Electric Vehicles

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I agree with some of what you've stated above. I bolded several parts that you present as fact, which I think you should admit are your opinion. You may be right, but then again, you may not.

Two years ago nobody would have predicted that NY would ban gas appliances in new construction, but they have. You can't predict whether the administrative state will ban ICE vehicles or not. Clearly they would like to do it if they thought they could get away with it.

I would at best amend it to say that I know as well as anyone else would know and better than most. Here’s why I say that.

By the time 2035 gets here, the automotive landscape will look a lot different than it looks today.

I’ve been with this company since shortly after I retired from GM. It is the leading supplier of vehicle sales forecasting and vehicle production forecasting. Nine times out of ten if you are looking at a vehicle, powertrain, or component forecast it is from my company or someone to whom we sold the data. It is the leading supplier because over the years it has been the most accurate. Same holds true for powertrain forecasting, technology forecasting, component forecasting and so on and so on. My last 10 years that I was at GM I bought forecasting information from this company. All of the major OEMs and most of the minor ones buy some version or another of our forecasts. About 95% of Tier I suppliers buy our forecasts. So do government agencies, unions, pretty much every entity connected with the auto industry. And I have all of that data available at my fingertips. So, yes, I have an informed view of what is being worked on for 2035.


By 2035, people with more expertise in those areas than either you or me will have developed and implemented solutions to both problems.

I talk to these people.

As the leader for my company’s automotive consulting practice in the Americas I and the consultants who work for me are in contact with the companies that are or soon will be driving the change. We provide them detailed forecasts of where the industry is going, what technology is being implemented when and where, trends in consumer economics and buying practices, and details on pending legislation.

To your point, some things, like NY regulating stoves used in new construction are not easily predictable. On the other hand, that has zip to do with the auto industry so it’s not something I even loosely follow. But all of the tech trends currently moving the auto industry are things that have been on our radar screen for years and we have a strong handle on what’s happening when.

You keep saying that you would be forced into an EV. That is not true.
I can still say that with with the highest degree of confidence. I’d put big money on it and I don’t gamble. Georgia is one of the states that is pretty much standing on the sidelines in the whole electrification transition. There is no motivation for Georgia to move one way or the other. Could they? Of course they could. They could just as easily ban helicopters and motorcycles. Will they? Smart money is on “no”.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

My bottom line is…

1. It’s going to happen so best to understand what is happening when.
2. It’s not going to happen overnight. Today’s grid is not 2035’s grid. Today’s charger availability is not 2035’s charger availability.
3. This is more of an automaker driven change than it is a government mandated change. The government is doing things to take advantage of the shift by forcing manufacture (jobs) to be in the US and supporting the buildout of the infrastructure, just like it did with the buildout of the Interstate system in the ‘50s.

Really? What a fantastic co-incidence the gov't is abetting these automotive decisions to go all EV.

It's not a gov't mandate, but it might as well be. Ban ICE sales, a stated policy to end fossil fuel use and save the planet mantra all just dove-tails with the automaker's foresight to go all EV...lol..
Building out infrastructure similar to the 50's is hardly a parallel. They are creating a crisis that didn't previously exist, with massive deficit spending and subsidies on solutions that aren't needed.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I would at best amend it to say that I know as well as anyone else would know and better than most. Here’s why I say that.

By the time 2035 gets here, the automotive landscape will look a lot different than it looks today.

I’ve been with this company since shortly after I retired from GM. It is the leading supplier of vehicle sales forecasting and vehicle production forecasting. Nine times out of ten if you are looking at a vehicle, powertrain, or component forecast it is from my company or someone to whom we sold the data. It is the leading supplier because over the years it has been the most accurate. Same holds true for powertrain forecasting, technology forecasting, component forecasting and so on and so on. My last 10 years that I was at GM I bought forecasting information from this company. All of the major OEMs and most of the minor ones buy some version or another of our forecasts. About 95% of Tier I suppliers buy our forecasts. So do government agencies, unions, pretty much every entity connected with the auto industry. And I have all of that data available at my fingertips. So, yes, I have an informed view of what is being worked on for 2035.


By 2035, people with more expertise in those areas than either you or me will have developed and implemented solutions to both problems.

I talk to these people.

As the leader for my company’s automotive consulting practice in the Americas I and the consultants who work for me are in contact with the companies that are or soon will be driving the change. We provide them detailed forecasts of where the industry is going, what technology is being implemented when and where, trends in consumer economics and buying practices, and details on pending legislation.

To your point, some things, like NY regulating stoves used in new construction are not easily predictable. On the other hand, that has zip to do with the auto industry so it’s not something I even loosely follow. But all of the tech trends currently moving the auto industry are things that have been on our radar screen for years and we have a strong handle on what’s happening when.

