1 1
Phil1111

It Is Engineers, Not Politicians, Who Can solve Climate Change

Recommended Posts

Ok this is the story associated with the headline.  It outlines how EVs and solar power will save the world.

But here is the story that brings it into focus. The Lucid Air Is the 2022 MotorTrend Car of the Year

From the story "Lucid has been touting recently—up to 1,111 horsepower and 1,390 lb-ft of torque in the Air Dream P edition and up to 520 miles of EPA-official range in the Dream R edition"

RIP the Chevy 454 and the right wing diesel loving 4x4 truck lovers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2022 Lucid Air Dream Edition R Specifications
BASE PRICE    $170,500
VEHICLE LAYOUT    Front/Rear motors, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan
MOTORS    2-AC permanent-magnet electric, 966 hp/1,390 lb-ft (comb)

That's some funny shit right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Ok this is the story associated with the headline.  It outlines how EVs and solar power will save the world.

His point that science and engineering must lead any solution for climate change is a good one.  However, politics has to follow.  The reason we ended the threat to the ozone layer, for example, was that:

1) Scientists figured out why it was happening and what alternative refrigerants would be less damaging
2) Engineers designed refrigeration systems that could use the new refrigerants, and designed the plants to make them
3) Politicians put in place the Montreal Protocol

All three were necessary.

Similar scenarios played out in the stricter emissions requirements of the 70's and 80's, the implementation of seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags and crashworthy cars, aviation, and the introduction of emissions controls on powerplants.  In every single case, first science then engineering preceded the solution in the form of research and prototypes.  In every single case, the industries involved predicted that any new regulation would be the end of them and their associated industry.  In every single case, they were wrong - new requirements and regulations did in fact solve the problem without destroying the associated industry.

The problem is that free market forces will always select for the cheapest short term option.  To force a better long term option, it is necessary to use politics.  ("Politics" meaning people who agree to work together to solve a problem, not the usual pejorative meaning of it.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, billvon said:

His point that science and engineering must lead any solution for climate change is a good one.  However, politics has to follow.  The reason we ended the threat to the ozone layer, for example, was that:

1) Scientists figured out why it was happening and what alternative refrigerants would be less damaging
2) Engineers designed refrigeration systems that could use the new refrigerants, and designed the plants to make them
3) Politicians put in place the Montreal Protocol

All three were necessary.

Similar scenarios played out in the stricter emissions requirements of the 70's and 80's, the implementation of seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags and crashworthy cars, aviation, and the introduction of emissions controls on powerplants.  In every single case, first science then engineering preceded the solution in the form of research and prototypes.  In every single case, the industries involved predicted that any new regulation would be the end of them and their associated industry.  In every single case, they were wrong - new requirements and regulations did in fact solve the problem without destroying the associated industry.

The problem is that free market forces will always select for the cheapest short term option.  To force a better long term option, it is necessary to use politics.  ("Politics" meaning people who agree to work together to solve a problem, not the usual pejorative meaning of it.)

 

Hi Bill,

Well thought out & written.  I could not agree more.

I remember how Lee Iacocca, who was head of Chrysler, railed against air bags.  A few years later, his adds had him touting how safe Chrysler's cars were due to their air bags & other features.

It is going to take the scientists & the politicians.  I think we call it teamwork.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Ok this is the story associated with the headline.  It outlines how EVs and solar power will save the world.

But here is the story that brings it into focus. The Lucid Air Is the 2022 MotorTrend Car of the Year

From the story "Lucid has been touting recently—up to 1,111 horsepower and 1,390 lb-ft of torque in the Air Dream P edition and up to 520 miles of EPA-official range in the Dream R edition"

RIP the Chevy 454 and the right wing diesel loving 4x4 truck lovers.

 

Chevy Volt 2011 North American Car of the Year, total lifetime sales of 177,000

Annual sales of F-150 890,000+

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airdvr said:

2022 Lucid Air Dream Edition R Specifications
BASE PRICE    $170,500
VEHICLE LAYOUT    Front/Rear motors, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan
MOTORS    2-AC permanent-magnet electric, 966 hp/1,390 lb-ft (comb)

That's some funny shit right there.

Hi air,

Like you, I was quite shocked at that price.  However, it seems others are not:  Lucid touts 17,000-plus Air EV reservations after successful IPO (msn.com)

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airdvr said:

2022 Lucid Air Dream Edition R Specifications
BASE PRICE    $170,500
VEHICLE LAYOUT    Front/Rear motors, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan
MOTORS    2-AC permanent-magnet electric, 966 hp/1,390 lb-ft (comb)

That's some funny shit right there.

