Wyoming: ICE Only By 2035

[Kostamojen]

Originally Posted by Yotsuya

Wyoming just needs attention after Idaho blew their door off.

Wyoming, the state run by actual trolls.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by Russ_G93

Lets not forget the Additional 43 Coal Energy plants China is adding for 2023. If they continue to build more, I doubt even 30% (or more) of the US pop being in a Hybrid or EV will make much of a difference as far as Carbon count.

Whataboutism.

[Sid03SVT]

Originally Posted by Russ_G93

Lets not forget the Additional 43 Coal Energy plants China is adding for 2023. If they continue to build more, I doubt even 30% (or more) of the US pop being in a Hybrid or EV will make much of a difference as far as Carbon count.

Originally Posted by dwf137

Whataboutism.

"That guy isn't bailing water out of our sinking boat, so I'm not going to, and nobody else should either"

[juanmedina]

Originally Posted by Russ_G93

Lets not forget the Additional 43 Coal Energy plants China is adding for 2023. If they continue to build more, I doubt even 30% (or more) of the US pop being in a Hybrid or EV will make much of a difference as far as Carbon count.

But What If You Burn Coal To Power EVs?
This is the crazy part. Even if you only ever burned coal to create the electricity to power EVs, that's still less CO2 than is released by burning gasoline. How is this possible? Simple: efficiency

https://www.motortrend.com/features/...being-lied-to/

[DougNuts]

Originally Posted by juanmedina

https://www.motortrend.com/features/...being-lied-to/

I assume you're familiar with Volvo's study that would put emissions break even at well past 100k miles when using "dirty" power generation? It's not 1.2 or 1.6 years for a break even, not in a coal burning state.

Those are, of course, Volvo's numbers of their two very similar cars. They warn that it may not be the same for all manufacturers.

For those who haven't been there, there are lots of windmills in Wyoming, so they aren't anti-green energy. This is obviously a stunt by their state legislature (not Federal, which you guys keep talking about).

[Russ_G93]

No thats what im saying, im all for improving our nations numbers, (Im actually pretty down for that Prius, might trade the Honda in for one after we upgrade the Q5 -> EV Q5 would be sweet) but it will fall into the category of redundant if the rest of the world isn't following suit with the same sort of (Whats the word..) Urgency.
China is currently in an energy and food crisis. Product and production wise (Export) they're solid, not so solid in feeding their population, let alone heating/Lighting the homes of their pop (Thus the need for the 43 Coal Plants). They will use cheap energy solve the issue first before heading into alternatives. We're comparing 350mill people to that of 1.4 Billion. In otherwords, yes our numbers will improve, but it is not to say that the difference we just created won't be filled in by the needs of those living on the other side of the hemisphere. Hoping those plants are relatively high in efficiency.

[Russ_G93]

Double P-rius (I want itt)

[juanmedina]

Originally Posted by DougNuts

I assume you're familiar with Volvo's study that would put emissions break even at well past 100k miles when using "dirty" power generation? It's not 1.2 or 1.6 years for a break even, not in a coal burning state.

Those are, of course, Volvo's numbers of their two very similar cars. They warn that it may not be the same for all manufacturers.

For those who haven't been there, there are lots of windmills in Wyoming, so they aren't anti-green energy. This is obviously a stunt by their state legislature (not Federal, which you guys keep talking about).

That study already has been discussed:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs/9900644002/

[hi5.0]

Haven't gone far enough. Also should ban gasoline. Go diesel only.

[Yotsuya]

Horses only. Then Wyoming may have a shot at being competitive, again.

[juanmedina]

."It takes more electricity to drive the average gasoline car 100 miles, than it does to drive an electric car 100 miles

https://youtu.be/BQpX-9OyEr4

https://youtu.be/BQpX-9OyEr4

[SCRAPPYDO]

who cares what uses more electricity. Seriously. Who the hell cares.

Wind is 9% of our total electrical production.. when it is actually working
Solar is less than 3% when the sun out.

Fossil Fuels are ~60%
Nuclear is ~20%


More electric cars will mean more energy is needed. The only scalable power we have is Fossil Fuels and Nuclear (maybe Hydro). The greater the need for electricity, the more stable and reliable it will need to be. It is okay for renewables to be **** in terms of reliability because it is barely carrying 12% of the load. It can depend on fossil fuels to bail it out seamlessly. You remove fossil fuels, then you put all your faith in an unpredictable, and unreliable, and unsaleable power source.

Idiotic ideologies lead to stupid decisions.
Renewable are great as long as you have a fossil fuel strong back to make up all shortcomings. This rush to renewables is feel good legislation that will end up hurting millions of people with brown and black outs.

Renewables will have their day, but not in the next 40 or so years until it can be made saleable and reliable. I think some next gen battery needs to be invented that is exponentially better not just a bit. WE need a step function improvement in storage, not an incremental micro blips. You can only polish an apple so much.

