[jmg]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

Agree on both points. But it still doesn't change the fact that you can have a goal without a plan. Which is still just a dream

“There are some people who live in a dream world, and there are some who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other.”
– Douglas H. Everett

Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I try not to be afraid of failure. Failure is simply a stepping stone to success.

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
– A.E.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Why? Serious question.

C4 because they go boom, Jack because you need some heat, and eagles blood for super-strength!

Seriously, because people are dumb enough to actually do something like this.

[x622]

Originally Posted by jmg

Imagine if Vasco Da Gama never sailed to India because he couldn't get the permits in a timely manner.

Vasco Da Gama didn't live in a time when there was so much governmental overreach. If you were a property owner and a utility wanted to shit up your nice view with some triple conductor 500kv strung on some huge lattice towers, why you might not want to grant that easement. I'm actually dealing with that right now at a site that I'm trying to do a smaller 15MW mine at. Getting permitting and easements from railroads is IMPOSSIBLE.

[CarsAndGuitars]

Originally Posted by jmg

“There are some people who live in a dream world, and there are some who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other.”
– Douglas H. Everett

Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I try not to be afraid of failure. Failure is simply a stepping stone to success.

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
– A.E.

Just for some perspective, if there was a hard swap as per the CA directive to EVs today, the marching orders would have been given in 2009. This just happens to be the time of the first modern massed produced EV, the Nissan Leaf.

The incremental change that has happened since then has to become exponential, AND the grid / infrastructure have to support that revolution (not evolution) .

The quotes are inspiring.. but what is the plan for 300M people to have the resources, technology and infrastructure for conversion to EVs in 13 years, "we'll figure it out?"

[Equilibrandt]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

It's a bad idea to try to do this in 13 years.

I simply don't see how trying makes any difference to anyone.

There is simply no effect on your life as Cali tries to push forward. You're not forced to sell your car; your tax hike will probably be negligible. At worst, you'll have to see more photovoltaic solar farms and wind turbines in distant areas, and your property values will go up because your neighbors will get EV chargers in their garages. Just today, Namibia in Africa of all places announced it'll have a Hydrogen plant online in 2024.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Next up... California bans the sales of new ICE airplanes starting in the year 2045.

Assuming it were feasible, I can't see a negative to this, either. Sign me up, baby. Your mindset is disparagingly different than mine. Pointless to even debate you, at this point.

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

The quotes are inspiring.. but what is the plan for 300M people to have the resources, technology and infrastructure for conversion to EVs in 13 years, "we'll figure it out?"

Why do y'all repeatedly put the onus of solving world peace on this guy? 13 years is a long time for the dudes who make $500k a year to solve these exact problems, not the guys on the forums.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by jmg

I'm going to use a mix of C4 explosives, Jack Daniels, and eagle blood! 'MERICA!!!!


But seriously, yes they can certainly tell you what fuel you can't use for personal transportation.

Then I'm going to stock up on some of that good ole leaded paint. Mmmm!

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Why can't it be both?

Charitable giving is a goal, taxes are a mandate.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Charitable giving is a goal, taxes are a mandate.

Charitable giving is a goal that reduces taxable income, which helps in achieving the tax mandate.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by CarsAndGuitars

Just for some perspective, if there was a hard swap as per the CA directive to EVs today, the marching orders would have been given in 2009. This just happens to be the time of the first modern massed produced EV, the Nissan Leaf.

The incremental change that has happened since then has to become exponential, AND the grid / infrastructure have to support that revolution (not evolution) .

The quotes are inspiring.. but what is the plan for 300M people to have the resources, technology and infrastructure for conversion to EVs in 13 years, "we'll figure it out?"

