[cgrey8]

It's showing up on numerous sites, but here's the first one google finds:
Your ECU tune may soon hold you up in California's smog test

California just seems to perpetually be at war with car enthusiasts. I'm curious if someone will find a way to escalate this to the Supreme Court and get this ruling shot down. The problem is in the meantime, countless enthusiasts will be inconvenienced.

One of the ideas I had years ago was if I were to ever create my own version of an EEC tuner or EEC replacement would be to allow the programmer to put it into a special "emissions test mode" so that the OBD-II port basically reported whatever you wanted it to including appearing to present the characteristics of a factory tune, whatever that means. This also means the implementation would have to be open-sourced. There's no way you could sell a device like this. But if you made open source software that would apply to some piece of hardware that just happens to also have the I/O capabilities to be an EEC replacement, well...there's not much anybody could do about that.

I don't know how sophisticated the state's systems will be. They can't possibly have copies of all possible firmware images from every make/model vehicle in the US from 1996-present to do things like checksum-comparisons on. So they would have to be checking very specific things. But if they got too sophisticated, they'd run the risk of flagging legitimate stock ECUs as aftermarket when they aren't. I suspect the state isn't really going to care.

My guess is there'll be a number of people that will start capturing the OBD-II traffic created during a test, find out what the test computer is asking for, and how stock computers respond for given make/models to gain insight on how an "emulator" device would need to respond to fake-out being a stock computer when it isn't.

Just thinking facetiously, Nevada could probably make some tag revenue allowing owners of a 1 square inch piece of land and a PO Box to register their cars in the state. Maybe they could be a car enthusiast sanctuary state.

[tvrfan]

What about all those classic cars which have stuff like Megasquirt to replace the carbs ? (etc.) There's got to be some kind of sanity. But who knows with all this anti-petrol global warming crap and Govmints - it's all crazy. As you say, the test can't be that invasive, it would take too long, and get very complex. How many OE EEC-IV + V tunes are there ? 500? 1000? and that's just Ford stuff. I don't know about US, but a lot of Euro boxes don't talk any ODBC at all, and don't even have ports. Although I guess they are all very old by now, there must still be some around.... Add GM and it's got to be a huge number of tunes.

After Europe banning all ICE vehicles for 2035 or some ridiculous date, no one seems to be asking the questions of where the electricity to charge all those EVs is going to be generated, how anyone is going to handle the 20 minute plus charge time, or where the lithium and other rare earths come from.
Here in New Zealand they just announced a rebate for new EVs and a tax (=fine) for heavier polluters (new diesel utes/pickups) and almost overnight the price of a second hand EV went up by almost as much as the rebate, and there's protests from farmers and all sorts of tradies (plumbers, builders, auto rescue, etc) and guess where the extra costs will go ?

But hey, I'm sure the coffee shops will do really well after you have plugged in your EV, and everyone says "well, what shall we do for a half-hour?"

Bloody Stupid (in my English accent)

[86GT]

California is using the CVN or checksums. The DMV is linked to the manufactures. Here is the sad part, you can have a completely stock car but if you don't have the latest calibration from the manufacture then you fail. The manufactures only report the latest version of there CVNs. Its another way to force the updates.

what I also find weird is some counties have stricter rules than other. Some of the really remote areas dont even do smog. Say what, How can each county be different. Make no sense to me. When I had my 86, I went to two different shop in two different cities and the test criteria was different.

I think it is pre 1975 or pre 1973 that is exempt from emissions. Hence the reason for the cash for klunkers program that they had.

[ChsReb]

You Blue state guys need to wake up and smell the coffee.

They’re going to do whatever it takes to force you into driving an electric vehicle.

First they ban the sale of new ICE vehicles in 2035. California is just the first state. There will be others. So what is next?

Next, you tax fuel to make it unaffordable. Already in process in California, right?

Next you reduce taxes on electric vehicles and start increasing them on ICE vehicles.

Finally, you ban ICE vehicles. That will be a while. 2040 anyway.

Unless you’re ready to join the electric revolution, I’d start searching for employment elsewhere. I figure you’ve got 5-10 years before your ICE vehicle is unaffordable.

Just to let you know, In SC we don’t even have a motor vehicle inspection.

