14 ms·

The stumble over abandonment of ICE vehicles. By 2030 (8 years from now) at least six manufacturers will have stopped making ICE vehicles entirely, and India c

• mdip 4y ago
  > we need 30% more grid capacity, an insanely higher number of chargers (1 out of 4 are duds) / service companies / land, China still controls most of the resources for production (of raw resources, manufacturing, & assembly) and now they want the chips too. > Basically there are so many thing sthat can go wrong in the next 18 years ... There has to be a name for this particular kind of response to change (usually positive change[0]). Please don't read this as crapping on your points -- they're all valid. The problem is that it's identifying problems that "may occur in the future" using what technology we have, today, to solve them. It also presents those in a vacuum and ignores the unknown of what the world could look like after new vehicles sales gradually transition to 80% electric. We can speculate more easily on the negative, but it's a lot harder to predict the positive -- at least, the "societal changing positive effects". Consider that newer EVs can power your home during a power loss, or integrating EVs into the grid, itself. Reliance on traditional automobiles and how we rely on them is changing, as well. My driving habits, due to the vast availability of fully-remote work and the purchase of a OneWheel have been drastically reduced[1]. I went from ~20 gallons/week to ~10 gallons/month of gas. I've done the math a few times and it's stupid for me to own an ICE vehicle. I own it out of a desire of convenience that could probably be eliminated with Uber and when my kids are out of the house, I probably will no longer own a car. Until then, however, my car could basically be filling in that 30% gap (or whatever the gap happens to be at this very moment). Articles that recently hit the front page of HN related to Geothermal conversion of Coal Plants[2], the myriad of posts related to companies attempting the modern-day alchemy called "Nuclear Fusion", there's a lot of energy/money being spent in the space, much of it having nothing to do with reducing climate change but providing for an increasingly electricity dependent future. Even the incredibly slow-moving electric companies have made some pretty serious progress. I think back on my short life; I happen to currently live in the city I grew up in -- losing the power for a few days in the summer was a "normal thing", as was losing it during every miserable thunderstorm. The price of whole-home generators and the hardware to integrate it were so cost-prohibitive that few people owned one. I still do not, however, I've lost power maybe four times this year for under ten seconds. I've lost power once in three years for over an hour (still restored in under four hours). [0] I'm thinking something succinct like Hanlon's Razor. [1] 2,800 miles and going since I bought it. I grocery shop with it ... it's a good upper body workout carrying 6 bags back 1-3 miles. [2] Filed under "I'll believe it when I see it" but still.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• throwaddzuzxd 4y ago
  ICE = Internal Combustion Engine for other non-native who wouldn't understand how a vehicle can work on ice
  • lopis 4y ago
    I thought he meant the German ICE trains and I was really worried for a second.
    • Kaibeezy 4y ago
      In Case of Emergency vehicles?
  • mdp2021 4y ago
    The initialism is increasingly known. And yet bad: we could argue that "ICE vehicles" are connected cars, because - after William Gibson - Intrusion Countermeasures Electronics are not relevant on traditional combustion-based vehicles.
• suoduandao2 4y ago
  understandable if you don't want to give away the secret sauce, but what would you recommend an enterprising nibling do to prepare?
  • HideousKojima 4y ago
    People hoarded incandescent bulbs and large tank toilets in anticipation of similar bans.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• SamuelAdams 4y ago
  Also note that “half of all new cars sold” does not mean half of all vehicles on the road. People will keep using their ICE cars for 10-20 years after their manufacture date. I’m curious to see the actual projections of cars on the road that are electric vs ICE. My guess is, by 2040, it might be 25% (in the USA).
  • throwaway787544 4y ago
    About 1/4 of cars on the road globally will be electric but Europe and China will have a larger share than USA. Still, that means something like 25% of gas stations and parking lots worldwide having fast chargers. If they can't make that number, imagine the impact on driving when 1/4 of drivers are frustrated and their trips unrealistic. Passenger car ownership itself may fall, which would both hit the auto industry and bolster mass transit companies. But at the same time demand would be surging for ICE vehicles / infrastructure and gas prices will probably rise due to their devestment in anticipation of the EV revolution.
