Toyota's R&D Boss Believes Internal Combustion Engines For Cars To Be Gone By 2050

Maybe even gone by 2040.

Of course there'll still be 150 million used IC vehicles running around. Unless the Gov't is going to confiscate & crush them.

I think in the modern 1st world nations New ICE will be gone by 2030 to 2035 as a for sale option. It is possible they could be gone world wide for new Auto sales by 2050. Hybrids I think will still be around for 3rd world places that have lousy electrical grids.

I do agree with Toyota R&D, the best batteries I ever had in an auto were solid state. Sears for a while sold a platinum solid state battery, expensive and had a 7 year warranty. Loved them, but when I went to buy another, they had discontinued selling them due to poor sales. Was told they were more expensive than majority of people were willing to pay. 

I suspect technology will bring this cost down greatly over the next 5 years on top of breakthroughs like Toshiba has with their rapid charge batteries.

Notice those two words... "...from VEHICLES".  There is still the problem of CO2 from ALL THOSE OTHER SOURCES THAT ARE NOT BEING REGULATED ONE BIT.

Sly insertion to show his displeasure.  And there are millions of people just like him.  This is being forced on people who do not want it, and it will not solve a problem because there is no problem to be solved.

52 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Notice those two words... "...from VEHICLES".  There is still the problem of CO2 from ALL THOSE OTHER SOURCES THAT ARE NOT BEING REGULATED ONE BIT.

Sly insertion to show his displeasure.  And there are millions of people just like him.  This is being forced on people who do not want it, and it will not solve a problem because there is no problem to be solved.

Where is this fantasy planet that doesn’t have regulations?

And your last paragraph sound like the words of the horse and buggy business over a century ago. Say hello them. 

Ok... not sure why... but "hello them".

Livestock CO2 emissions are not regulated.  People exhale CO2.  CO2 is generated all over the place and the car is the fall guy because of some misguided vendetta against fossil fuels.  Where are all these metals going to come from to manufacture all these batteries?  And how will they be transported to industrialized countries that will be making them?  By ship most likely and are there emissions standards for ships?

11 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

hello them

6 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Ok... not sure why... but "hello them".

Livestock CO2 emissions are not regulated.  People exhale CO2.  CO2 is generated all over the place and the car is the fall guy because of some misguided vendetta against fossil fuels.  Where are all these metals going to come from to manufacture all these batteries?  And how will they be transported to industrialized countries that will be making them?  By ship most likely and are there emissions standards for ships?

 

Newsflash, you can’t control the CO2 emissions of living creatures. You can with everything else. 

What is amsuing is the “well there’s all the other sources of pollution so why bother with cars?” argument. It’s amusing and foolishly ignorant. 

And yes, say hello to the horse and buggy industry while you fight the obvious evolution of technology. 

I would say it is much easier to crack down on CO2 pollution on power plants first, then go after cars.  One coal-fired plant will pollute more than thousands of cars at any one time.  2030 may well be the beginning of the end of the ICE in vehicles, but I would rather see no more power plant emissions first.  Afterwards, then the zero-emission vehicle mandates can start.

Not going to happen.....now can I see not so many- Yes. I think we will still have choices, though I think the popular one will be electric. Which is okay. There are still going to be cases that good ol' gas engines will need to be used....plus, I think people will still enjoy them....and not everyone is going to retrofit a classic car either....

5 hours ago, ocnblu said:

 Where are all these metals going to come from to manufacture all these batteries?  And how will they be transported to industrialized countries that will be making them?  By ship most likely and are there emissions standards for ships?

First off China leads the world in recycling metal of all types, we ship it to them after we dump it on ships.

Second, Marine Ocean Going ships do have CO2 regulations, all new ships are EV Ships using LNG or super clean low sulfur bunker fuel to run generators thus reducing emissions and improving efficiencies. Cost of fuel is a bitch, EV ships are far more efficient and maneuverable.