[SCRAPPYDO]

who cares what uses more electricity. Seriously. Who the hell cares.

Wind is 9% of our total electrical production.. when it is actually working
Solar is less than 3% when the sun out.

Fossil Fuels are ~60%
Nuclear is ~20%


More electric cars will mean more energy is needed. The only scalable power we have is Fossil Fuels and Nuclear (maybe Hydro). The greater the need for electricity, the more stable and reliable it will need to be. It is okay for renewables to be **** in terms of reliability because it is barely carrying 12% of the load. It can depend on fossil fuels to bail it out seamlessly. You remove fossil fuels, then you put all your faith in an unpredictable, and unreliable, and unsaleable power source.

Idiotic ideologies lead to stupid decisions.
Renewable are great as long as you have a fossil fuel strong back to make up all shortcomings. This rush to renewables is feel good legislation that will end up hurting millions of people with brown and black outs.

Renewables will have their day, but not in the next 40 or so years until it can be made saleable and reliable. I think some next gen battery needs to be invented that is exponentially better not just a bit. WE need a step function improvement in storage, not an incremental micro blips. You can only polish an apple so much.

[SCRAPPYDO]

scalable not saleable.

[godfather2112]

Seems like there are a decent amount of you who didn't read the article for context. The bill is more tongue in cheek than proposed serious legislation. The goal is point out that certain states forcing their 100% EV by 2035 should not be forced on other states simply because the technology (EV) is not and likely will not be 100% ready for a complete transition away from ICE and would leave residents of certain states, like Wyoming, in a rather ****ty situation where EV vehicles are either not suitable or practical for a decent portion of those living there.

[4S-TURBO]

Wyoming can be like embargo'd Cuba and recycle and maintain their ICE infrastructure indefinitely. It will be like driving through a time warp...more so than it already is.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO

who cares what uses more electricity. Seriously. Who the hell cares.

It matters a lot because you're all here complaining that EV's are going to chew up a ton of energy... Energy is neither created nor destroyed, right? So if it takes a ton of energy to make gasoline, it's pure waste. All you anti-EV people out there complaining that EV's are running on coal - well, your ICE runs on just as much coal, in addition to the gasoline its consuming.

Let's do some back-of-napkin calculations: My car has been averaging 3.5 miles per kWh with my driving habits. It takes about 4.5 kWh to refine a gallon of gas. 3.5*4=15.75 miles. Before that gasoline ever makes it into your tank, I could have driven almost 16 miles on the electricity used to just produce that single gallon of gasoline, let alone what it takes to get it into your tank. Then lets talk about the energy in that gallon of gas after it's already in your tank, completely disregarding the transportation from the refinery to your tank... There's about 34 kWh of energy in that gallon of gas. That ads another 119 miles of range to my car . So to add that all up, for your one gallon of gas, you have consumed the same amount of energy as it would have taken my car to go 135 miles, and we still haven't transported that gasoline from the refinery to your car. What if, instead of putting that gasoline in a car, which is really wasteful, we instead used it for things like planes, ships, long-distance trucks, etc. that really need it.

[SCRAPPYDO]

Just because people have open spaces and do not live like caged filthy rats in a huge city with no freedom and high crime does not mean they are any less American than the people who choose to live in congested cities. Country living is not worse or better, it is just different.
I detest mega cities, but many people do not. I do not think them any inferior for making what I feel is a dumb choice. We are all still one country and if people actually cared about diversity and equity as much as they like to brag on it, they would not talk about certain states with such hatred and disdain.

Urban sprawl is not superior to rural beauty. Just different sides of one Country.

[SCRAPPYDO]

Originally Posted by dwf137

It matters a lot because you're all here complaining that EV's are going to chew up a ton of energy... Energy is neither created nor destroyed, right? So if it takes a ton of energy to make gasoline, it's pure waste. All you anti-EV people out there complaining that EV's are running on coal - well, your ICE runs on just as much coal, in addition to the gasoline its consuming.

Let's do some back-of-napkin calculations: My car has been averaging 3.5 miles per kWh with my driving habits. It takes about 4.5 kWh to refine a gallon of gas. 3.5*4=15.75 miles. Before that gasoline ever makes it into your tank, I could have driven almost 16 miles on the electricity used to just produce that single gallon of gasoline, let alone what it takes to get it into your tank. Then lets talk about the energy in that gallon of gas after it's already in your tank, completely disregarding the transportation from the refinery to your tank... There's about 34 kWh of energy in that gallon of gas. That ads another 119 miles of range to my car . So to add that all up, for your one gallon of gas, you have consumed the same amount of energy as it would have taken my car to go 135 miles, and we still haven't transported that gasoline from the refinery to your car. What if, instead of putting that gasoline in a car, which is really wasteful, we instead used it for things like planes, ships, long-distance trucks, etc. that really need it.