    • monodeldiablo 4y ago
      ... or charging infrastructure companies would simply expand their offerings to meet demand, since expansion for them is comparatively cheap. That, at least to me, seems to be the more likely scenario. Also keep in mind that fueling behavior for EV owners is different than for ICE vehicle owners. Fast chargers are useful for road trips, but unnecessary and expensive for day-to-day driving. Most commuters will simply charge at home/work/the store/etc, where the raw inputs to charging infrastructure (car-adjacent space and electricity) are already in place and slower, cheaper charging is sufficient.
      • linuxftw 4y ago
        > simply charge at home/work/the store/etc This requires having expensive, redundant charging infrastructure at all these places. It works today because far less than 1% of cars on the road in most of the developed world are electric. If 25% were electric, that free charging at the store and work is going away, there won't be enough bays to charge all the cars. Whenever I hear 'X company is going all electric by Y date' I assume it's either an outright marketing lie, or that company will soon thereafter be out of business.
• jackmott 4y ago
• blinkingled 4y ago
  It's amazing to me how little talk there is about reduce and recycle - with remote work, better city and public transport planning etc if we could completely eliminate the use of cars for the vast majority of the populace we would not need to mine more for batteries, wonder where and how our electricity is going to come from and how we are going to offset carbon. We literally have no vision for optimization, we just seem to obsess about and creating one problem to solve another for the sake of capacity and scalability.
  • elmomle 4y ago
    The problem is that it's a classic large-scale prisoner's dilemma. Living in a walking city is nicer than living in a driving city. But living in a walking city with a car is even nicer! The only way to fix it is by passing taxes or other restrictive legislation, which has so far been extremely difficult because most voters choose "let's make things a bit easier for you today" over "we should all sacrifice now to make things probably better later".
    • ericmay 4y ago
      > But living in a walking city with a car is even nicer! I think that's fine. Most over time will realize they don't need 2 or more cars if they're living in a true walking city because driving will be more inconvenient than walking, and eventually either paying for or building a garage (or having it used up by 2 cars that are seldom used) or paying for street parking or other things will cause people to change habits. It just takes time if you have a walkable city. Personally I think the sweet spot is one crossover SUV, highly walkable and bikeable city, and probably street cars that run up and down main commerce arteries. At that point you really do cover almost every conceivable local transit need or chore that you might have to undertake.
      • cudgy 4y ago
        “… because driving will be more inconvenient than walking” Not sure about this. For example, look at the school bus stops and the stacks of cars waiting for children only to drive 300 feet back to their house. Weather is another factor that makes driving more convenient. Many people are accustomed to air conditioned spaces and have a small comfort range.
• bko 4y ago
  > By 2030 (8 years from now) at least six manufacturers will have stopped making ICE vehicles entirely. Do you believe this? I know its a stated goal, but is there anything to hold the company's accountable or is this just a promise? I can't imagine them giving up a cash cow and something they've been doing for decades. EV sales in the USU are 5.6% of the market. I just find the claim that these companies will just seamlessly switch over to electric when they can't even get a decent touch screen in a car a decade after the first iPad.
  • throwaway787544 4y ago
    They are public companies; it will be kinda obvious from their annual reports if they aren't investing/devesting enough to hit those goals, and if they dont announce it to the public that will cause them bigger problems. They anticipate increased costs for ICE vehicles and increased profit from EV which is why they're moving forward. They don't control the segments of the market they need to make it happen, so it's a risky bet. However, the manufacturers that are switching first are largely luxury brands, so they make a healthy enough profit that even if they stumble they wont be under water.
  • CharlieDigital 4y ago
    > Do you believe this? There are a lot of built-in incentives for manufacturers to switch to electric once the market demand exists. Less moving parts to warranty means potentially less long-tail costs for parts as well as less capital allocation for potential warranty service claims paid to dealerships. Less moving parts that can fail. Less parts in general. AWD in electrics is typically done with a front and rear motor configuration versus using moving parts to transfer power from the front to the rear. More opportunities to upsell with lower capital costs. Model stratification by power output in ICE typically means more complex engineering (forced induction) or larger engine; both of which require significantly more R&D, testing, and validation. Once you sink capital investments into an ICE engine and manufacturing line, you need to reuse it over many years across a large range of vehicles to recoup the cost. Model stratification in electrics is via bigger battery packs (stuff more of the same cells in there) and multiple motors. Basically, electric cars are fiscally better for manufacturers in every way -- so long as consumers are willing to pay the premium AND willing to live with the inconveniences (less infrastructure for refueling, longer refueling, range anxiety). What Tesla did was de-risk the market by showing that consumers will buy the product despite its flaws.