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.ics-shipping.org/docs/default-source/resources/environmental-protection/shipping-world-trade-and-the-reduction-of-co2-emissions.pdf?sfvrsn=6

This was a report put together and approved by the global marine industry to reduce polution and it is from 2006, you can find this going back to the 90's as they looked for ways to reduce CO2 output, reduce cost and clean up the ships used to move cargo around.

http://www.martrans.org/docs/publ/REFEREED JOURNALS/WMUJMA EMISSIONS 2009.pdf

Our own Government signed off on this and President Bush signed this into law with approval of our house and Senate in 2000 with reductions in CO2 and cleaning up the marine fuel industry and the ships.

https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/international-standards-reduce-emissions-marine-diesel

Sorry to bust your Amish thinking, but our own country and everyone else around the world has been focused on reducing the pollution and CO2 production from the Marine shipping fleets.

Need more reading, here is a Bing Search for you to have more documentation:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Commercial+ship+emission+regulations&qs=n&form=CHRDEF&pc=U480&sp=-1&pq=undefined&sc=0-21&sk=&cvid=C14899805E194460B76A04978A519516

4 hours ago, riviera74 said:

I would say it is much easier to crack down on CO2 pollution on power plants first, then go after cars.  One coal-fired plant will pollute more than thousands of cars at any one time.  2030 may well be the beginning of the end of the ICE in vehicles, but I would rather see no more power plant emissions first.  Afterwards, then the zero-emission vehicle mandates can start.

Actually @Drew Dowdell had posted some info that showed the huge reduction in Coal power Plants as they switch to much cleaner Natural Gas which North America sits on the world's largest reserves.

Here is a 3rd party story that shows the big change over:

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-119/issue-6/features/coal-to-gas-plant-conversions-in-the-u-s.html

A research story by The Guardian that shows the dominate production of Electricity in the US will be by Natural Gas by 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/14/gas-surges-ahead-of-coal-in-us-power-generation

Here is our own government details showing that Natural Gas Production of Electricity surpassed Coal in 2016 4 years ahead of original expectations.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392

2/3rds of CO2 output by Dirty Coal has been removed since they started the switch to Natural Gas production in the 90's.

Now is the time to start the transition to EV Auto's.

While all of that blather up there is good, there will NEV.ER. be an appropriate time to "start the transition to EV Auto's" (sic)

(You kill me with your funny non-grammatical apostrophes) 

11 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

And your last paragraph sound like the words of the horse and buggy business over a century ago. Say hello them. 

We ahve a really cool house in Columbus built by people in that business....ten years after it was built, they went broke...

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1330-Bryden-Rd-Columbus-OH-43205/33846110_zpid/

It is slowly being rebuilt by a very determined individual...no one else has been in the house for something like 30 years...

Scientists warning to humanity about global climate change and other things that will happen if we keep using fossil fuels;

http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_11-3-17 Scientists main text.pdf

Who do i believe...13,000 plus scientists or an automotive body shop estimator from Lancaster PA with an admitted bias against electric cars?

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

While all of that blather up there is good, there will NEV.ER. be an appropriate time to "start the transition to EV Auto's" (sic)

(You kill me with your funny non-grammatical apostrophes) 

However, the amount of fossil fuel is indeed finite, there will be a very painful end to life as we know it if we do not transition to renewable energy.  I like to deal with unpleasant things before they bite me in the ass, not after. Just sayin.

6 hours ago, dfelt said:

Actually @Drew Dowdell had posted some info that showed the huge reduction in Coal power Plants as they switch to much cleaner Natural Gas which North America sits on the world's largest reserves.

Here is a 3rd party story that shows the big change over:

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-119/issue-6/features/coal-to-gas-plant-conversions-in-the-u-s.html

A research story by The Guardian that shows the dominate production of Electricity in the US will be by Natural Gas by 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/14/gas-surges-ahead-of-coal-in-us-power-generation

Here is our own government details showing that Natural Gas Production of Electricity surpassed Coal in 2016 4 years ahead of original expectations.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392

2/3rds of CO2 output by Dirty Coal has been removed since they started the switch to Natural Gas production in the 90's.

Now is the time to start the transition to EV Auto's.

And to Solar and Wind and away from even natural gas as a fuel.

Everyone armchairing the future has been talking about the banning of IC, but I can see plenty of room for co-existence way into the future. Once IC in new vehicles becomes a minor percentage (for conversation- let's say IC gets to 20%), there's no longer a reason to ban them; they'll become a statistical non-factor. Regardless, I still believe the following 2 general things; that new EV vehicles WILL become a majority of vehicles sold, and that this 'flip' will take 50 years minimum.