One could argue that if we had been given those marching orders in 2009, we would be further along now than we are. Admittedly, I don't think we would have succeeded. But now, with more EV options, legislature starting to come into place towards achieving that goal, I think we can do it. So long as future legislature doesn't go backwards. We can certainly fail if we vote people into power who have it in their platform to make sure it fails.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by x622

Vasco Da Gama didn't live in a time when there was so much governmental overreach. If you were a property owner and a utility wanted to shit up your nice view with some triple conductor 500kv strung on some huge lattice towers, why you might not want to grant that easement. I'm actually dealing with that right now at a site that I'm trying to do a smaller 15MW mine at. Getting permitting and easements from railroads is IMPOSSIBLE.

Different obstacles for different times. His was an ocean, your's is paperwork. Are you giving up on your endeavor?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If failure breaks something that already works, then it was stupid to try.

Wholeheartedly disagree. That stifles innovation.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

When does Cali ban animal based protein? Methane is actually a stronger GHG than CO2. I mean if the goal is to save the climate for humans.

That's a slippery slope. Come on, man.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by Equilibrandt

I simply don't see how trying makes any difference to anyone.

There is simply no effect on your life as Cali tries to push forward. You're not forced to sell your car; your tax hike will probably be negligible. At worst, you'll have to see more photovoltaic solar farms and wind turbines in distant areas, and your property values will go up because your neighbors will get EV chargers in their garages. Just today, Namibia in Africa of all places announced it'll have a Hydrogen plant online in 2024.



Assuming it were feasible, I can't see a negative to this, either. Sign me up, baby. Your mindset is disparagingly different than mine. Pointless to even debate you, at this point.



Why do y'all repeatedly put the onus of solving world peace on this guy? 13 years is a long time for the dudes who make $500k a year to solve these exact problems, not the guys on the forums.

There are always trade offs when you you decide to put all your resources (be they literal or capital) into achieving a goal as massive as this. You are correct, that there would be no harm in trying, provided we have a back up plan if all of this doesn't work out. But, we don't have a back up plan. When companies retool manufacturing sites, cancel development programs and allocate resources away from producing ICE vehicles, that means that if the infrastructure isn't in place, or the price of EVs don't come down enough, or for whatever other reason consumers decide they don't want to buy EVs in these huge volumes, OEMs can't just flick a switch and start pumping out ICE vehicles again. There would be a years-long process to convert back. Same goes for gas and oil production. Let's say we realize we really need more gas or oil for whatever reason, so all these permits that are not getting approved to expand new wells and refinery sites get approved. Again, more years-long processes to build up the sites and start pumping oil and refining it. Same goes for LNG.

I see no problem in working towards these goals, but we can't just drop everything and about-face and expect no repercussions should we not succeed. We could gradually make the transition, but it would be a 25+ year process. Many people say we will be in a climate hellscape by then, but what do you think will happen if this great transition doesn't pan out? Do you think that even one of the major OEMs (not just the US-based ones) going under won't have a massive effect on the economy? What about multiple? And don't even get me started on the US and (part of) Europe being the only ones that are actually trying to put our money and tech where our mouth is. China, India, Mexico and Eastern Europe have no plans of reducing their emissions in any meaningful way.

Like most things these days, there are three groups (2 extremes and a moderate):
1. It has to happen NOW or it will never happen and the world will end if we don't TRY.
2. It should happen, but at a reasonable rate and with careful planning and execution so that we don't make ourselves vulnerable or end up without a back up plan.
3. It should never happen and there's no point in trying.
And like everything else, people in the group 2 are lumped in with group 3.

[Mani59]

Hi all,

I can see that the conversation is getting a little heated so lets please cool it a little and may I please take the opportunity to remind you all of one section of the forum rules, specifically to be respectful to each other and not attack.

https://g80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1952844

Thanks, Mani

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

This is your best argument yet and I'm being serious. You didn't say it, but this is your opinion and I fully respect that you think it's a bad idea because 13 years isn't enough. I think a lot of people disagree and that's okay. There's too much ad hominem in this debate in the world.

I'm not sure what you mean, I said it 8 pages ago.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Aint happening that fast, not by a long shot. Even if we decided today to make it happen, it won't happen that fast.