• kurthr 4y ago
  Is there a reason you assume people won't simply charge at night with relatively standard 240V (or even 120V) chargers? Most cars don't average more than 60 miles a day, which is less than 20kWh. In much of the US you could install 10-15 solar panels to do that even in the winter. Now solar panels are mostly made in China (as are almost all consumer electronics), but that seems like a far more general problem to solve.
  • throwaway787544 4y ago
    Charging in cities and apartment compexes is still an unsolved problem, and most people live in cities. For example, just to provide enough chargers for Philadelphia's 1.5M residents (63% of them drive to work), one of every ~6 car lengths on every residential sidewalk would need concrete dug up and a charger installed. The city will never pay for that, and it would be a logistical and political nightmare. Even if individuals went through a city process to get a permit to do it themselves and pay for & install their own charger, and assuming there was a posted parking limit for only EVs, some jerk down the street with a Tesla will take the spot, and you may have to drive blocks and blocks to find a free charger. Many people may decide to just stick to ICE.
    • justsomelittle 4y ago
      Why would it require that? In the UK instead of doing all that the councils have been installing EV charging points into streetlights, negating any requirement to dig up the pavements (beyond that required to replace a streetlight) to install these.
      • throwaway787544 4y ago
        That is not being considered currently, I don't know why. https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/electric-car-charging-stations-philly/ https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/electric-car-charging-sta...
    • galdosdi 4y ago
      Philadelphia is an interesting choice of example. I've seen charging cords going out windows to cars from time to time, facilitated by the popularity of the rowhouse. (IMHO even in south philly, you can usually snag a spot in front of your house several times per week if you care enough to try-- if you only drive enough to charge once or twice a week this is already enough) Obviously not an ideal solution but a good example of the kind of stop gaps we'll be seeing over time. I'm also already seeing rapid chargers frequently in strip malls and stuff. So maybe doing errands and spending at least an hour there once a week will be another stop gap. Considering how often streets get repaved and that we're talking about gradual change over the next decade or two, and that there are inferior but workable stopgaps as mentioned above (that will allow people to get by, yet also incentivize them to loudly demand better) I think there's time to add the charging stations necessary as needed without any serious issues.
• neon_electro 4y ago
  You wanna provide some sources for your claims?
• maverick74 4y ago
  What amazes me is how little we talk about hydrogen (H2) fuel cell vehicles. Because, unless we get a tremendous breakthrough in the next 5 years, electric battery vehicles will be a very big pain. -Batteries are terribly expensive (and prices are not going down as fast as expected) -Batteries degrade too fast -Batteries take too long to charge -Electricity prices are already going up terribly fast to take advantage of the boom (and blaming the war, and everything else to justify it's rise) -Batteries pollute a lot more than previously though -recycling Batteries is hard -Batteries component materials are rare -if you get into a crash your Battery will most likely be affected - which means you will probably have to spend almost the price of a new vehicle Can we bet a little more on the most abundante substance on the universe? I know it also has it's problems... But they do seen less...
  • CabSauce 4y ago
    I'm not particularly knowledgeable, but my impression is that hydrogen might work for specific applications, but we don't have a very efficient of generating it. It still takes substantially more energy than if we just store the energy in batteries.
    • buescher 4y ago
      Steam reforming of methane from natural gas to product hydrogen is in fact very efficient (up to ~85% iirc). It is not, however, carbon-neutral. At a system level, the weak point is the fuel cell and they can be about 50% efficient. So you have an overall efficiency of a little over 40%. Batteries can be very efficient but that is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You have to get the energy somewhere. Good solar systems are about 30% efficient. Turbines are about 30% efficient. Energy efficiency isn't the problem with hydrogen and fuel cells. They have other problems.