Again I remind; we've had a 'successful' PHEV from a major OEM for 15 years now, there are currently 3 dozen PHEVs/ EVs on the US market, and the marketshare is still only 1% at the end of this year.
Those saying 'most of the market will be EVs in 12 years' are being woefully ignorant of the trending.

A plethora of relevant examples exist; look at set belts- mandated for front passengers since January 1966, in everything built since (initially front outer passengers only), takes 2 secs to apply, has empirical evidence of effectiveness, most states (if not all) assign fines for non-use.... but only at (it's historical high) 90% useage in 2016. That's 50 years of trying to instill a habit that takes 2 seconds.

11 hours ago, riviera74 said:

I would say it is much easier to crack down on CO2 pollution on power plants first, then go after cars.  One coal-fired plant will pollute more than thousands of cars at any one time.  2030 may well be the beginning of the end of the ICE in vehicles, but I would rather see no more power plant emissions first.  Afterwards, then the zero-emission vehicle mandates can start.

And they have been cracking on power plants. That’s the point that Mr. Anti-EV does not get while talking about cows and other non-related crap. There have been efforts almost accross the board to reduce CO2, yet he says “why bother” just because of his half baked hang up of EVs. The horse and buggy industry would be proud of him. Oh wait. They don’t exist anymore.

6 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

And they have been cracking on power plants. That’s the point that Mr. Anti-EV does not get while talking about cows and other non-related crap. There have been efforts almost accross the board to reduce CO2, yet he says “why bother” just because of his half baked hang up of EVs. The horse and buggy industry would be proud of him. Oh wait. They don’t exist anymore.

They do in Amish Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana.  Thriving, actually.  But a tiny percentage of the actual transportation market.

Just like ICE in 2065.

30 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Everyone armchairing the future has been talking about the banning of IC, but I can see plenty of room for co-existence way into the future. Once IC in new vehicles becomes a minor percentage (for conversation- let's say IC gets to 20%), there's no longer a reason to ban them; they'll become a statistical non-factor. Regardless, I still believe the following 2 general things; that new EV vehicles WILL become a majority of vehicles sold, and that this 'flip' will take 50 years minimum.

Again I remind; we've had a 'successful' PHEV from a major OEM for 15 years now, there are currently 3 dozen PHEVs/ EVs on the US market, and the marketshare is still only 1% at the end of this year.
Those saying 'most of the market will be EVs in 12 years' are being woefully ignorant of the trending.

A plethora of relevant examples exist; look at set belts- mandated for front passengers since January 1966, in everything built since (initially front outer passengers only), takes 2 secs to apply, has empirical evidence of effectiveness, most states (if not all) assign fines for non-use.... but only at (it's historical high) 90% useage in 2016. That's 50 years of trying to instill a habit that takes 2 seconds.

Agreed...but we should be continuing the transition.  I want everyone to enjoy the same freedom that I do in owning a car.

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

 

Again I remind; we've had a 'successful' PHEV from a major OEM for 15 years now...

Yes, and the last time I was in NYC all of the dirty, polluting inefficient crown vics had largely been replaced with vehicles like the Prius....same thing in LA when my wife was there just recently, lots of hybrids on the road...

At some point when fuel prices spike cars like the Prius will become the norm.

19 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Notice those two words... "...from VEHICLES".  There is still the problem of CO2 from ALL THOSE OTHER SOURCES THAT ARE NOT BEING REGULATED ONE BIT.

Sly insertion to show his displeasure.  And there are millions of people just like him.  This is being forced on people who do not want it, and it will not solve a problem because there is no problem to be solved.

Some/Many of the other man-made sources are targeted for regulation as well. 

The only thing that I think Toyota has wrong here is the timeline.  First off, existing cars will not be gone. But new production cars will likely be down to EV only.

2050 is only 33 years away.

Today, the most technologically advanced cars on the road are PHEVs and EVs like the S-Class PHEV, CT6 PHEV, Chevy Bolt EV, and Tesla Model-S.  This is the powertrain diagram for the CT6 PHEV. Aside from the CT6's transmission which is the most advanced hybrid transmission available, the concepts and technologies of this car are the same as the Fusion Energi or Pruis Prime.... I only picked this picture to show the technology, I realize it is not an average person's car.