[cgrey8]

There's a number of states that don't have emission testing of any kind. Georgia, where I'm from, has emissions testing only in the metro Atlanta counties...and only for gasoline-burning vehicles that are 25 years or newer (diesel and all-electrics are exempt). From what I can tell, the OBD-II emission tests in Georgia implicitly trust the vehicle's computer to tell the truth. So if you modify the tune to simply declare everything is good, then you pass. That catches the vast majority of vehicles that just need an O2 sensor or a gummed-up EGR. Last time I had a vehicle tested, they didn't even bother to look under the truck to visually verify something resembling a CAT was present. If the computer passes, the emission testers really don't care. Enthusiasts that want to run high performance applications can usually find ways to get around any checks IF they can use the stock computer...just expand the parameters of the checks to be wide enough that nothing is ever flagged as a "CEL" problem.

From what I can tell, there's no desire in state gov't to expand the program to cover more counties or be more comprehensive like CA...at least at the moment. Although for those not paying attention, GA, a traditionally red state, is trending more and more blue. So who knows what the future holds...

[ChsReb]

My contention is that California isn't just at war with Auto Enthusiasts, they are at war with fossil fuels and anything or anybody that uses them. When you ban New ICE vehicle sales in 2035, and ALL small gasoline engines in 2024, that is a clear message to me: "Comply or we will use financial means and government to get our way."

Now to be clear, SC doesn't have any motor vehicle inspections of any kind, be it Safety or emissions. Surprisingly, there is little vehicle junk on the roads. If law enforcement sees an obvious safety issue like a light out, they will pull you over, and they take license, registration, and insurance data. They then quietly go back and run you for open warrants. If everything comes back clean, they give you a no charge warning ticket with a 30 day notice to complete repairs and send you on your way.

My last vehicle inspection (OVER 20 years ago) went something like:
"Lights Work?"
"Yep."
"Horn Works?"
"Yep."
"Give me the $10. Here is your sticker."

Electric Vehicles are the future. Just not MY future. As I have said before,"At least you had to wreck a Pinto to make it catch fire." I just noticed the Charleston city BANS Chevy Bolts from parking decks due to fire danger. I contend that we're still at the lower end of automotive battery development. Ten or so years from now, every Electric vehicle on the road today will be a "Vega". Now how many of you remember that the Chevy Vega won Motor Trends Car of the year in 1971? You Young guys Google the Chevy Vega for a history lesson in a good idea gone bad. History IS repeating itself! Need more proof? They Chevy Citation won car of the year in 1980. (I had one, what a pile of ...) Oh, Yeah! The K-Cars won in 1981!! I'm also old enough to remember the K-Car days when Chrysler said it would never make another V8.

Back and forth to work in an EV? Yeah, I get it, but what do you suppose would happen if 50,000 Electric Vehicle owners, had to evacuate Miami, FL due to a CAT 5 hurricane coming up the coast like Hurricane Floyd? Oh yeah, how do they get home after the Hurricane with no power in most of Florida for a week?

[ChsReb]

Now for those of you looking into getting into tuning in a Blue state, The Moates Quarterhorse supports MULTIPLE burned and SWITCHABLE tunes on an F3 EEPROM. The Quarterhorse comes out and the PROGRAMMED EEPROM takes it's place. You are, for the most part, stuck with the stock hardware, but a better running car can be a single switch away. Pass the emission test and throw the switch as you drive off. The new F3 chip supports up to 8 switchable tunes on a 1986-2004 Ford.

Now before you go shopping for one remember there is an on-going chip shortage.

[cgrey8]

I get what you are saying about the "You will comply, and the government will be used to see that you do." mentality, of which I do not agree with. I'm far more capitalistic when it comes to these issues. And I don't like the gov't being used in this way. It's used this way FAR too often as it is. The Renewable Fuels Act that requires 10% Ethanol comes to mind. Just like with electrics, I don't have anything against Ethanol. It's a great fuel for vehicles DESIGNED to use it. But to force it be purchased by people who don't want it, don't benefit from it in any obvious/tangible way, and didn't ask for it just seems wrong.

But back to electric vehicles. They are great if they make practical and economic sense for you. But in my assessment, the only way they do make sense is for multi-car families that have garages where the car can be recharged at night and a 2nd vehicle is available for treks where the all-electric just can't be justified. For those that don't have a dedicated garage to slow-charge in, the cost of refilling the battery just isn't enough better than gasoline to really be compelling in my assessment. From what I recall, an all-electric costs only 25% less than refueling 30-35MPG passenger car with gasoline. Obviously it depends on what state you are in and your driving habits. But that's not nearly enough saving to justify the added costs and inconvenience of an all-electric.

