Toyota News: Toyota Unveils Full Global Battery Electric Line-up

[oldshurst442]

And I agree with your last statement of bans not really solving anything(and idiotic).  But the reason why Im adamant about my opinion of EVs gaining traction that quickly is because the world is hell bent to change the course of ICE history and bury it 6 feet under as quickly as possible. 

 

 

[balthazar]

sure; sure it is.  'World' is a monstrously huge place, no one can possible hope to get an inclusive consensus of opinion.

People continue to smoke 50 years after strong evidence linking it with cancers/2nd hand smoke.  That 'ban' has taken 50 years to slowly, slowly enact (no smoking in hospitals, theaters, offices, restaurants, workplaces, etc), prices have risen exponentially... still got lots of smokers.  Less; absolutely.

These municipalities considering actual, absolute & literal bans on IC in cities had better make damned sure that includes all medium- & heavy-duty trucks, busses, local delivery, taxis, construction equipment, all RR and aircraft traffic in a widening cone overhead. Otherwise, it's arbitrary.  Going after the individual FIRST is ass-backwards.  Again- no plan for high-rise charging, no plan for on-street parkers, no means to get the budget-strapped into an affordable replacement vehicle (average price premium for BE in '21: $19 grand).  No plan what to do if said ban suddenly torpedos the values of IC vehicles, vehicles the budget-strapped are going to depend up mightily to offset the average BE price tag.  Because once said IC vehicle is 'banned'- who's going to buy it??  Is the Gov't going to buy them at a reasonable market value?  What source replaces that revenue drain- will all gas taxes and the 'buy-back' taxes and the 'recycle the old vehicles tax' be placed upon the heads of new BE owners (how could it not be?)?

No; 'charger networks are growing fast' doesn't mean they are close to being ready.  It also doesn't mean they will be ready by an arbitrary deadline.  That's something you wait & insure is ready first.

You don't release the waters (forcing a mass consumer move) to until the dam (infrastructure and economics) is built.  No; implementing a ban first and hoping everything works smoothly in the limited time up to it is not a prudent or intelligent plan.  Politicians, nearly to the one, are pretty stupid.

- - - - - 
If OEMs come 2035 are looking at sales in the range of 25% of currently/recent sales, you can BET there will be real & forceful pushbacks.

Edited December 23, 2021 by balthazar

[oldshurst442]

15 minutes ago, balthazar said:

you can BET there will be real & forceful pushbacks.

They are ENDING production of ICE vehicles...

No buts, ifs or ands...

There  will probably be high fees for ownership of ICE vehicles to DISCOURAGE the sales of both on the production side and on the buyer/ownership side.

We already see the fees killing off certain internal combustion engines due to high compliance fines implemented by the governments to stop production of.

The Hellcats from Stellantis comes to mind.

High emissions standards have already been implemented to curb further production of 3 and 4 and 6 cylinder engines.  Even 3 cylinders wont be able to pass these emission standards.  

President Trump promised a roll back on these emissions and GM was on board.  President Trump is no longer president and President Biden succeeds him and kept the emissions standards mostly in place and GM magically is on board again. 

Which leads us back to this:

25 minutes ago, balthazar said:

World' is a monstrously huge place, no one can possible hope to get an inclusive consensus of opinion.

 

The PLANET is on BOARD with the ending of the internal combustion engine.

The world is not so much of a big place regarding this. Regarding climate change... 

US politics and political divisions within doesnt get to decide this ending of the internal combustion engine regardless how you and I feels for banning stuff being stupid and accomplishes nothing. In THIS case, through hell and high water, the end of days for ICE is very very near. 

[oldshurst442]

33 minutes ago, balthazar said:

People continue to smoke 50 years after strong evidence linking it with cancers/2nd hand smoke.  That 'ban' has taken 50 years to slowly, slowly enact (no smoking in hospitals, theaters, offices, restaurants, workplaces, etc), prices have risen exponentially... still got lots of smokers.  Less; absolutely.

Are you suggesting that driving around in ICE vehicles is akin to being addicted and therefore THAT is why some American folk wont give up their V8s for EVs? 

 

 

Because if that is what it is, then sure, It will take 50 years to get Americans off of their black gold addiction and their V8s.

Dont tread on me and my V8.

You want my V8, come and get it...

But the thing is, governments world wide are fighting this in the shade.  