33 years ago the average midsize car was powered by a carbed V6 or V8.  The 1984 Thunderbird was one of the most advanced average person car. It had Central Fuel Injection... which was basically a glorified carb with a single fuel injector instead of vacuum operated jets. Numerous manufacturers were still running carbed engines for an additional 8 years.   In another thread here on C&G we are talking about the new Corvette V8 that has two different kinds of fuel delivery systems, and in that regard it is about 3 or 4 years late to the party. Think about the level of technological difference between a 1984 Thunderbird and a 2017 CT6 PHEV or Pruis Prime.

33 years prior to that Thunderbird was 1951 and this was one of the most advanced average person's car on the road.  Think about the technology difference between a 1951 Olds with its "High Compression V8" and the 1984 Thunderbird.

33 years before that and you were in a Model-T.

33 years before the Model-T, you could get a Studebaker with between one and four horsepower.

The point of this thought exercise is to help you keep in mind what is possible in the span of 33 years.

Like the computer industry and Moore's Law that explains the doubling of computer power every 24 months, battery technology is in the early days of where CPU technology was in the 90's and we have blown way past that. 

Battery tech is also ramping up fast from Air batteries and the first one to prove 1,100 miles on a single charge to various other forms. What happens over the next 2-3 years will truly change the way people live life and get around.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

This story is recent and covers the whole battery industry, the various options and the amazing size and density that is just now going to production. Samsung has finalized a solid state battery that will out last their current Li batteries by a factor of 3.

If we did not have the Internet and the advanced technology we have today, I would agree with Balthazar that we are looking at 50 plus years to transition much like how the auto industry started from 1876 to 1915 when ICE auto's clearly won the battle. Yet we no longer live in a years to get info out to humanity and I actually expect this to change much faster than many here will realize. Look at how fast people change phones, computers and just about everything else. Humanity likes to have the best, sooner and faster than others the Jones - Jones competition will allow a faster change over to EV's than the PHEV has done.

Simpler, less maintenance cost and easy to use as it blends with today's modern technology.

We know it is not a matter of if but when. I believe the start is this year 2017 and by 2030+ we will see a majority of new auto's be EV and the death of new auto sales from ICE will be over by 2040-2045.

Few Charts to show the growth:

10 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

We ahve a really cool house in Columbus built by people in that business....ten years after it was built, they went broke...

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1330-Bryden-Rd-Columbus-OH-43205/33846110_zpid/

It is slowly being rebuilt by a very determined individual...no one else has been in the house for something like 30 years...

Scientists warning to humanity about global climate change and other things that will happen if we keep using fossil fuels;

http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_11-3-17 Scientists main text.pdf

Who do i believe...13,000 plus scientists or an automotive body shop estimator from Lancaster PA with an admitted bias against electric cars?

Yeah Chris, I'm the ONLY ONE out here with this opinion.  Bull crap.

There is not that much difference between the 1951 Oldsmobile and the 1984 Thunderbird though.

Here's a real world, industry comparison:

toyota prius prime, overall length 183", MSRP $27100, projected 2017 sales : 20,018
toyota corolla, overall length 183", MSRP $18500, projected 2017 sales : 347,928

Seems like it would be easy-peasy to nudge their customer base into an PHEV the same size; despite the maybe 2 price tiers higher buy-in, it has an eMPG rating of 133.

33 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Yeah Chris, I'm the ONLY ONE out here with this opinion.  Bull crap.

There is not that much difference between the 1951 Oldsmobile and the 1984 Thunderbird though.

No you are not the only one but you are part of an ever shrinking minority that wants to cling to the past and bitch and moan like what you are saying is going to change a single thing about progress and technology. All I have to say is “buck up” becuase it’s not changing just becuase you can’t or won’t see the writing on the wall. 

9 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

At some point when fuel prices spike cars like the Prius will become the norm.

The higher EV sales edge, the less demand on fuel price spiking/speculation. I doubt we'll ever see a spike like when it rocket up to $140/barrel again.

17 minutes ago, balthazar said:

The higher EV sales edge, the less demand on fuel price spiking/speculation. I doubt we'll ever see a spike like when it rocket up to $140/barrel again.