I wanted my last purchase to be an EV, but choices available at the time didn't align with my expectations, use model, and financial comfort. It's likely our next new vehicle will be an EV.

I'm not anti-EV, I'm anti-unfunded-mandates that I believe are unsupportable and potentially catastrophic to everyone's wellbeing.

I'm an engineer, not a dreamer. I like to make plans that I know will work, and then execute them for maximum benefit. That is my underlying mindset, and a description of my thinking/motives.

Dreamers can dream, but engineers have to get the work done. Sooner or later, someone will have to listen to the guys that will get it done, the sooner the better. Dreams never built anything.

[x622]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I'm not sure what you mean, I said it 8 pages ago.



I wanted my last purchase to be an EV, but choices available at the time didn't align with my expectations, use model, and financial comfort. It's likely our next new vehicle will be an EV.

I'm not anti-EV, I'm anti-unfunded-mandates that I believe are unsupportable and potentially catastrophic to everyone's wellbeing.

I'm an engineer, not a dreamer. I like to make plans that I know will work, and then execute them for maximum benefit. That is my underlying mindset, and a description of my thinking/motives.

Dreamers can dream, but engineers have to get the work done. Sooner or later, someone will have to listen to the guys that will get it done, the sooner the better. Dreams never built anything.

Amen. I am excited for the 20xx iX5M with 4 wheel electric motors and 1400awhp whenever that happens. If they can make it handle and drive like a M car, I think it'll be fast and fun as hell.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I'm not sure what you mean, I said it 8 pages ago.

I mean that if left as a statement that this is your opinion, then at face value I can't really argue that. However, when we try to qualify an opinion based on something that can be debated, then we get trapped into discussing specifics that, themselves, are up for interpretation.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I wanted my last purchase to be an EV, but choices available at the time didn't align with my expectations, use model, and financial comfort. It's likely our next new vehicle will be an EV.

I'm not anti-EV, I'm anti-unfunded-mandates that I believe are unsupportable and potentially catastrophic to everyone's wellbeing.

I'm an engineer, not a dreamer. I like to make plans that I know will work, and then execute them for maximum benefit. That is my underlying mindset, and a description of my thinking/motives.

Dreamers can dream, but engineers have to get the work done. Sooner or later, someone will have to listen to the guys that will get it done, the sooner the better. Dreams never built anything.

The age old battle between designers and engineers. It's actually that very battle that gets everyone to a successful end product. Yin and yang. You can't have one without the other, despite what they each think.

[x622]

Originally Posted by jmg

I mean that if left as a statement that this is your opinion, then at face value I can't really argue that. However, when we try to qualify an opinion based on something that can be debated, then we get trapped into discussing specifics that, themselves, are up for interpretation.



The age old battle between designers and engineers. It's actually that very battle that gets everyone to a successful end product. Yin and yang. You can't have one without the other, despite what they each think.

This is not how electrical infrastructure works sir. This is not a car. Everything that it takes to upgrade the grid - such as stringing additional conductors, deploying additional transformers, expanding breakers bays, and doing new sub buildouts is a known quantity with a known lead time and process. I am familiar with this process and I am trying to tell you that it is not a short lead time. Deploying additional generation capacity is a completely different animal with even more regulation, as it also involves the feds and numerous regulatory bodies.

You and many others just aren't factoring this lead time into building this out, and there is no handwaving, diversion, or text that you will be able to furnish to change these facts. Nothing short of an act of congress to force the rapid expansion of the grid is what is going to be necessary to cut out the red tape that makes it so hard and time consuming to deploy. Please do not twist my arguments or points in any way shape or form and understand this is what I and others are up in arms about.