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

Are you suggesting that driving around in ICE vehicles is akin to being addicted

Nope; if I was, I would have stated it that way.

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

some American folk wont give up their V8s

The VAST VAST majority of vehicles on the road today have less than 8 cylinders.

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

They are ENDING production of ICE vehicles... No buts, ifs or ands...

So they say, and as I've repeatedly stated; "WHEN?"

- - - - - 
Note that emission standards are NOT retro-active.

- - - - -
See, the motor vehicle world doesn't center around the current model year vehicles. The 15 million/yr sold pales in comparison to the 280+ million existing, older vehicles. That pool will exceed our lifetimes.

Edited December 23, 2021 by balthazar

[balthazar]

- - - - -
Automakers will NOT go out of business (willingly) over BE's.
They're too large of an economic mainstay to do so, and Big Gov't has repeatedly shown a willingness to bail them out if their continuance is in jeopardy.  If they push back to Gov't, THERE WILL BE DELAYS. And while they may on the face of it proclaim they're 'all in'- note that none of the Major players is even close to HALF of their fleet being BE, and what BE sales there are; are a trickle.

[oldshurst442]

15 hours ago, balthazar said:

Nope; if I was, I would have stated it that way.

LOL.  Im sorry about that. I was trying to be funny and that post was not supposed to be taken seriously. The sarcasm on my post came off as douchey when I wanted it to come out as funny.

The "no buts, ifs or ands" part was not sarcasm though. It was a serious statement. 

15 hours ago, balthazar said:

So they say, and as I've repeatedly stated; "WHEN?"

- - - - - 
Note that emission standards are NOT retro-active.

 

Fair enough with the "when" question.

Emission standards have remained pretty static though.  Only changing fairly recently but getting more aggressive.   Will these recent aggressive standards be rolled back?   We will see.

Which is the crux of both of our stance.

15 hours ago, balthazar said:

See, the motor vehicle world doesn't center around the current model year vehicles. The 15 million/yr sold pales in comparison to the 280+ million existing, older vehicles. That pool will exceed our lifetimes.

I agree, but I somehow disagree.

I have a feeling that a clash for clunkers type of deal will happen to get rid of swath of ICE vehicles.

15 hours ago, balthazar said:

- - - - -
Automakers will NOT go out of business (willingly) over BE's.
They're too large of an economic mainstay to do so, and Big Gov't has repeatedly shown a willingness to bail them out if their continuance is in jeopardy.  If they push back to Gov't, THERE WILL BE DELAYS. And while they may on the face of it proclaim they're 'all in'- note that none of the Major players is even close to HALF of their fleet being BE, and what BE sales there are; are a trickle.

 

I will agree to a delay in your discussion here.  But saying that the internal combustion is going away soon, by the end of THIS decade, is it sooooo wrong if that statement is delayed to add another decade to that prediction?

It IS happening is what the MAIN idea of what Im saying.  

I am not naïve to the fact that there are and will have millions upon millions of ICE vehicles  by the time 2030-2035 rolls around.  I am also not naïve to the fact that world governments are aware of this and will do their darndest to get rid of them the fastest way possible. 

California has all kinds of inventive laws trying to stifle engines that do not comply with their emissions standards.  GM, Ford and Chrysler have produced crate engines to comply with that to cater to the enormous restoration market in that state.  But what we get is restored cars that are to be driven on California roads to ditch their factory engines in favour of corporate crate engines.  Homogenization of the restored automobile that has all kinds of wrong and boring to it.   And with that being said, this is how I sees how governments will stifle and eliminate the millions of internal combustion engines on our roads  and that is how  justify my point of view. 

 

[oldshurst442]

17 hours ago, balthazar said:

These municipalities considering actual, absolute & literal bans on IC in cities had better make damned sure that includes all medium- & heavy-duty trucks, busses, local delivery, taxis, construction equipment, all RR and aircraft traffic in a widening cone overhead. Otherwise, it's arbitrary.  Going after the individual FIRST is ass-backwards.

In my city, the politicians here are switching to EVs for public works vehicles. 

The subway system here is fully electric anyway. Our subway system NEEDS to be extended although its quite a large network. A couple of new underground stations will be added in the east of the city, but its a very expensive undertaking to expand to the west. BUT...there is an expansion of an electric train above ground in the west that is more akin to our subway system so there is that.