On this rare occasion we disagree.

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

Yeah Chris, I'm the ONLY ONE out here with this opinion.  Bull crap.

There is not that much difference between the 1951 Oldsmobile and the 1984 Thunderbird though.

I would not count Alex Jones or Dennis Praeger as reliable witnesses on this or people I would want to cast my lot with.

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

Here's a real world, industry comparison:

toyota prius prime, overall length 183", MSRP $27100, projected 2017 sales : 20,018
toyota corolla, overall length 183", MSRP $18500, projected 2017 sales : 347,928

Seems like it would be easy-peasy to nudge their customer base into an PHEV the same size; despite the maybe 2 price tiers higher buy-in, it has an eMPG rating of 133.

Rocket powered Super 88s sold in a fraction of the numbers that Blueflame powered Chevy Fleetlines sold at also.  I'm not comparing market acceptance here, but the "high" technology I'm showing at each stage eventually became common or even outdated. In 1984 all engines were "high compression" by 1951 standards....why? Because it was superior design. The turbo hydra-matic that was a fabulous new option in the 1950s was basically ubiquitous and copied by all brands 33 years later.  That generation of Thunderbird is credited with changing the the course of automotive styling.

Hybrids, in spite of Toyota's best efforts to make them the ugliest cars on the road, are continuing to grow in sales. As battery costs continue to shrink, that growth will accelerate, as will the adaptation to PHEV. In the Prime's case, the range is still not there to justify the extra cost.... But Toyota will get there...long before 33 years are up.

No one here disputed your historical timeline (tho it actually only took 9 years (minus '43-45) for everyone else to offer a true automatic, not 33). And the Rocket 88 barely edged out the I-6 Series 76 in '49, for whatever that's worth; (99K vs. 95K). But the only resistance in all your examples was monetary; luxury & premium cars were true rarities in the past; not like today when sold in the mega millions, and some of these advances were initially pricey.

EV cars are the first example I can recall where there has been market resistance, and not just sales numbers-wise; actual discussion. There was none for automatics or fuel injection. Yes, as all have acknowledged (well; maybe except 1 ), they are the future. It is only the timeline that is up for debate. Increasing share? -Sure. How fast? -Not very. Again; it's not just pricing this time around.

I think the issue here  fear of the future.  Cspec made a really rational argument against fearing the future back when he still posted here. That has kind of always stayed with me.

7 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I think the issue here  fear of the future.  Cspec made a really rational argument against fearing the future back when he still posted here. That has kind of always stayed with me.

And I will counter that with the fact that it is not fear, it is a preference.

Plus if we are going to talk about CO2 emissions, it should matter not how it is produced, if the stated goal is to corral CO2 then the largest producers of it need to be included in the conversation.

We simply must let all the cows (and other food animals) die of old age in sanctuaries paid for by a tax on electric vehicles if we are to truly tackle the greenhouse gas problem.

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Plus if we are going to talk about CO2 emissions, it should matter not how it is produced, if the stated goal is to corral CO2 then the largest producers of it need to be included in the conversation.

I agree with that, which is why I believe in shutting down fossil fuel power plants, especially coal ones, as rapidly as possible.

3 hours ago, ocnblu said:

And I will counter that with the fact that it is not fear, it is a preference.

Plus if we are going to talk about CO2 emissions, it should matter not how it is produced, if the stated goal is to corral CO2 then the largest producers of it need to be included in the conversation.

We simply must let all the cows (and other food animals) die of old age in sanctuaries paid for by a tax on electric vehicles if we are to truly tackle the greenhouse gas problem.

How many times do you have to be told that they are cracking on other CO2 producers (including the large ones) before you stop just making up reasons why EVs suck? Hell, the current administration is trying to roll back those very regulations against the coal industry, regulations you have clearly forgot about or ignored during your little crusade. It is clearly fear on your part, not preference. 

BTW, you can keep downvoting the facts, but it doesn’t change those very facts.

Good f@#king grief man.

28 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I agree with that, which is why I believe in shutting down fossil fuel power plants, especially coal ones, as rapidly as possible.

There were many valiant attempts to do just that by the previous administration that are now being undone by the current administration. 