This is also why I still believe that before all-electrics take over, we need a solid transition period of plug-in hybrids...but not the hybrids we have today. It seems almost every hybrid and electric vehicle only caters to the higher echelon of car buyers. The hybrid I envision being a gateway to the future is one where the engine is tiny...like just barely able to run the vehicle at a sustained 75MPH and feeds directly into a generator (no trans). The hybrid is likely going to be somewhat more expensive than its all-gasoline counterpart, but for people that have a way to recharge cheaply, this option makes a lot more sense and expands the customer base beyond multi-vehicle families. A car like this could easily be THE vehicle in a single car family. But it has to be affordable and practical. Otherwise people just won't adopt it.

Same goes for Solar. Once the price to buy and install solar gets low enough that it can easily justify its existence beyond just satisfying the "I wanna be part of the solution" mentality some people have, then houses will start being built with then by default as well as people voluntarily installing them. And we are getting closer. Interestingly, a lot of the electric-car movement might actually help here too. As electrics (all and hybrid) get into wrecks, their still quite-useful batteries can be used as storage for solar installations to capture even more of the energy used and allow it to be used later when the sun isn't out. Granted, they gotta stop blowing up 1st.

My point is, I'm not opposed to the vision of the future that the young'ens have. But I also don't like how it is being implemented (e.g. Green New Deal) and in many cases, shoved down people's throats (like the ethanol mandates and ban on ICE vehicles). It only serves to polarize people and make them resent change. If you want people to embrace your ways, produce a compelling product that competes in the market.

Now that said, I also agree that the modern day alternative fuel vehicles (all-electrics and hydrogen) will suffer the same problem that yesteryear's alternative fuel vehicles (Propane, CNG, and even E85 FlexFuel) did. Infrastructure. The gasoline industry has a built-in advantage that prevents the alternatives from being able to compete "fairly." And some would argue that this is where gov't should step in with incentive programs to subsidize the installation of charging station infrastructure and car rebates for certain cars. I, personally, don't like that. But I can certainly understand where they are coming from and why they feel gov't does have a role to play in evening the odds to allow the alternative guys to compete when they are clearly at an infrastructure disadvantage. Best I can say to this is let each state decide for themselves and the people in those states do what they wanna do. So we can stand back and judge California for the bad decisions they are making. But we should also be willing to give credit where they are getting things right (if there are examples of that).

But ultimately, if you don't like the state you live in, just be glad you live in a country where there are 49 other options available to you (assuming you live in the US). And even when you disagree with what states do with their sovereignty (as is being discussed here), you should support the sovereign rights of states to be different if they choose. The more control that gets handed to the federal gov't to make decisions for all, the more diversity we loose in the states and the more alike we are FORCED to become.

[86GT]

I live in California and I am so fed up with all of this emission crap. I have a 67 Mustang with a 428CJ and it is running a 98 explorer PCM. It runs cleaner then any 67 ever did. I did not have to do it this way but I did. Not all of us remove emissions. It has its place but to have the government police it is pathetic.

As for the EV world, there is one big problem. The electrical grid here in California will never be able to keep up with it. My house was built in 1997 and our Electric company (PG&E) stated we are only allowed to have 6 out of 20 homes on the same street have fast chargers. How is the Government going to force something that is not possible by most people. We have way to many housing developments that don't live up to the electrical draw of everyone having an electric car.

Here in California we also have counties that dont require smog. Yes you read that correct. It is the main metro areas that have real strict laws and so on.

God forbid we have something like a Cobra Kit car. The process of getting a SB100 registration is horrendous.
01) Build the car
02) Go to a BAR (Bureau of Automotive Repair) facility on a trailer and get a safety check
03) Get a temporary 10 day pass at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to accomplish step 4
04) Get a lamp and safety check at a certified facility
05) Get a VIN verification form the California Highway Patrol (CHP) on a trailer
06) Get a temporary 30 day license at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to accomplish step 7
07) Go to a BAR (Bureau of Automotive Repair) facility and get the Smog test or Referee to approve it
08) Submit all paperwork at DMV and wait 4 weeks to 6 month to hear back with an approval or corrective action.
09) Place the SB100 sticker on the car
10) Now you can go back to DMV and get a registration

This is just way to much.....