All this discussion about grid mix is an obfuscation and a secondary consideration, renewables or not, it has to be built out and it has to be started right now.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by x622

This is not how electrical infrastructure works sir. This is not a car. Everything that it takes to upgrade the grid - such as stringing additional conductors, deploying additional transformers, expanding breakers bays, and doing new sub buildouts is a known quantity with a known lead time and process. I am familiar with this process and I am trying to tell you that it is not a short lead time. Deploying additional generation capacity is a completely different animal with even more regulation, as it also involves the feds and numerous regulatory bodies.

You and many others just aren't factoring this lead time into building this out, and there is no handwaving, diversion, or text that you will be able to furnish to change these facts. Nothing short of an act of congress to force the rapid expansion of the grid is what is going to be necessary to cut out the red tape that makes it so hard and time consuming to deploy. Please do not twist my arguments or points in any way shape or form and understand this is what I and others are up in arms about.


All this discussion about grid mix is an obfuscation and a secondary consideration, renewables or not, it has to be built out and it has to be started right now.

I agree, it has to be started right now. I never had any misconceptions that it wasn't going to be difficult.

I stated the opposite actually-It's going to be hard. That's no reason to say we shouldn't do it.

Returning to my earlier point. Solar panels in conjunction with household batter cells will help with reducing the load on the grid at night won't it?

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by chaungo

Imagine being tax on the amount you fart per year LOL

Human farts often contain little to no methane. For sure, they still often stink, especially if your wafting the air over a turd before its emission. Anyway, many farts are just air we've gulped in and then hammered out our posteriors. Now cattle and various other critter, because of the way their digestive systems work, do fart out a lot of methane. They can be a problem globally.

If you're into lighting your own farts, you'll know this well. Sometimes you can get a lighter, spark one up, and make it into the blueflame club. Other times you get nothing. This is typically due to the specific species of air biscuit you've pushed out.

[lens]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

My mindset is based in logic and reality and not fantasyland; it is difficult to argue fantasy against logic. There are limits to physics, chemistry, and economics; I like to sit inside that triangle. I'm all for bumping on one of those edges inside the triangle because it is a big space but realize not all things are possible within the realm of affordability.

Wait till California starts adopting the carbon tax like Canada does on fuel, which increases exponentially every year, we do get back some money during tax time, but it's nowhere near as much to offset the carbon tax.

That 6-7$/gallon people saw would be your new normal.

I feel the best thing is hybrids, until you have to pay for a new battery.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The problem with mandates such as California is it actually stifles innovation. It takes the possibility of using a higher efficiency of ICE in non-conventional drivetrains, because the burning of carbon fuel is seen as killing the planet.

I think your observation of a hybrid is the best economical engineering solution for both near term implementation and long term viability. It is the least disruptive to both electrical grid impact and established industry supply chain. Nothing needs to be reinvented nor forced through disruptive policy change.

Tear away all the BS, and the end game for Cali is an EV society solely powered by Solar and Wind energy production. It's an Ed Begley Jr. fantasy world and quite narrow focused.

My position is to invest in better engine technology that requires new engine block and cylinderhead materials that greatly improve efficiency though higher gain of the power combustion process from less energy loss via heat. In the late 1970s several companies were working on ceramic engines to achieve that goal. Tie such and engine to a hybrid on-board electrical generation system with an EV drive system and net energy loss would be near as good as EV. But again, tailpipe carbon exhaust is being outlawed so the investment/profit motive does not exist.

Governments around the world have decided BEV is the only architecture viable to save the climate. Pitiful and narrowminded.

Unfortunately, the slim margins and engineering challenges for plug-in hybrid vehicles are not appealing to OEMs, that's why we aren't seeing them being pushed (along with the regulations you mentioned that seem to be so focused on personal vehicle tailpipe emissions). They would be an excellent stop-gap solution while we try and make the BEV transition, or, as you mentioned, they could be a permanent solution if we continued to do more development in materials sciences for ICE efficiency (along with synthetic fuel sources). But that doesn't get investors and shareholder's attention, and doesn't win politicians enough virtue since BEVs are all the rage now. It's discouraging.