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I agree with that, which is why I believe in shutting down fossil fuel power plants, especially coal ones, as rapidly as possible.

52 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

There were many valiant attempts to do just that by the previous administration that are now being undone by the current administration. 

Not wanting to go political, but just pointing out the obvious. 

Truth guys which is why I really believe we need term limits and age limits on running for office. Fear, Alzheimer's and Dementia happen commonly at age 60 and above. Currently we have all 3 along with Narcissistic incompetence voted in by the very same fearful ignorant voters.  

Currently Fear of change is attempting to roll back gains for a better planet and better health for all by a minority group of extreme wealth.

5 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

There were many valiant attempts to do just that by the previous administration that are now being undone by the current administration. 

Na, nothing is being un-done effectively, there won't be new coal plants brought online.  New coal isn't profitable to build primarily because natural gas is so much cheaper even without the emissions requirements. 

13 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Na, nothing is being un-done effectively, there won't be new coal plants brought online.  New coal isn't profitable to build primarily because natural gas is so much cheaper even without the emissions requirements. 

I’m referring to the regulations more than the building of new ones because I know that’s never going to happen. Progress happens for a reason, whether some people here want to believe it or not. 

16 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You are correct, and since you are so concerned about cow farts, here is a link, however off topic, to an article addressing the issue. Since you're new here, we usually stick to automotive discussion.

Here is information about rail emissions reduction programs.

Here is information about tractor trailer emissions reduction programs.

Here is information about efforts to get shipping industry emissions under control, though not successful yet.

Since you are now informed in those areas, you can stop making straw-man and "Whattabout" arguments against improving emissions from cars, cars being the primary subject of this site.

This^^! A thousand times this^^!!!

32 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You are correct, and since you are so concerned about cow farts, here is a link, however off topic, to an article addressing the issue. Since you're new here, we usually stick to automotive discussion.

Here is information about rail emissions reduction programs.

Here is information about tractor trailer emissions reduction programs.

Here is information about efforts to get shipping industry emissions under control, though not successful yet.

Since you are now informed in those areas, you can stop making straw-man and "Whattabout" arguments against improving emissions from cars, cars being the primary subject of this site.

Violating the automotive industry idea for just a second...and talking about rail...could we not take something like the GG1, which was built in the Pennsylvania railroad shops with 1930's and 1940's technology....power it with wind and solar power...and then serve a really nice cut of beef in the dining car of said train, and still reduce emissions?

30 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Na, nothing is being un-done effectively, there won't be new coal plants brought online.  New coal isn't profitable to build primarily because natural gas is so much cheaper even without the emissions requirements. 

...and solar and wind are becoming more cost efficient very year.

Violating the automotive end of this for a second, but talking about battery technology.  University where I work went from nasty gasoline powered leaf blowers to battery powered ones. What a difference!  They always start and run flawlessly, unlike small Asian imported internal combustion motors, they are quiet so they do not interrupt classes, no flammability in storage because no gasoline, and were cheaper to boot.

Getting back to cars, I see the same thing happening to the automobile.

I finally retired my gasoline powered lawn mower just yesterday.  It wasn't out of any desire to be green, I just got tired of it constantly breaking down.  My father-in-law gave me a very basic electric mower years ago when they moved out of a house into an apartment and that has been doing my lawn just fine.  If that goes (it's really old, I can't find blades for it), I'll probably replace it with another electric just so I don't have to deal with all of the maintenance involved in a gas mower.

The problem with electric rail power is that in the more remote areas, maintenance of the wires becomes very costly and sometimes problematic.  GE and EMD have been working on Hybrid locomotives for years.  Norfolk Southern built an entirely EV locomotive, but they powered it with old style lead acid batteries that weren't up to the job.  It just got auctioned off and will probably finish its life doing basic switching work at some industrial plant somewhere. 

The GG1 still has yet to be matched by any electric locomotive for combined power and reliability.  Unfortunately none of the ones remaining will ever run again because the electrical systems are incompatible with the modern setup. 

EGO Powertools Baby Love their 56 Volt backpack 600cfm blower.

https://egopowerplus.com/collections/power-backpack-blowers

This is the technology that I see being incorporated into auto batteries. The AI technology that move power around the cell's to keep every cell in tip top shape so one does not have to think about a dead cell.

