58 MPG by 2032

[Grumpycat]

And since EVs get 0 MpG, they will be outlawed.

So, you failed math.

73,848 miles in my Tesla. 0 gallons. Miles divided by gallons is infinity.

 

[gsganzer]

This is a de-Facto ban on ICE vehicles by 2032. The ICE technology has reached its peak and very little additional efficiency can be squeezed out of an engine.

I have no problems with an electric vehicle if it suits your needs. In fact, an electric vehicle would fit my wife's daily needs perfectly and I'd consider having an electric and an ICE in my household. But the one-size-fits-all mentality that's being pushed by our leaders is frightening.

Having all of our energy infrastructure in one basket, with talk of eliminating gas stoves/heat, wood burning stove/fireplaces etc. What could possibly go wrong? China and Russia are laughing out loud, as we sleep-walk into the next world conflict.

Two years ago, TX had a severe winter event that knocked out power for 4 days and pandemonium ensued. And this is in a state that has a pretty diverse energy infrastructure. Imagine the same thing happening in the dead of winter to an all-electric NYC, Detroit, Chicago, Boston with an infrastructure attack?

Just the other month, investigators found widespread Chinese intrusion in our infrastructure system, and it's believed they only found the tip of the iceberg.

This is a matter of national security that can't be overlooked.

 

[gsganzer]

Bill Gates and the other groups are only 1-3 years away from having the new modern and modular nuclear reactors ready for commercial use. Rather than the 70+ year nuclear technology that's currently in use.

We'd be much better off to tap the brakes on the decommissioning of the coal plants, until this new technology can be standardized and plugged into their place. The transmission infrastructure is already routed to these power nodes, the plants are typically remote, and they have all the cooling water needs at hand.

Decommissioning a 600MW coal plant? Plug in (10) 60MW modular reactors.

 

[bnold]

That won't work in Texas. We have temps in the 90s at midnight during summer. There is no solar being produced at that time. ERCOT keep telling us to limit power usage. What will happen with a million EVs charging overnight? I do realize some solar farms now charge batteries to pull power from during times where we don't get enough sunlight. I'm not turning off my a/c for people to charge EVs.

Many industries/manufacturing turn off at night. Look at ERCOT charts and the reduction in evening is pretty clear.

Not saying it is enough, but 90 at night with industry reduced frees a lot of unused capacity.

 

[Gator6x4]

"How close are we really to nuclear fusion?

Most experts agree that we're unlikely to be able to generate large-scale energy from nuclear fusion before around 2050 (the cautious might add on another decade).Jun 1, 2023."

Comments I overheard on Nuclear Fusion.

A-Nuclear Fusion will be great.

B. How are they going to control it.

A, They will figure it out.

B. You mean like the last time.

A. No, that was Nuclear Fission.

B. No, I am talking about Fusion

A. What are you talking about there is no Nuclear Fusion.

B. Yes there is, the SUN but no one lives there.

The sun is fueled by nuclear fusion

Featured snippet from the web​

In the core of the Sun hydrogen is being converted into helium. This is called nuclear fusion. It takes four hydrogen atoms to fuse into each helium atom. During the process some of the mass is converted into energy.

 

[Torvy]

I might change many to some. Industries go for efficiency and tend to prefer to operate as close to 24/7 as maintenance and such will allow. If they are not close to 24/7 that is often an indication of a bad economy (at least in that particular industry).

Offices are more likely to shut down at night, but there is a corresponding uptick in consumer use. The other thing to remember is that while a few people charge EV today the theory is that everyone will be doing it in some hypothetical future. That is well beyond the capacity of our current system, both here in Texas and nationwide.

Sure, today there is less energy use at night, but that is more driven by Temps at night being 20 degrees lower, so AC runs less.

 

[bdhsfz6]

As it is, industry is having enough trouble maintaining an adequate daytime workforce. Switching factories to nighttime production certainly won't help.

 

[WinterDeere]

This is a de-Facto ban on ICE vehicles by 2032. The ICE technology has reached its peak and very little additional efficiency can be squeezed out of an engine.

