6 ms·

Maybe that’s the optics but I’m inclined to believe him, the EV adoption plan relies on technology that doesn’t exist and the simplistic idea we take all the ga

Maybe that’s the optics but I’m inclined to believe him, the EV adoption plan relies on technology that doesn’t exist and the simplistic idea we take all the gas cars and replace them with electric cars I’m not convinced actually scales. I think we’re literally going to run out of the worlds natural resources before because we get even close to making enough EVs. I actually see a need to shift more people to not using cars as much or at all, and having those people walk/bike/transit. I also think lighter EVs such as scooters may be popular and they have ones with swappable batteries which work like swapping a propane tank. I also think the hybrids Toyota sells which require significantly less of certain resources will be appealing. Also finally telecommuting will be a big thing among white collar workers who won’t need anything more than a hybrid or light EV. My money is on Toyota being correct and is seeing gas cars being around for quite a lot longer than anticipated. I see the person of the future being less mobile. However technology is inherently unpredictable and advances in mining in particular could change this.

BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
> I think we’re literally going to run out of the worlds natural resources before because we get even close to making enough EVs. What are you expecting us to deplete from the planet in the next 30ish years?
- bertil 4y ago
  Ice doesn’t go into EVs, but that one will be depleted within 30 years. Lithium is the most common element cited when that argument is raised: you can find trace amounts in seawater, so the total amount is enormous, but the extraction cost will make that an expensive process. If there are large desalinisation efforts (to get fresh water) Lithium could be captured in that context. Copper, in spite of being very abundant, might actually be a problem (if you include electricity transport lines). My assumption is that the ecological impact of cars will be too great and increasingly obviously so. People will switch to public transport and bicycles, including electric bikes. But all that is overlooking the tiny detail that half of humanity will have to move or die. That part is probably the key element of context people forget to include in their speculation.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    Most electrical transmission lines are much cheaper aluminum. There are some weird rules about using that safely, but nothing a lineman can't handle.
almost_usual 4y ago
> I actually see a need to shift more people to not using cars as much or at all, and having those people walk/bike/transit. This is the solution but I guess we’ll see how consuming our way to ‘sustainability’ works.
skrowl 4y ago
If we had a magic button that replaced all gasoline cars with electric cars in the USA this moment, the power grids would basically explode from the additional load from everyone charging them, in all 50 states. We're DECADES away from having enough power generation and delivery to get everyone on electric cars, and that's not even considering the "How the F is everyone going to afford to buy electric cars in the first place?" problem. Look at the lines to charge EVs in states like California already, and that's with ~5% of new car sales being EVs. Multiple that by a factor of 20 and just laugh. Every state that has passed "We're going to ban the sale of gasoline cars after 20xx" is going to have to repeal it in shame, or just force their residents to drive to the nearest red state when they want to buy a new car.
- bertil 4y ago
  We are less than a decade away from triggering lynchpin mechanisms that will completely transform the world, and force half of humanity to either emigrate or die. If you believe that it will take longer to have enough electricity for everyone to drive an electric car, I’m worried that the adjustment variable is not going to be what portions of cars are electric (what you have in mind), or what portion of the population uses a car (where I think we can make the fastest progress) but what’s the size of the population. However, if less than half of the population of a country dies (which seems likely in the US, for instance, although not by a lot) then it means it’s a favoured country compared to areas that would have become inhabitable. Immigration to that country will explode. I’m not sure how the population will continue to decrease given that pressure, but it will have to.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- davewritescode 4y ago
  Most of those bans exclude plug-in hybrids. They’re way less draconian than most people are making them out to be. We’re moving to a future where every car has a battery electric hybrid motor if it’s not a full EV.
- 4y ago
generalizations 4y ago
> shift more people to not using cars as much or at all, and having those people walk/bike/transit This only works for city dwellers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- guelo 4y ago
  Yet somehow humans managed to live through 99.99% of our history without cars.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    And people lived their whole lives within what, a 50-mile radius?
    - timeon 4y ago
      Most people still do.
    - muti 4y ago
      Is that no longer possible? Our collective carbon footprint is highly correlated with our "travel footprint"
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    Humans managed to live through 99.99% of our history without 99.99% of what we currently rely on to live.
    - amelius 4y ago
      Surviving vs. thriving.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 4y ago
MrsPeaches 4y ago
I think your point about light EVs is salient. To me, current EV cars are like those early IC "cars" that looked like horse drawn carts with a motor [1]. The prime mover has changed (even though the innovation sits with the energy source i.e. batteries) and that often leads to change in the form factor of vehicles. [1] e.g. https://www.supercars.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1905-Curved-Dash-Oldsmobile.jpg https://www.supercars.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/19...
- bluGill 4y ago
  A large part of the form factor is for aerodynamics, and facts about the human body dictate a lot. Without needing a radiator there is room for some change up front.
  - Falkon1313 4y ago
    Some change, yes, but can't take too much away the front. People still crash a lot. Even cabover trucks, though much safer than cars, are a bit less safe than ones with noses. And for a little car, even more so. As long as they're car-ish in form factor, they need something up front to take the inevitable impacts. Of course, scooters and bikes just wave that off. Cars could too, if limited to significantly lower speeds. But good luck making slow cars and low speed limits popular. Especially in car-centric America, where slowing down would make many normal trips unbearably long.
Consultant32452 4y ago
The solution has always and will always be that the wealthy do whatever tf they want and the peasants get stuck on whatever the people in charge decide they are stuck on.
soheil 4y ago
Certainly momentum to support gas cars is great that itself could be reason enough for a large automaker to keep making them. All the infrastructure like gas stations, oil change shops, gas car mechanic shops, mechanics with decades of experience, refineries, fuel transport trucks, etc. don't go away overnight specially in countries with low GDPs.