Auto Battery Tech with AI that can handle keeping all power cells in service is what will remove battery issues that some on the forum fear is a big draw back to EV auto's.

47 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

I’m referring to the regulations more than the building of new ones because I know that’s never going to happen. Progress happens for a reason, whether some people here want to believe it or not. 

They can deregulate coal plants all they want, it doesn't change the economics that natural gas is easier to get out of the ground and that it is much more efficient to produce electricity.  It doesn't need to be shipped by train or barge, just build a pipeline.   Just the construction of a gas plant is cheaper, and certain types called peakers can be small enough to fit in a shipping container. 

@Drew Dowdell When your ready for a new EV Mower, check out EGO Powertools. Love their 56 volt mower, easily handles my .25 acre plus lawn and still has power to spare.

https://egopowerplus.com/products

I agree that the GG1 was ahead of it's time, now is time for a 21st century version which I think is EV Locomotive with LNG powered Generator.

I can see a PHEV with a Hydrogen generator like what GM has put out in concept form, just the tank size is holding it back and of course the expense of fueling station.

4 minutes ago, dfelt said:

EGO Powertools Baby Love their 56 Volt backpack 600cfm blower.

https://egopowerplus.com/collections/power-backpack-blowers

This is the technology that I see being incorporated into auto batteries. The AI technology that move power around the cell's to keep every cell in tip top shape so one does not have to think about a dead cell.

Auto Battery Tech with AI that can handle keeping all power cells in service is what will remove battery issues that some on the forum fear is a big draw back to EV auto's.

That's the brand my Eco warrior neighbor bought and recommended to me when we were talking about me tossing the gas mower.

26 minutes ago, dfelt said:

@Drew Dowdell When your ready for a new EV Mower, check out EGO Powertools. Love their 56 volt mower, easily handles my .25 acre plus lawn and still has power to spare.

https://egopowerplus.com/products

I agree that the GG1 was ahead of it's time, now is time for a 21st century version which I think is EV Locomotive with LNG powered Generator.

I can see a PHEV with a Hydrogen generator like what GM has put out in concept form, just the tank size is holding it back and of course the expense of fueling station.

$600 seems reasonable as long as you have a small yard and you'll never get stuck having to charge mid-cut. 

A decent push mower is in that price range anyway. 

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

$600 seems reasonable as long as you have a small yard and you'll never get stuck having to charge mid-cut. 

A decent push mower is in that price range anyway. 

It'll run for 60 minutes on a charge and charge in 60 minutes.  The natural solution is to just buy a second battery that sits on the charger while you're using the first one. 

42 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

$600 seems reasonable as long as you have a small yard and you'll never get stuck having to charge mid-cut. 

A decent push mower is in that price range anyway. 

So my EGO power mower cuts my .25 acre lawn and still has power left, I then use it on the blower to finish cleaning up and put it on the charger. Battery fully charged in 60 minutes is no big deal considering I have the yard done and so recharged to have it ready for the next use.

Love their battery AI tech.

Since I have a woodworking shop in my garage I really really dislike having flammable gasoline around sawdust and lumber.  I may just switch my lawn mower to electric just so i sleep better at night.

Love my home electric leaf blower, so much quieter and less smelly than gas powered.  When i am done making sawdust in the garage, I can clean up quickly and blow out the garage even if it is after my neighbors bed time. 

His bedroom window and his daughters bedroom window are right outside of my work shop, so I try to be polite.

6 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Since I have a woodworking shop in my garage I really really dislike having flammable gasoline around sawdust and lumber.  I may just switch my lawn mower to electric just so i sleep better at night.

Love my home electric leaf blower, so much quieter and less smelly than gas powered.  When i am done making sawdust in the garage, I can clean up quickly and blow out the garage even if it is after my neighbors bed time. 

His bedroom window and his daughters bedroom window are right outside of my work shop, so I try to be polite.

You will love the mower, you can even mow early in the morning and no one hears you. I have done it early while the wife sleeps, then get cleaned up and take her out to breakfast and have the rest of the day together. 

Since I am further north, our summers have full daylight before most wake up, so I have not ever had to use the LED lights on the mower, but did try them out one evening and it was cool to see how bright the yard was. Pretty awesome mowers.