You keep saying that you would be forced into an EV. That is not true.
I can still say that with with the highest degree of confidence. I’d put big money on it and I don’t gamble. Georgia is one of the states that is pretty much standing on the sidelines in the whole electrification transition. There is no motivation for Georgia to move one way or the other. Could they? Of course they could. They could just as easily ban helicopters and motorcycles. Will they? Smart money is on “no”.

You're an expert on the grid and on what local power companies all over the country are going to do in terms of updating their equipment?

You're an expert on local zoning laws, all across the country?

You're also an expert on what politicians in every state in the union will do?

And, you're an expert on what government bureaucracies will do?

So much so that you can predict all these things 12 years into the future?

Yet you professed ignorance of the move against natural gas even as many localities were moving to ban natural gas appliances in new construction?

Sorry, not buying what you're selling.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by martinjlm

My bottom line is…
It’s going to happen so best to understand what is happening when.
It’s not going to happen overnight. Today’s grid is not 2035’s grid. Today’s charger availability is not 2035’s charger availability.
This is more of an automaker driven change than it is a government mandated change. The government is doing things to take advantage of the shift by forcing manufacture (jobs) to be in the US and supporting the buildout of the infrastructure, just like it did with the buildout of the Interstate system in the ‘50s.

Originally Posted by 90503

Really? What a fantastic co-incidence the gov't is abetting these automotive decisions to go all EV.

It's not a gov't mandate, but it might as well be. Ban ICE sales, a stated policy to end fossil fuel use and save the planet mantra all just dove-tails with the automaker's foresight to go all EV...lol..
Building out infrastructure similar to the 50's is hardly a parallel. They are creating a crisis that didn't previously exist, with massive deficit spending and subsidies on solutions that aren't needed.

If you look at things in the context and the chronology in which they occurred it makes more sense.

• Going back several US Administrations, much of the world has acknowledged that there is a climate crisis that is accelerated by carbon emissions. Commissions have been set up to study this. The vast majority confirm the concern.
• The Obama Administration signed onto the Paris Accord which set targets (not mandates, not laws) for each country to achieve in order to slow the rate of climate change. Each industrial sector also had targets to reach. Transportation is by far the leading generator of carbon emissions. That includes personal cars, airplanes, ocean liners, commercial vehicles transporting goods, etc.
• Most of the major auto companies communicated their agreement with the findings of climate change studies and acknowledged the targets set at the Paris Accord and started to develop plans to contribute to the reduction of auto industry (Transportation) based carbon emissions.
• The Trump Administration removed the United States from the Paris Accord. Major US automakers continued their carbon reduction activities despite not being bound by rule or by leaning of the administration in place. During the Trump Administration GM declared their intent to produce only zero emission passenger vehicles by 2035.
• The Trump Administration relaxed Obama Administration fuel economy regulations and retracted California’s waiver that allows them to set their own auto related air quality standards. It also allows other states (Section 177 states) to follow the same air quality standards. This is what allows California and the other Section 177 states to ban the sale of new ICE vehicles.
• About this same time GM, Ford, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover, Volvo and other auto manufacturers pledged billions of dollars to manufacture batteries and electric vehicles in the US. Even though the Trump Administration had removed any requirement to focus on EV.
• Several US companies (Amazon, Walmart, PepsiCo, GM, Ford, Apple, to many others to list them all) set target dates for achieving Carbon Neutrality on a global corporate basis. Remember, this all happened under the Trump Administration, so there was clearly no pressure from the government for any of these companies to do this.
• The Biden Administration is elected and re-establishes US participation in the Paris Accord. The Biden Administration also reinstated California’s waiver allowing them to set their own air quality standards. Same for Section 177 states.
• The Biden Administration passes a bipartisan Infrastructure Bill that focuses on rebuilding the nation’s roads, bridges and electric grid. It also provides funding, managed at the state level, for building electric vehicle charging infrastructure
• The Biden Administration passes the Inflation Reduction Act that covers a number of actions to reduce prices (caps on prescription drug prices for example) and a number of actions focused on creating new jobs. Some of these job actions include a new set of incentives for EV buyers, with the requirement that the cars and the batteries are assembled in North America and that key battery components and minerals currently sourced primarily through China have to be sourced in the US or with free trade partners.

TLDR…Car companies were moving strongly in the direction of electrification even under the lead of an administration that said it was ok not to. They were spending billions to prepare their EV portfolios even though fuel economy regulations were being relaxed. The Inflation Reduction Act is in place to provide American consumers the ability to consider EVs without having to be super affluent. The Infrastructure Bill provides each state with funding to set up charging infrastructure to support the EVs that the automakers have already said they’re going to build.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

You're an expert on the grid and on what local power companies all over the country are going to do in terms of updating their equipment?

I am an expert on what the power companies that my team has done consulting work for plan to do. I also have fingertip access to experts in our Energy team who could easily answer the above question. They’re only an email or phone call away.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

You're an expert on local zoning laws, all across the country?