Simply... no. I think you're missing the point already argued several times in the preceding 27 pages. These are Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements, and there will still be many vehicles made way under 58 mpg (if that's the new standard), just like there are many vehicles made today that are way below today's CAFE standards. In 2016, when I bought my 12 mpg SRT 392 (6.4L sedan), the CAFE standard was 34.0 MPG. No problem, if FCA made enough Fiat 500's and Dodge Darts to compensate the fleet average, for my gas hog.

If the CAFE standard goes to 58 MPG in 2032, which remains to be seen, they will still be making some vehicles that probably average under 20 mpg in real-world conditions. EV's, which use 0 gallons of fuel for each mile, will offset the fleet average to permit this.

The irony is that those of us wanting to continue driving big-displacement V8-powered vehicles should be praising and promoting EV's as much as possible, as more EV's in the hands of the masses is the only way automakers will be able to meet higher fleet averages (whatever the numbers may be), while continuing to make powerful gasser sports cars and trucks for those desiring them. Put other words, more moms driving EV's to the grocery store and school drop-off, saves more gas fleet margin for the rest of us!

 

[Grumpycat]

Bill Gates and the other groups are only 1-3 years away from having the new modern and modular nuclear reactors ready for commercial use. Rather than the 70+ year nuclear technology that's currently in use.

Westinghouse was building modern modular nuclear reactors in China 15 years ago.

 

[Grumpycat]

If the CAFE standard goes to 58 MPG in 2032, which remains to be seen, ...

Posers and virtue signalers today imposing such ridiculousness will be retired and sitting pretty when their foolishness actually has to be implemented. Which it will not.

 

[Deleted member 371759]

Simply... no. I think you're missing the point already argued several times in the preceding 27 pages. These are Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements, and there will still be many vehicles made way under 58 mpg (if that's the new standard), just like there are many vehicles made today that are way below today's CAFE standards. In 2016, when I bought my 12 mpg SRT 392 (6.4L sedan), the CAFE standard was 34.0 MPG. No problem, if FCA made enough Fiat 500's and Dodge Darts to compensate the fleet average, for my gas hog.

If the CAFE standard goes to 58 MPG in 2032, which remains to be seen, they will still be making some vehicles that probably average under 20 mpg in real-world conditions. EV's, which use 0 gallons of fuel for each mile, will offset the fleet average to permit this.

The irony is that those of us wanting to continue driving big-displacement V8-powered vehicles should be praising and promoting EV's as much as possible, as more EV's in the hands of the masses is the only way automakers will be able to meet higher fleet averages (whatever the numbers may be), while continuing to make powerful gasser sports cars and trucks for those desiring them. Put other words, more moms driving EV's to the grocery store and school drop-off, saves more gas fleet margin for the rest of us!

I agree with you but for different reasons. I am 100% for urban/suburban residents voluntarily reducing their means of practical long distance travel.

 

[NoTrespassing]

I agree with you but for different reasons. I am 100% for urban/suburban residents voluntarily reducing their means of practical long distance travel.

Now that's pretty funny...

 

[Deleted member 371759]

Now that's pretty funny...

I'll be here all week;

 

[Gator6x4]

Westinghouse was building modern modular nuclear reactors in China 15 years ago.

How Does a Gen III Nuclear Plant Differ From a Gen II?

With over 440 commercial nuclear power facilities worldwide, nuclear power remains one of the most reliable carbon-free energy sources. Nuclear power plants are generally classified by the generation (I, II, III, III+ and IV) of their reactors. Every next generation is more advanced in terms of safe

www.azocleantech.com

 

[gsganzer]

Simply... no. I think you're missing the point already argued several times in the preceding 27 pages. These are Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements, and there will still be many vehicles made way under 58 mpg (if that's the new standard), just like there are many vehicles made today that are way below today's CAFE standards. In 2016, when I bought my 12 mpg SRT 392 (6.4L sedan), the CAFE standard was 34.0 MPG. No problem, if FCA made enough Fiat 500's and Dodge Darts to compensate the fleet average, for my gas hog.