 

19 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi air,

Like you, I was quite shocked at that price.  However, it seems others are not:  Lucid touts 17,000-plus Air EV reservations after successful IPO (msn.com)

Jerry Baumchen

Its a luxury EV version of the MB V-12 S600. Not everyone needs 1100 hp but like anything else technology will trickle down. No pun intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will always be the Early Adopters. The question will be what happens after that group is finished buying.

It will be interesting to see if/how Lucid is able to meet their claims. They have a long way to go.

The F150 product is interesting and may satisfy many users. Most wouldn't use the truck to the max daily capability so no problem. The challenge comes with the group that rarely uses the max but still needs to be able to go that 400+ mile pulling a trailer.

Then there are the electric requirements and how they will be solved. The grid and power plant guys are doing some head scratching and continue to say it will cost a ton of money. Many issues to be solved and new ones will arise. It will be interesting to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

The challenge comes with the group that rarely uses the max but still needs to be able to go that 400+ mile pulling a trailer.

 

The thing is - everyone fancies that they are in this group but it's a TINY proportion.
But then, almost no-one actually needs an F150 at all, its worse for almost everything that they get used for than a mid sized car, but they sell on the basis of image that is, in the vast majority of cases, bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

The thing is - everyone fancies that they are in this group but it's a TINY proportion.
But then, almost no-one actually needs an F150 at all, its worse for almost everything that they get used for than a mid sized car, but they sell on the basis of image that is, in the vast majority of cases, bullshit.

And the authoritative cite for those claims is?

The fishing, hunting and boating groups I'm in would disagree. Most use them for daily drivers going less than 100 miles. Then many use the truck to tow their boat many times to distanced lakes. They also use them weekly to go to nearby boat ramps. The truck has the horsepower and weight to safely tow the boat, and to control it on the angled ramp. It has the bed storage to haul the needed gear. The hunting crowd hauls trailers with a 4-wheeler and has a dog box in the bed of the truck. The high clearance and 4-wheel drive is needed on the dirt roads and in the woods. 

My construction friends use their trucks to haul trailers and put heavy materials in the truck. Again the towing capacity and weight of the truck is needed to safely control the load.

Having said that, I agree that some that drive a truck don't actually need a truck. I have no clue what percentage that is. I guess if an ineffective jab can be mandatory then an edict is justified to require proof of "need" of a truck. Or maybe because this is America we are free to make our own decisions within the constraints of the law.

I worry for the F250 and F350 crowd. Are they next on the persecution list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

The thing is - everyone fancies that they are in this group but it's a TINY proportion.
But then, almost no-one actually needs an F150 at all, its worse for almost everything that they get used for than a mid sized car, but they sell on the basis of image that is, in the vast majority of cases, bullshit.

That is the great thing about America, it it up to the individual to determine what they do or do not need.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That is the great thing about America, it it up to the individual to determine what they do or do not need.  

You may have spent most of your time traveling the world inside the cargo hold of a C-17. But contrary to what you believe most of the rest of the world leaves it up to individuals to determine what they want.

Which brings me to Norway. For the historically challenged right wing thinking Americans. Barely three years ago there were these headlines: 'Thanks, but no thanks' - Norwegians reject Trump's immigration offer"

Fast forward to today: "9 in 10 cars now being sold in Norway are electric or hybrid"

Now anybody with an open mind recognizes that a Norwegian person can buy a F-150. Just as any American can buy an EV. But in Norway there is little moaning and crying about gas prices driving individuals into poverty. Now Norway didn't go to war to protect the oil industry in the middle east, spending over $2 trillion.

Furthermore:

"Has the Oil Industry Corrupted Norway Like it has the US?
In countries where oil has fuelled economic growth, such as several in the Middle East, the commodity has led to high rates of corruption and autocratic rule. But even though Norway enjoys a lucrative oil industry, the country has stayed free of corruption, and justice and equality are safeguarded. 

Norway’s Gini coefficient was 0.27 in 2018 and at least 90% of citizens expressed satisfaction with public services (police, healthcare, education and judiciary) in 2020. This data, which measures income inequality within a nation, demonstrates a high mutual trust between Norwegian citizens and their government. In other words, any form of corruption and an unfair decision would be revealed, condemned and punished by the public and an effective judicial system. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

You may have spent most of your time traveling the world inside the cargo hold of a C-17. But contrary to what you believe most of the rest of the world leaves it up to individuals to determine what they want.