    • pasttense01 4y ago
      The cost of storing energy in batteries is truly enormous when talking about large amounts (for example two weeks of U.S. total energy usage); this would probably costs trillions of dollars. But instead if you stored this in caverns or convert it to ammonia or another fuel... the storage cost will be a small fraction of this.
• Salgat 4y ago
  Are you purposely forgetting the billions in state and federal charger subsidies, and the billions in residential solar subsidies being paid out? Total US energy consumption right now is at the same level it was in 2007.
  • throwaway787544 4y ago
    Many companies choose not to take subsidies/grants due to the restrictions they come with. Many areas of the country also have lobbyists preventing things like selling excess capacity back to the grid. The subsidies will also lower over time; the govt isn't going to pay people to use solar in 2040.
• JasserInicide 4y ago
  I'm quite worried about the future of cars, especially EVs. I will never own a Tesla due to their always-on tracking and blatant anti-consumer practices like hiding upgrades on the car behind a paywall. Sadly ICE manufacturers are following suit with more and more useless dogshit like touchscreens everywhere, always-on data connections, and subscriptions for shit like seat warmers. I think this apprehension is partially fueling the skyrocketing prices of used vehicles (in addition to the chip shortage, but that should be assuaged in the coming months).
  • dont__panic 4y ago
    I see a lot more negative anti-car sentiment online these days than I used to. I hope this leads to more car-free parts of the world. I don't want to use a car on a daily basis, owning one is a chore, but I'm forced to by the world that I live in. I'm also worried about the future of cars, of course. I'm an optimist, though -- I hope that the oncoming car dystopia leads to a rejection of cars by a bigger chunk of society. And a more sustainable, quiet, walkable, bikeable world for those of us who embrace it.
    • s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I hope there are space for both of us in whatever future comes to pass. I love cars, trucks, and the things they enable me to do. Literally most of the things that make my life worth living are tied to using one. Perhaps people can segregate into different cities or areas based on their preferences .
      • dont__panic 4y ago
        I respect your preferences -- I certainly don't want to take vehicles away from everyone. But I do want to limit their impact on my happiness and the sustainability of our civilization. Personally I think personal vehicles simply shouldn't exist in dense cities. They take up too much space to move around and to park, they cause too much noise, and when they interact with other transportation -- by foot, by bike, by scooter, whatever -- there's a fractional blood price I'm not OK with. Not to mention the fact that people in cars in the cities I've lived in frequently become raging jerks who use their car as a weapon to enforce their own entitlement to all public space. As a car enthusiast, do you think it's OK to ban personal vehicles from US cities? I envision a world where secure parking garages exist on the periphery of a public transit, walk, and bike-dominated space for folks who still want to own a car while living in a city -- or for folks who want to visit a city via car. This periphery would largely align with existing ring roads around US cities. Outside of the periphery, folks could live near the benefits of the city with a garage, car, street parking, etc. But they wouldn't travel into the city via car. Deliveries would largely happen at night or in the early morning, when pedestrian traffic is the lightest. Ride shares would exist for the disabled only, with everyone else using their feet, a bicycle, or public transit to move around the car-free zone. Building out public transit, bike lanes, etc. would become very cheap in the absence of personal vehicle traffic, because you could just put street cars, buses, bike paths, and light rail on top of 90% of the existing streets. And of course, if you don't live in a major city, your life wouldn't change at all. You just wouldn't drive into the downtown of any of the top 50-to-100-population US cities. I suspect some small towns might embrace a similar model if it's successful in big cities, but not many. What do you think of this future model? It would let people who want to live car-free in a community do so in a dense urban environment. It would let people who want to live with cars do so in the existing exurbs and rural parts of the US. I have a hard time seeing major flaws, but I'm likely biased since I desperately want a car-free environment here in the US.