If the CAFE standard goes to 58 MPG in 2032, which remains to be seen, they will still be making some vehicles that probably average under 20 mpg in real-world conditions. EV's, which use 0 gallons of fuel for each mile, will offset the fleet average to permit this.

The irony is that those of us wanting to continue driving big-displacement V8-powered vehicles should be praising and promoting EV's as much as possible, as more EV's in the hands of the masses is the only way automakers will be able to meet higher fleet averages (whatever the numbers may be), while continuing to make powerful gasser sports cars and trucks for those desiring them. Put other words, more moms driving EV's to the grocery store and school drop-off, saves more gas fleet margin for the rest of us!

I understand the CAFE standards and the fleet average. But I truly believe this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Couple the CAFE standards, with proposals being considered by the EPA for tightening tailpipe emissions, and there's no doubt what the future of ICE looks like.

And maybe at some point, all-electric becomes a reliable, cost effective and strategically defensible as an energy policy. I don't see it in the time frame being pushed and I think we're prematurely abandoning infrastructure (wasting money) that still has a serviceable life.

A balanced energy policy requires 3 legs on the stool. Cost, reliability and sustainability. None of the energy sources provide all three, but diversity does.

 

[dodge man]

Let’s clear one thing up, the slower you go the better mpg you get. I don’t have cold hard facts but most vehicles will probably get the best fuel mileage at about 45 to 50 mph. It’s just physics. At highway speeds almost all your fuel is going to overcome wind resistance. Weight isn’t much of a factor once you get it moving. Wind resistance is roughly based on the square of your speed so you double your speed the wind resistance is 4 times greater.

Im not advocating slower speed limits. 5030 said this earlier.

 

[Oaktree]

The irony is that those of us wanting to continue driving big-displacement V8-powered vehicles should be praising and promoting EV's as much as possible, as more EV's in the hands of the masses is the only way automakers will be able to meet higher fleet averages (whatever the numbers may be), while continuing to make powerful gasser sports cars and trucks for those desiring them.

Regardless of whether or not EVs catch on, the writing is on the wall for big-displacement V8s, and has been for some time, especially now where a much smaller engine can put out the same or greater HP than a V8 did not all that many years ago.

That having been said, I hope ICE vehicles will continue to be readily available for many years. Not an EV hater, but really don't see any upside to them at least for my needs.

Westinghouse was building modern modular nuclear reactors in China 15 years ago.

Nuclear's problems in the U.S. are strictly political, not technical. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry's arrogance and laxity towards security and safety has pretty much poisoned the well here. The Chinese government just does as it pleases without regard to what the citizenry feels.

 

[Torvy]

Let’s clear one thing up, the slower you go the better mpg you get.

This is only true to a point as it is only addressing drag (wind resistance).

Engine efficiency and gear ratios (along with a bunch of other variables) will make a curve of efficiency. The easiest way to understand this is that if you go as slow as possible (barely above idle) you will get very poor mileage. Ergo, slower isn't always better. Each vehicle as well as the weather and topographical conditions will yield different curves. This is the fundamental problem with mandates. They try to fit everything into one simplistic box.

 

[Torvy]

Even a government website shows improvement with speed for some classes of cars. Of course, it is ridiculous because not all cars in a class are powered or geared the same.

Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - Fuel Economy at Various Driving Speeds

 

[Torvy]

Nuclear's problems in the U.S. are strictly political, not technical. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry's arrogance and laxity towards security and safety has pretty much poisoned the well here. The Chinese government just does as it pleases without regard to what the citizenry feels.

I agree with the initial point, but it wasn't the industry, but the media and politics that led to high barriers to entry that allowed Europe and Asia to vastly outpace the US in nuclear energy production.

Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident Wasn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be

Early this morning 40 years ago, America experienced its first major accident at a nuclear power plant—Three Mile Island in central Pennsylvania. Many Americans by then had already seen Jane Fonda’s “The China Syndrome,” a nuclear disaster film that debuted three weeks earlier. Time magazine...

www.heritage.org