my opinion. For example, instead of banning Brazilian Rosewood, protect the rainforest, create Brazilian Rosewood tree farms and then harvest the wood responsibly. The solutions are complex, have long time horizons, are difficult to achieve, and have large financial costs. The extremes on both sides of this issue don’t help the situation.

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by M3JetPilot

Thanks for the kind words and same to you. I get your point but I’m just using the phrase “killing the planet” to say the same thing. Consume all the natural resources, kill off all the life forms, and make it difficult if not impossible for life to continue in any form. That last one would require a nuclear war but hopefully we aren’t that stupid, though recent events make me wonder. If I were to say Mars is a dead planet, would you agree? Sure, the planet is still here but it’s dead as far as complex life as we know it is concerned. If we turn Earth into Mars, I would argue we murdered a planet. I’m curious, why do you think the distinction is important?

For anyone reading this I would also clarify I do not consider myself an environmentalist. I would simply say humans need to be good stewards of the planet. Those who consume indiscriminately and those who would ban consumption are both illogical and unrealistic in my opinion. For example, instead of banning Brazilian Rosewood, protect the rainforest, create Brazilian Rosewood tree farms and then harvest the wood responsibly. The solutions are complex, have long time horizons, are difficult to achieve, and have large financial costs. The extremes on both sides of this issue don’t help the situation.

Once again, you have proven yourself to be the "human" we all should aspire to be like.

My friend, you've nailed it on the head; until we acknowledge that the greed and love of Money and, power, as the underlying issue, not fossil fuel as an example, we will never address the real issues that plague the planet at present.

None of us "need" a new phone every year, but hey, Apple 16 looks better than Apple 15 so let's get one - and so on, and so on.

Fundamentally, we need a massive global catastrophy to wake us up - one much worse than COVID - sadly, that's exactly where we're heading.

As for your Mars analogy, I'm not sure if we will kill Earth, not even with an all out nuclear war. Crocodiles and cockroaches survived what destroyed most life on the planet 65 million years ago. If you look at "life" as a living concern seperate from the organisms enjoying it, then life will probably survive even if most living organisms may perish through our arrogance.

As such, I remain hopeful we won't roast Earth like something or somebody did Mars.

The distinction is that we are so arrogant as a species that we think very little of all other species - you don't have to be an environmentalist or any other ***ist to realise that.

Once again I salute you for your level-headedness

[///M TOWN]

Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad

Thank you for educating me - I was under the impression that the more weight you carry, the harder brakes have to work to stop you

I stand corrected

No worries

With regen braking the e-motors take away speed quite fast 💨 and the actual brakes are hardly used compared to their ICE counterparts

It’s like driving a golf cart, if set up correctly, you can drive almost entirely with one pedal driving

You’d get use to it very quickly 😀

[NotSharocks]

No manual no care.

[jmxtrem]

a mixed combustion -ev its the properly thing ,there are market for both lines of business

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by ///M TOWN

No worries

With regen braking the e-motors take away speed quite fast 💨 and the actual brakes are hardly used compared to their ICE counterparts

It’s like driving a golf cart, if set up correctly, you can drive almost entirely with one pedal driving

You’d get use to it very quickly 😀

Yeah here’s the problem with high performance EV’s- after you get over the new car excitement, reality sets in that it’s “like a golf cart” and therefore lacks the fun factor. Teslas and i’s are great for commuting, but they don’t have that exhilaration factor of ICE. My Z is infinitely more fun than our Model Y or model 3 perf before it.

On the track, a high performance EV may do well, and in fact the model 3 perf beat the F80 M3 on some tracks and in a straight line. So bmw threw everything at the G80 to make it outperform that car. But when I had the model 3 perf it wasn’t “fun” or luxurious. Sure, fun to jump out in front at stop lights, but in the mountains the weight was fraught with understeer and running out of range was a real and present danger.

And this is where BMW (and Porsche) are taking their cars in the future. The hybrid approach would be better but it’s also a huge weight penalty. Even the M3 (g80cx) had become too heavy and big, in my opinion and having owned and driven for 9k miles.

The M2 is already a bit porky, but probably the best option out there for the fun factor - manual, small, reasonably priced… making it an EV would be a travesty and the death knoll of the high performance ICE era...