[cgrey8]

Basically, they are making it so difficult that reasonable people will never jump through the hoops...thus nagging their way to compliance. There's a similar push with firearms. They can't out-right prevent you from owning it, but they make the process so grueling that the average person doesn't bother.

If you want a firearm, your only real practical option is to move to a more 2nd amendment friendly area. I've heard a number of places mention the idea of 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Cities where they just don't enforce the rules. I understand the sentiment of these declarations. Unfortunately it would be much more difficult for cities to buck the emissions rules of a state. Not to mention, the political backlash the political leaders would get in the media would be merciless. Just more claims of politicians that want "dirty air and dirty water."

My 89 Ranger has a 331 stroker with mostly Explorer 302 parts on it INCLUDING a working EGR and CATs. So even though it no longer requires emission testing, I still keep the hardware in place. Although I could take it off and nobody would ever notice or care at this point. My point is, I don't.

What's even more frustrating is that the longer these punitive laws stay in place in areas like California, the more the culture in those areas gets used to the restrictions and almost embrace them and brag about them. And then they wonder why people in other states don't want the same things for themselves. Instead of trying to understand it, they just chock it up to ignorance or stupidity. When I used to travel a lot for work, you wouldn't believe how many times when I would go to NY, NJ, Boston, or Philly people would hear I was born & raised in Georgia and were surprised that I had a college education and could actually fix their problems. At the time, I was just proud to exceed their expectations. But looking back on it with much older eyes, I recognize it as soft bigotry of low expectations...the same mentality that supports affirmative action laws that declare that gender or race deserve lower standards of acceptance, and then calls it compassion.

[ChsReb]

86GT, I wish you luck. The cards are already on the table for you! OVER $7.00/Gallon Gasoline is already in California. $100+ fill-ups will be with you soon. You will Comply or go bankrupt. Now about that power outage when the Electrical service in your house can’t handle the EV charging load…

[ChsReb]

Guys, Tell me what I’m missing here. I thought the goal was LOWER carbon emissions.

Now to BEST get that you run lean with advanced timing during cruise. Leaner than most engines are permitted to run. BUMMER: High NOX.

Now I get it, to reduce NOX emissions you run hot but with EGR to keep peak temperatures down.

The cats are there to catch the unburned fuel due to the EGR. BUMMER: Higher fuel consumption.

So most cars use more gas and emit more carbon to stay “clean”? Kinda a choose your poison isn’t it?

[ChsReb]

Prediction: EV charging stations will start showing up at Gas Stations in California soon. Every grocery store and fast food outlet will have them too. They’ll be privately owned and for profit. One disgruntled EV owner published a report his remote charge costs him more per mile than if he was driving a Hell Cat.

Call it the “Barnum” factor. Your EV is only profitable over gasoline if trickle charged for hours at home. That road trip is really gonna cost you.

And the ICE gasoline doesn’t disappear from the tank while the car is parked either.

Chevy Bolts: 100% recall. Hyundai: Major EV recall. Australia suing because Tesla’s battery install didn’t backup the grid as promised. Nope, battery technology isn’t “Cooked” yet.

[cgrey8]

It always is in engineering. You have MULTIPLE competing targets that each often have contradictory demands. Just to name the big ones as it relates to engine performance:
Max Power
Max Fuel Economy
Min Emissions
Max durability/longevity
Min Cost

Engineering is about striking a liveable balance between these. And because each person has different priorities, you get a huge industry of choices ranging from different CID blocks, heads, cams, intakes/exhausts, you name it. If you only need the engine to hold together 1/4 mile at a time, your priorities are different than someone looking for a well mannered grocery-getter that'll last 300,000 miles.

But to your point, yes we could reduce fuel economy with higher emissions. But even in the discussion of emissions, there are competing goals.
Reduce HC/CO emissions
Reduce NOx emissions
Reduce CO2 emissions

If you bias towards reduced NOx, you end up with higher HC/CO. If you bias towards lower HC/CO, you get higher NOx. The EGR can help reduce NOx, but only to a point. And the 3-way CATs also have limits. You cannot run an engine lean all the time or rich all the time. CATs are very effective at cleaning up these emissions but only for short periods of time. This is one of the fundamental reasons that Closed Loop operates the way it does. It runs the engine slightly lean for a second or two. Then slightly rich for a second or two. This keeps the CATs operating at peak effectiveness. If the engine stayed at a slightly rich or lean condition, the CATs would quickly loose their effectiveness and either overheat (high HC/CO) or just be ineffective (high NOx). This is why MFA-mode isn't allowed in the US. But for DIY tuners, you can activate it and pick up a small amount of fuel economy...just don't expect it to pass an emission test. So you test with a tune that has it disabled. And with the flip of a switch, activate the MFA-mode tune as soon as you get the passing test on the books.