Only the ones we’ve had to access in order to complete projects for clients. Beyond that, I know where to find whatever I need.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

You're also an expert on what politicians in every state in the union will do?

They’re not even experts on that. I’m jokin, but not really.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

And, you're an expert on what government bureaucracies will do?

Only the ones I talk with directly. Meeting with two of them tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

So much so that you can predict all these things 12 years into the future?

There’s a big difference between forecast and prediction. Predictions are either right or wrong. Forecasts are measured by how close they are to reality when they come to fruition. Setting aside COVID and Supply Chain Crisis, my company’s vehicle sales and production forecasts are typically within 2% of actual when measured.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Yet you professed ignorance of the move against natural gas even as many localities were moving to ban natural gas appliances in new construction?

I’m aware of the natural gas / electric stove issue. I just hold a strong level of don’t care and choose not to stay up on every shift in the dialogue. If you say NY is banning gas stoves in new construction I believe you because I don’t care enough to confirm it for myself. If you say that electric vehicles cost more to operate because of how far people have to charge I’m throwing the bullshit flag every time because I know that stuff off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Sorry, not buying what you're selling.

Not aware I was selling anything.

[Wyzz Kydd]

You’re selling the idea that you can accurately predict the future 12 years out in all the areas I mentioned. To borrow your phrase I’m throwing the BS flag on that laughable claim.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cal...es-experts-say

The Department of Energy estimated last year that the U.S. would need to expand its transmission infrastructure 60% by 2030 and triple its size by 2050 to meet climate goals.

According to an independent analysis by energy researcher Robert Bryce, at its current pace, it would take an estimated 282 years to triple the nation's transmission capacity. Like other energy projects and infrastructure development, transmission lines often face delays from environmental regulation and local opposition.

"It takes ten years just to get approvals to build some of these transmission lines

[snizzle]

Oops. It’s already complicated.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electri...-gas-vehicles/

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Oops. It’s already complicated.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electri...-gas-vehicles/

Exactly. There are way to many factors that affect both fossil fuel prices and electricity prices for anyone to credibly claim they can predict where these things are going to be next year, let alone in 12 years.

There are also a huge array of regulatory hurdles to overcome to expand and upgrade the grid, and those hurdles also have tons of variability depending upon location, which party is in power, what the supplies of needed materials are etc. etc.

In the article I posted they state that it takes 10 years just to get approval yet we're supposed to believe that in 12 years the grid will have triple the capacity it currently does? We're supposed to believe that despite the fact that there haven't been any serious attempts to upgrade the grid in recent memory?

Meanwhile some states have had to deliberately shut off power just to avoid widespread blackouts? This is with the currently minuscule adoption of EVs?

Sorry, but this is a classic case of someone saying 'who are you going to believe, me and my 'experts' that I can talk to whenever I want, or your lying eyes.

My experience with projections, and I've been in the business of making them myself, says that anyone who claims they can predict these things five years out is delusional and 12 years out is laughable.

[90503]

Make do the best you can. The actual desired result to save the planet is zero energy use of any kind. The future of energy, gas or electric, is to have it end, not expand or be plentiful. When the pandemic had the economy shut down for various reasons, the environmentalists were giddy about the benefits to the environment.

Stay home, don't go anywhere, don't use any energy. The ideal and logical outcome of any opportunity to regulate energy use.

The charade of renewable energy becoming viable is based on unworkable platitudes becoming policy in lieu of reality. It doesn't really matter what happens ten, fifteen years from now. The boondoggle, waste, delays, bureaucratic hinderances and hypocrisies are already in place to ensure a disastrous future outcome. Any energy policy is subject to a newly discovered climate situation that requires more reduction in energy use. And it will be called a raging success from the Ministry of Truth no matter how reduced or costly any type of energy becomes. Just deal with it. We have to save the planet at any (high) cost.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Yeah...the concept looks good in that particular image there, but in many others I just felt like it was kind of awkward.

So I for one am glad they toned it down. I do wish it was a bit "more" of a change than just what on the surface looks like a revised front end and tail from the ICE version, but then again we used to complain that EVs shouted a bit too much "look at me, I'm saving the planet" so I hate to complain when an EV just looks like a nice looking normal vehicle.

I thought their funny Superbowl commercial was good. Sounds like they will have some sort of a range extender available for the RAM REV. Any details on that yet?

If it ends up being more or less, like the GM volt platform (with a dedicated engine to keep it going down the road) but with a battery that can take it 200 to 300 miles on battery alone, then I applaud RAM. It's the only kind of EV at this time that I'd feel relatively comfortable replacing my ICE vehicles with. One thing is for sure, if/when we go to a full EV vehicle, you can be damn sure we will have one ICE or hybrid vehicle for use if the need arises for traveling long distances without throwing in range anxiety or worrying about if I'll find an available charger.