C-17?  More like C130s, CH-47s and LPCs and I never said it was exclusively American.  BTW Norway is set to ban international combustion vehicles in 2025 so they ARE  being told what they can buy and what they can’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

C-17?  More like C130s, CH-47s and LPCs and I never said it was exclusively American.  BTW Norway is set to ban international combustion vehicles in 2025 so they ARE  being told what they can buy and what they can’t.

Oh Brent, you are really an American.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billeisele said:

The truck has the horsepower and weight to safely tow the boat, and to control it on the angled ramp. It has the bed storage to haul the needed gear. 

From that perspective, the higher power/higher weight EV versions may have a significant advantage.

Quote

My construction friends use their trucks to haul trailers and put heavy materials in the truck. Again the towing capacity and weight of the truck is needed to safely control the load.

It may be that in 10 years your construction friends would have no problem using a gas-only truck, except that it can't provide jobsite power.  When you have to run table saws, compressors and job site lighting, they may need the kilowatts you can get from an EV version of that truck.

Quote

Or maybe because this is America we are free to make our own decisions within the constraints of the law.

Right.  Which is why there are so many reservations for the EV version of the F150.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, billvon said:

From that perspective, the higher power/higher weight EV versions may have a significant advantage.

It may be that in 10 years your construction friends would have no problem using a gas-only truck, except that it can't provide jobsite power.  When you have to run table saws, compressors and job site lighting, they may need the kilowatts you can get from an EV version of that truck.

Right.  Which is why there are so many reservations for the EV version of the F150.

Bill - I agree with most of what you said but you either missed the context of the convo or chose to ignore it..

I was replying to the statement, "..almost no-one actually needs an F150 at all, its worse for almost everything that they get used for than a mid sized car." Discussing why a mid-size car would not be acceptable.

In addition I said that folks that occasionally need that big truck to go much farther than the range of an EV won't be buying the EV. 

No doubt that EVs will grow in popularity, and continue to evolve offering more options and range thus making them acceptable to a wider range of buyers. Today a super nice GMC Denali 2500 diesel is in the $83K range. Folks are clearly willing to spend a ton of money on a vehicle. That will help EV sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. 20 years ago, hybrids were weird and lesser except they were hybrids. Now they're quite common, and will probably become more so. There's enough history for people to understand that generally the batteries aren't an issue. My only issue with ours is that we don't have a way to carry lumber in my husband's sedan (I like to work with wood). So either I have to replace my recently-deceased Civic, or rent trucks from Home Depot when I want to buy something. It's a hassle calculation. Otherwise, we can probably get by with one car.

Plug-in electrics are just getting past the weird phase; they'll get there. And people will buy them for personal reasons, not just because it suits their needs. Many people who own Suburbans or F150's don't need them either -- they feel safer in a larger, higher, vehicle, they associate having a truck with brawn, they want to "stick it to the libs," or they carry a sheet of plywood once or twice a year, etc.

If you have a boat or a trailer, and don't have the room and money for a dedicated vehicle for it (like most people), or you  have three dogs, or you have kids who play hockey, then yes, you need something capable of doing that.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Plug-in electrics are just getting past the weird phase; they'll get there. And people will buy them for personal reasons, not just because it suits their needs. Many people who own Suburbans or F150's don't need them either -- they feel safer in a larger, higher, vehicle, they associate having a truck with brawn, they want to "stick it to the libs," or they carry a sheet of plywood once or twice a year, etc.

Yep.  I think that's one reason that Tesla was so good for the overall acceptance of EV's.  There are plenty of drivers who talk about cost of operation, or environmental impact, or styling or whatever - but really just want the fastest car on the road.  And nowadays that means an EV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, billeisele said:

In addition I said that folks that occasionally need that big truck to go much farther than the range of an EV won't be buying the EV. 

In ten years or so almost all trucks available in this class will be EVs. People will cope and it won't be that hard to do. 

 

13 hours ago, billeisele said:

I was replying to the statement, "..almost no-one actually needs an F150 at all, its worse for almost everything that they get used for than a mid sized car."

I agree with you here. People buy all kinds of things that they don't really need, but want. Like....parachutes for example.....and they will continue to do so. What people need is irrelevant, what they buy is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1