Our city busses will eventual be electric. We have a few running around as test beds.  It was announced recently that are school busses will go electric.  There was a plan to go all EVs with our taxis. The taxis that were based from our airport (which our airport is smack dab in the middle of our city) and our downtown core were electric, but the company was losing money due to the fact that Teslas are expensive to buy.  There were other EV models in their line-up, but Teslas at that time, and still now, have the range to be viable taxis.  

We have discussed transport trucks in the past, you and I.  I think we are both in agreement to say that electric tech as of now, does not benefit the transport trucks.  So that idea to have long range transport trucks be electric will be an even longer time lapse....

But I do see your view that most cities around the world do not have Montreal's advantage. So therefore I must agree that going after the individual first IS ass-backwards. 

18 hours ago, balthazar said:

Again- no plan for high-rise charging, no plan for on-street parkers

This is an easy fix actually.

EV charging times with the next gen battery tech such as GM's Ultium will be considerably less than what it is now.  All we need now is just EV charging stations at every location that we could possibly have them.   And...having them in gasoline stations is a GREAT start...    But...the private entrepreneur needs to take heed and be a part of the winds of change.  In other parts of the world, including Canada,  this is NOT an issue.  In the US, all we get is just whining about the charging infrastructure and how there is not enough charging stations as its some kind of impossible feat to construct.  Elon Musk single handedly, with help of some governments has established a charging network for Tesla owners.  He is also trying to colonize Mars so...  this should cease as an argument against EVs. 

18 hours ago, balthazar said:

no means to get the budget-strapped into an affordable replacement vehicle (average price premium for BE in '21: $19 grand)

 Affordable is such an open ended term when the ATP of new US vehicles are at a stone's throw away from entry level EVs that are quite capable of delivering comfortable daily driving duties. 

No...cheap Chevy Spark priced EVs do not exist in North America. They do exist in China though. And in Europe some what.  But I will admit, cheap Chinese shyte is NOT what North America SHOULD be importing or producing.  So Ill admit that this needs more planning.  But its not a feat that can not be overcome by 2030-2035.  VW after all, has surpassed Tesla in the most EVs sold worldwide for 2021.  And although I do not know what EV models VW offers the Chinese and European markets, Im willing to bet that most of these EVs sold are not 100 000 dollar dream machines...   Im also willing to be that most of these EVs are not even 50 000 dollar 'look at me, Im a green person saving the planet, SJW type vehicles either.    Im willing to bet that most of VW's EVs are of the modest kind being sold to everyday peoples.  Models that North Americans do not have access to and therefore hard for us to see for realz an EV future.  

18 hours ago, balthazar said:

 Is the Gov't going to buy them at a reasonable market value?  What source replaces that revenue drain- will all gas taxes and the 'buy-back' taxes and the 'recycle the old vehicles tax' be placed upon the heads of new BE owners (how could it not be?)?

I see the logic fallacy of my "cash for clunkers" proposition earlier with your post here.  But...with Covid making every country just print money, is it such a problem for a cash for internal combustion clunkers program?  

I personally dont think so.  

18 hours ago, balthazar said:

You don't release the waters (forcing a mass consumer move) to until the dam (infrastructure and economics) is built.

In most country's though, this what you have said, is in motion.  Its in the US that is lagging.  The constant whining but doing nothing is what the REAL problem is.   

But, not all of what I say is rosey either.  Some countries do not have the clean energy to charge the batteries.  I know that.   

18 hours ago, balthazar said:

 No; implementing a ban first and hoping everything works smoothly in the limited time up to it is not a prudent or intelligent plan.  Politicians, nearly to the one, are pretty stupid.

Agreed

and

Agreed 

No rebuttal there from me. 

[balthazar]

RE emissions: they go by model year. My ‘59 only has to meet whatever standard (there is one for pre-‘68) there is for ‘59, not 2025. Regardless of motor. So politicians can do zero to effect the retirement of fully legally existing autos; they can only propose restrictions to future vehicles. They cannot push ‘early sunsetting’ of existing vehicles, lest they encounter a pushback demanding financial restitution. And that existing pool is nearly 300 million. 

This is why politicians proclaiming they’re going to reduce emissions by 45% or 85% are either lying thru their teeth or are hopelessly naive.

[oldshurst442]

4 hours ago, balthazar said:

This is why politicians proclaiming they’re going to reduce emissions by 45% or 85% are either lying thru their teeth or are hopelessly naive.

Maybe a little bit of both?