BaculumMeumEst 4y ago

> I think we’re literally going to run out of the worlds natural resources before because we get even close to making enough EVs. What are you expecting us to deplete from the planet in the next 30ish years?

bertil 4y ago
Ice doesn’t go into EVs, but that one will be depleted within 30 years. Lithium is the most common element cited when that argument is raised: you can find trace amounts in seawater, so the total amount is enormous, but the extraction cost will make that an expensive process. If there are large desalinisation efforts (to get fresh water) Lithium could be captured in that context. Copper, in spite of being very abundant, might actually be a problem (if you include electricity transport lines). My assumption is that the ecological impact of cars will be too great and increasingly obviously so. People will switch to public transport and bicycles, including electric bikes. But all that is overlooking the tiny detail that half of humanity will have to move or die. That part is probably the key element of context people forget to include in their speculation.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Most electrical transmission lines are much cheaper aluminum. There are some weird rules about using that safely, but nothing a lineman can't handle.

almost_usual 4y ago

> I actually see a need to shift more people to not using cars as much or at all, and having those people walk/bike/transit. This is the solution but I guess we’ll see how consuming our way to ‘sustainability’ works.

skrowl 4y ago

If we had a magic button that replaced all gasoline cars with electric cars in the USA this moment, the power grids would basically explode from the additional load from everyone charging them, in all 50 states. We're DECADES away from having enough power generation and delivery to get everyone on electric cars, and that's not even considering the "How the F is everyone going to afford to buy electric cars in the first place?" problem. Look at the lines to charge EVs in states like California already, and that's with ~5% of new car sales being EVs. Multiple that by a factor of 20 and just laugh. Every state that has passed "We're going to ban the sale of gasoline cars after 20xx" is going to have to repeal it in shame, or just force their residents to drive to the nearest red state when they want to buy a new car.

bertil 4y ago
We are less than a decade away from triggering lynchpin mechanisms that will completely transform the world, and force half of humanity to either emigrate or die. If you believe that it will take longer to have enough electricity for everyone to drive an electric car, I’m worried that the adjustment variable is not going to be what portions of cars are electric (what you have in mind), or what portion of the population uses a car (where I think we can make the fastest progress) but what’s the size of the population. However, if less than half of the population of a country dies (which seems likely in the US, for instance, although not by a lot) then it means it’s a favoured country compared to areas that would have become inhabitable. Immigration to that country will explode. I’m not sure how the population will continue to decrease given that pressure, but it will have to.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
davewritescode 4y ago
Most of those bans exclude plug-in hybrids. They’re way less draconian than most people are making them out to be. We’re moving to a future where every car has a battery electric hybrid motor if it’s not a full EV.
4y ago

generalizations 4y ago

> shift more people to not using cars as much or at all, and having those people walk/bike/transit This only works for city dwellers.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
guelo 4y ago
Yet somehow humans managed to live through 99.99% of our history without cars.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  And people lived their whole lives within what, a 50-mile radius?
  - timeon 4y ago
    Most people still do.
  - muti 4y ago
    Is that no longer possible? Our collective carbon footprint is highly correlated with our "travel footprint"
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  Humans managed to live through 99.99% of our history without 99.99% of what we currently rely on to live.
  - amelius 4y ago
    Surviving vs. thriving.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- 4y ago

MrsPeaches 4y ago

I think your point about light EVs is salient. To me, current EV cars are like those early IC "cars" that looked like horse drawn carts with a motor [1]. The prime mover has changed (even though the innovation sits with the energy source i.e. batteries) and that often leads to change in the form factor of vehicles. [1] e.g. https://www.supercars.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1905-Curved-Dash-Oldsmobile.jpg https://www.supercars.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/19...

bluGill 4y ago
A large part of the form factor is for aerodynamics, and facts about the human body dictate a lot. Without needing a radiator there is room for some change up front.
- Falkon1313 4y ago
  Some change, yes, but can't take too much away the front. People still crash a lot. Even cabover trucks, though much safer than cars, are a bit less safe than ones with noses. And for a little car, even more so. As long as they're car-ish in form factor, they need something up front to take the inevitable impacts. Of course, scooters and bikes just wave that off. Cars could too, if limited to significantly lower speeds. But good luck making slow cars and low speed limits popular. Especially in car-centric America, where slowing down would make many normal trips unbearably long.

Consultant32452 4y ago

The solution has always and will always be that the wealthy do whatever tf they want and the peasants get stuck on whatever the people in charge decide they are stuck on.

soheil 4y ago

Certainly momentum to support gas cars is great that itself could be reason enough for a large automaker to keep making them. All the infrastructure like gas stations, oil change shops, gas car mechanic shops, mechanics with decades of experience, refineries, fuel transport trucks, etc. don't go away overnight specially in countries with low GDPs.