No it does not matter a lot. It matters next to nothing. If we all switched to EV absolutely NOTHING would change. Except we would all be more inconvenienced by the long waits at chargers. Your falling on your sword here for something that is neither a primary or secondary polluter. There is not NEED to stop driving ICE cars any time soon.

EV zealots seem hell bent on shoving what they want on other people and its really telling. Especially when the main reason for switching over is inconsequential and immeasurable.

I am only Anti EV when I am told that I must drive it because somebody else wants me to. I am all for people having a choice. I am against anybody who removes choice be that in favor of ICE or EV.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO

No it does not matter a lot. It matters next to nothing. If we all switched to EV absolutely NOTHING would change. Except we would all be more inconvenienced by the long waits at chargers. Your falling on your sword here for something that is neither a primary or secondary polluter. There is not NEED to stop driving ICE cars any time soon.

EV zealots seem hell bent on shoving what they want on other people and its really telling. Especially when the main reason for switching over is inconsequential and immeasurable.

I am only Anti EV when I am told that I must drive it because somebody else wants me to. I am all for people having a choice. I am against anybody who removes choice be that in favor of ICE or EV.

I mean... it's clear that your mindset is that anthropogenic emissions don't matter. And if that's your mindset, then the idea that the emissions from cars won't make an impact would be true.

But to say nothing would change is grossly incorrect. If we all switched to EV, a huge amount of overall energy would be conserved. All of the energy to produce gasoline for cars (pretty substantial per my calculations above) could go to producing energy for other things. It would lower the load on the grid so people in Texas and California aren't stuck with an electrical grid that can't support their inhabitants during weather extremes which are increasing in frequency. The unused oil/gasoline could be used in other industries, or towards reducing the cost of air travel, shipping, etc.

[SCRAPPYDO]

That is only a theory. I did not say it does not matter, I said it matters next to nothing. The difference in the ZOMG the world is ending because CO2 will be so negligible in the big picture of things as to matter... next to nothing.

The so called energy savings will be negligible as refineries will still be producing petroleum for every other usage. You are taking credit for removing gasoline production, but its not the way refineries work. All that infrastructure will still be in place. You do not get to count that in the energy saved column. About the only thing actually saved is the diesel used to transport it to the gas stations. That petroleum will be used to make plastic, power up generators for the new EV load. Your calculations are oversimplified and make wild assumptions that just not true. In essence your robbing peter to pay paul. You cannot take away energy to produce gasoline and allocate it to other places. Refineries are still running as the entire 1st world economy is petroleum based.

It is an interesting thought process, but at the end there is no simple answer for this on EITHER Side as the energy production, transportation, and storage is all intertwined in essentially to some degree inseparable.

[4S-TURBO]

Remove profit motive and what say ye...

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO

The so called energy savings will be negligible as refineries will still be producing petroleum for every other usage. You are taking credit for removing gasoline production, but its not the way refineries work. All that infrastructure will still be in place. You do not get to count that in the energy saved column. About the only thing actually saved is the diesel used to transport it to the gas stations. That petroleum will be used to make plastic, power up generators for the new EV load. Your calculations are oversimplified and make wild assumptions that just not true. In essence your robbing peter to pay paul. You cannot take away energy to produce gasoline and allocate it to other places. Refineries are still running as the entire 1st world economy is petroleum based.

If we stopped using gasoline for cars, refineries would shut down. About 75% of our crude oil goes to fuel. There is zero chance that all of those refineries would remain at 100%.

And yes, my calculations are back-of-the-napkin bull****. Totally appreciate that. I don't work in this industry, but everyone gets caught up in the minutia of "but your EV is charged via coal", but there's a much larger picture going on and big oil has put up the curtain so you don't see what's really going on... The richest people in the world have somehow brainwashed a large portion of the country to continue enriching them with our taxpayer dollars... it's like stockholm syndrome.

[SCRAPPYDO]

Well, disillusioned ill - informed populace is a problem for sure. I totally agree with you there. Half truths and all run on both sides of every argument. Quite evil and used by big oil without questiont. But it would be naïve to think it Green Energy does not partake in the same such deception.

[rexster]

Originally Posted by dwf137

If we stopped using gasoline for cars, refineries would shut down. About 75% of our crude oil goes to fuel. There is zero chance that all of those refineries would remain at 100%.

I agree overall with your argument that we would save emissions by reducing the production of gasoline. However, the oil refineries aren’t exclusively making gasoline. When oil is refined several products are created including more expensive products like diesel and jet fuel. We would need to get all aircraft and heavy machinery onto electricity before all refineries theoretically shut down. A more likely scenario is that the US will become a large gasoline exporter as the demand for gasoline in the U.S. goes down. I can pretty much guarantee they aren’t going to walk away from all that money.