• dangus 4y ago
  EVs aren't going to be popular because they are the solution to climate change. The better solution to climate change is sustainable city planning and development that minimizes energy use for transportation needs, emphasizing walking, bicycles, and rail travel. EVs are going to take over no matter what because in their end state they're better than ICE vehicles in nearly every way. Quieter, smoother, simpler, faster, cleaner (air pollution), and potentially cheaper. That said, I absolutely disagree with the amount of shade you're throwing at the technology in the context of climate, emissions, and fuel: > we need 30% more grid capacity That's not very hard, especially since EVs are being phased in gradually. We had the same problem with air conditioners and it was no big deal. > an insanely higher number of chargers Which will happen because there is a clear financial incentive to build them. They're cheaper to run and maintain than gas stations and the fuel is transported much more easily. > service companies Are service companies a finite resource? > land What land do you mean? Car-based infrastructure already uses and has a bunch of land. Where is it that EVs need more of it? > China still controls most of the resources for production We already have this situation with the Middle East/Russia with oil Here's the biggest issue I have with your comment: you're minimizing massive reduction in oil usage: > and only 8 million barrels of crude will be displaced by the estimated number of new EVs That's a lot! Globally, 43.7 million barrels of oil are used per day for transportation fuel. [1] That means that EVs will reduce crude oil usage for transportation by 18.3%! That's really significant!
  • throwaway787544 4y ago
    We need to reduce global emissions by 55 percent by 2030 to avoid catastrophe. But even if every single (inc. trucks) vehicle were electrified, it would at max reduce emissions by 20 percent. At the current estimates for 2045 it's going to be like 5-10% reduced emissions, well after we go above 2 degrees temp increase over a decade before. While we can cheer for EVs reducing emissions, it will do nothing to stop the actual problem with climate change, which is global catastrophe from runaway warming. Add to that the problems we are setting ourselves up for with failure to properly handle the coming EVs and the picture looks grim.
    • dangus 4y ago
• more_corn 4y ago
  Rooftop solar. Done.
• irthomasthomas 4y ago
  The quantity of CO2 needing to be dumped in to the atmosphere to manufacture new cars to meet this is going to be astronomical. The majority of the CO2 cost of a car is in the manufacturing. I don't understand why they are doing this?
  • trgn 4y ago
    ICE cars pollute the local environment, which is worse imho than their contribution to global warming. ICE cars are noisy, stink, and have unhealthy exhaust. For those reasons alone, an electric car is better.
    • irthomasthomas 4y ago
      I agree 100%,and if they sold them on that, I might support them. But then I would rather scrap cars altogether. Phase them out over 20 years, and replace with public transport and bicycles.
      • irthomasthomas 4y ago
        Plus EV taxis, and private cars only for those with a special need.
    • mdp2021 4y ago
      > noisy Now for reality instead: since people have developed the direst situation of being "brainless", I have been near vehicles you would praise, and the noise they make is _unbearable_. That is because some satanic critters, which unfortunately constitute empowered components in management, marketing and public, believe it a "good idea" to replace traditional engine noise with synths of '90s operating system boot samples. This happens because people have lost their nature, of feedback-based machines, and can go on living after being shot (they will not know about it). -- Edit: an hybrid in electric mode just parked near me, in real time, and the noise was not the most particularly annoying - it's a Hyundai - but it was definitely upsetting and irritating (though much better than other hellish nightmares I have heard driving near me). I assess that normal individuals would probably be not that bothered when they pass on the streets many yards distant - but I am not sure, it really depends which audio bands will reach you. I am pretty sure that others I have experienced will be fully unbearable at a much longer distance. Edit2: they just left now, and the noise at the start was quite acceptable now - just a mildly loud fan, nothing perverse. It seems Hyundai has guessed a few effects properly. (Issue is, others have not - and this logically opens for more.) Those evidences of hell on earth are driving by clearly unregulated - and it is doubtful that given the mental state of nowadays earth crawlers they will ever be regulated (you need a clean humanity still capable of being bothered by noise for that). And for what the single sniper that hit this post is concerned - likewise for silence, let us refrain to spend much verbal judgement.
• JKCalhoun 4y ago
  > The stumble over abandonment of ICE vehicles. > By 2030 (8 years from now) at least six manufacturers will have stopped making ICE vehicles entirely. If those two seem out of step with one another then I propose that one of them will relent with regard to the other. (No one is making these six manufacturers stick to their forecasts.)
• moistly 4y ago
  > an insanely higher number of chargers Or use battery swapping, like China is doing. This enables many gas stations to remain viable, allows far better battery health monitoring/remediation, permits slower, less stressful charging & greatly reduces the grid issue, eliminates the battery as a limitation of the car’s lifespan, etc.
• mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
  I would love to see some company produce components someone could purchase and replace an ICE engine with to make it an EV. I'm not talking 300 mile range EV with fancy software, etc. just basic stuff like a battery pack sized to replace a gas tank, electric motor and other components, etc. Some kit that you could take a modern-ish Corolla/Civic and turn it into a 100mi range EV which could satisfy a ton of households that have 2nd/3rd cars. Would be really neat to have them be more like PC components than proprietary.
  • NibbleAbit 4y ago
    I've been looking for this too. Not just for cars, but also lawnmowers, snow blowers, chain saws ...
    • asdff 4y ago
      We could have general purpose electric motors by now but the corporations are instead pushing proprietary formats that we can't retool ourselves upon us. More money for them this way.
      • HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
        If you want a general purpose electric motor, just head on over to your local farm supply store. Lots of them there.
    • HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
      I have a nice Husqvarna brush cutter where the motor has a failed bearing and they stopped making that model. One of my backburner projects is to electrify it. Current candidate is a small router motor: probably has enough power and it can meet the duty cycle requirements. Like I said in my other post, the biggest issue is the mechanical coupling from motor to device: they're all non-standard.
  • HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    You can do this now. The technology is here. But bear in mind that each application requires a specific mechanical interface, and that's the problem. People swap ICE motors in cars all the time, but they are skilled enough to adapt them as needed.
• phpisthebest 4y ago
  But you did not even talk about CME events, Astroid Impacts, or Yellow Stone blowing up.... That is weak doomsday stuff to leave out them. I will say also, any government promises or actions more than 1 election cycle out are pipe dreams by those governments, When we get to 2030, I will be SHOCKED if even 20% of the nations promising to ban ICE sales will actually do it
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• captainmuon 4y ago
  It's feels a bit weird for me as a left-winger to make this argument, but won't all that be solved by the market? If there are not enough chargers, won't that create an incentive to build more? And yeah, you probably can't build them fast enough, or the grid capacity will not be sufficient, but won't people then just move to places where they can? Or switch to alternative modes of transportation? I think the fallacy is that people just want to replace ICE cars with EVs as they are, and then realize you need a lot of space and grid capacity to charge them, etc. But because of the scaling problems you mention, there will be a very large pressure to build better public transport. If people can't charge their EV, or can't afford a car, or don't have good transportation, they will move somewhere else. This is structural change, and yeah it is going to be inconvenient and expensive (and we could have done it better with more foresight), but ultimatively we will figure it out.
  • thfuran 4y ago
    >And yeah, you probably can't build them fast enough, or the grid capacity will not be sufficient, but won't people then just move to places where they can? Or switch to alternative modes of transportation? This sounds fine to you? Not having enough grid capacity means much higher prices and more frequent blackouts. Not having enough charging infrastructure means many people may be unable to fuel their vehicles. "Sorry, but this city is shit now, I guess you're going to have to move to Texas for their great electric grid" doesn't seem like a position we should be aiming to put many people in.
    • captainmuon 4y ago
      We're not going to have frequent blackouts. At least here in Germany, it is already the case that you have to get permission from the electricity company to install a wallbox for charging, I can imagine it's the same in most places. What's going to happen is that at some point having a car gets slightly more expensive. Some people will put off buying a car for a little while. And they'll vote for candidates who promise to build more power infrastructure, or public transport. When people are moving the next time, they'll take the infrastructure into account in their decision, and move preferentially to cities with more capacity. It's not like we are going to put 100 million EVs out there tomorrow. Some places will become marginally shittier, some will become better, and there will be plenty of time for everything to equilibrate.
• mywittyname 4y ago
  > and so many things we don't even have a plan for, Why do you have the impression "nobody" is planning for these things? These topics are talked about endlessly in every medium by laypeople. Billions of dollars in public and private sector investment is being funneled into everyone of these topics. The complaint about grid capacity baffles me. The USA used to regularly growth capacity by well over 30% a decade. It only stopped expanding because energy efficiency standards were so damn successful that net usage declined in spite of population growth, and the majority new capacity went to displacing coal production.