I don't have to worry about it here so much, but think about the folks in Florida who may have to "get out" due to an impending Hurricane. No idea when they might be gone, how long, or the conditions when they get back. Last thing I'd want is to worry about charging.

I think the Ram EV knocked it out of the park with the styling. I think Ford and Ram did it right. Their EV trucks look just like the ICE versions, with subtle hints that they are EVs. GM on the other hand, went with the in your face its an EV styling for the Silverado EV

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

You’re selling the idea that you can accurately predict the future 12 years out in all the areas I mentioned. To borrow your phrase I’m throwing the BS flag on that laughable claim.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cal...es-experts-say

The Department of Energy estimated last year that the U.S. would need to expand its transmission infrastructure 60% by 2030 and triple its size by 2050 to meet climate goals.

According to an independent analysis by energy researcher Robert Bryce, at its current pace, it would take an estimated 282 years to triple the nation's transmission capacity. Like other energy projects and infrastructure development, transmission lines often face delays from environmental regulation and local opposition.

"It takes ten years just to get approvals to build some of these transmission lines

My words have always stated FORECAST and I often (too often?) refer to the FORECASTS that my company produces and supplies to multiple industries, companies, and governments.

Prediction is your word. Forecast is my word. I don’t predict, I forecast.

You are interpreting information from an independent researcher. I am talking to people actively involved in transforming the infrastructure. I assure you they aren’t tracking to Bryce’s 282 year timeline. You believe your guy, I’ll keep talking to my folks .

As someone else pointed out in this thread, you are speaking with authority about EVs and charging even though you have not had any firsthand experience with either. I have driven almost every EV currently available for sale in the US. I am in constant conversation with EV car companies (that’s how I drive their cars), EV charger manufacturers, utilities, government agencies, and battery suppliers. My opinions and forecasts are based on the data available through my company and the many interactions I have with people who are actually planning the future.

At the end of the day, I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. What I am trying to do is provide facts to help those in this thread who have an interest in knowing what is going on and why. Anybody reading what I post can and should take it in and review it through their own filters and draw their own conclusions.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

You’re selling the idea that you can accurately predict the future 12 years out in all the areas I mentioned. To borrow your phrase I’m throwing the BS flag on that laughable claim.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cal...es-experts-say

The Department of Energy estimated last year that the U.S. would need to expand its transmission infrastructure 60% by 2030 and triple its size by 2050 to meet climate goals.

According to an independent analysis by energy researcher Robert Bryce, at its current pace, it would take an estimated 282 years to triple the nation's transmission capacity. Like other energy projects and infrastructure development, transmission lines often face delays from environmental regulation and local opposition.

"It takes ten years just to get approvals to build some of these transmission lines

This will be interesting. I just got the agenda for a battery industry conference where I'll be delivering a keynote address. I get to follow none other than Robert Bryce. I'll make it a point to discuss the 282 year estimate with Mr. Bryce.

[FarmerFran]

Premature Electrification - I About peed myself laughing

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

My words have always stated FORECAST and I often (too often?) refer to the FORECASTS that my company produces and supplies to multiple industries, companies, and governments.

Prediction is your word. Forecast is my word. I don’t predict, I forecast.

You are interpreting information from an independent researcher. I am talking to people actively involved in transforming the infrastructure. I assure you they aren’t tracking to Bryce’s 282 year timeline. You believe your guy, I’ll keep talking to my folks .

As someone else pointed out in this thread, you are speaking with authority about EVs and charging even though you have not had any firsthand experience with either. I have driven almost every EV currently available for sale in the US. I am in constant conversation with EV car companies (that’s how I drive their cars), EV charger manufacturers, utilities, government agencies, and battery suppliers. My opinions and forecasts are based on the data available through my company and the many interactions I have with people who are actually planning the future.

At the end of the day, I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. What I am trying to do is provide facts to help those in this thread who have an interest in knowing what is going on and why. Anybody reading what I post can and should take it in and review it through their own filters and draw their own conclusions.

A distinction with no meaningful difference.

Forecast: predict or estimate (a future event or trend).

Prediction:a thing predicted; a forecast.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pred...hrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=fore...hrome&ie=UTF-8

You're talking to Georgia Power people? Snapping Shoals EMC? Talking to Governor Newsome? President Biden?

I don't have to drive an EV myself to know they take much longer to charge than it takes to gas up a car. I don't have to drive an EV myself to know there aren't nearly as many charging stations in Georgia as there are gas stations. I don't have to work for an electric company to read up about the status of our grid, and I most certainly don't have to take what a consultant says at face value.

You seem like a knowledgeable educated person. In some cases you are providing information, but, IMHO, you're also providing opinions presented as facts and THATS what I object to.