What's more intreresting is that emissions targets are only measured as a % of the exhaust content, not as a total mass. So you get conditions where the engine has to intake more air to overcome the power losses due to the emissions adjustments. As a result, you might have lower measured % of emissions out the tailpipe, but higher overall emission into the atmosphere due to the increased air-intake. While this is a technically possible scenario to get into, it's often not the actual scenario. When EGRs fail, NOx emissions are huge. Fix the EGR and the NOx emissions go way down. Ditto for failing O2 sensors or CATs...which are the main 3 things that emission tests are catching. There are others, but these are the main ones.

You are also right about the fast-chargers not being that much better than gasoline...and evidently in some cases, they are worse. I hadn't heard that, but I also wouldn't doubt it either. But even if it is true, this alone shouldn't deter someone from considering an all-electric vehicle. It still comes down to overall investment and personal willingness to deal with the all-electric. But for the person willing to spend the premium on an all-electric, get the high-current charger installed in their house, and pay the road-trip "tax" of fast-charging, it might still make sense for them based on how far they drive each day and how often they take road trips. But you are right, it is a factor in that consideration...just not an outright disqualifying condition.

What's more annoying is seeing stuff like this:


These generators can be diesel, natural gas, or propane powered. Regardless which is used, isn't this kind of pissing in the face of the all-electric owner recharges using one of these?

Based on the tag shape, I'm assuming this isn't a picture taken in the US. The only way this makes sense is maybe in Saudi Arabia where fuel is subsidized and sold literally at a loss to the people. It's still an absolute waste AND consider that this generator would not be subject to emissions testing and thus isn't likely to have nearly the emissions controls/requirements/equipment that a diesel vehicle would.

[ChsReb]

Another personal theory, but with nothing but circumstantial proof to back it up.

It is difficult and maybe impossible to run 87 Octane with Cast Iron heads, full ignition advance, and 10:1 + compression

Now with Aluminum heads, I’ve been running 87 Octane fuel, lean mixtures in open loop, lots of timing, 10.25:1 compression, and getting upwards of 25-26 MPG on the open road with a 408. I’m still in development mode, and not done yet.

My point being emissions-wise: those peak pressure- temperature detonation causing spikes are not there anymore. I suspect the NOX is greatly reduced as well, and I’m emitting less carbon per mile!

I was dabbling with water injection on the Chevelle (454 LS-7 11:1) and having a hell of a time even running premium fuel with detonation. With the new microcontrollers, I may revisit that. Biggest problem is reliability and droplet size. This too would lower NOX.

I believe that Aluminum heads may be the path to both better fuel economy and lower emissions. I’m not running EGR. The AFR heads precluded that even if I wanted to. Most everything else is there and working.

[86GT]

I agree with Chris. The options are out there right now and that is what makes our society thrive (CNG, PPG, EV, Hybrid, Gas, Ethanol). When the government comes in and removes options for the sake of a non proven theory then it is wrong.

They think going electric is saving the environment when in fact its creating more pollution. Creating batteries is very bad on the environment. The disposal is really really bad and they simply berry them in land fills as of today. They are working on a lithium recycle center but it can only recycle some awful low percentage. The electric grid, as I previously mentioned, is another issue. One more thing is California will not allow nuclear power. All we have left is wind, turbine and coal. Our farm lands and so on are looking like great big wind tunnels with all the wind mills going up. Its not a good sight.

My Neighbor just got a tesla and a fast charger installed. Our electric company just put a sur charge on his electric consumption. He pays more than what the gas equivalent is. Now he is forced to install solar on his house and install battery backups to store the energy. We all know battery to battery transfers are not efficient. So now we are at the cost of a tesla and the fast charging and the solar. Not for me..... The batteries in a tesla are good for what maybe 10 years?

Alternative fuels such as PPG and CNG are good ideas but, I think supply and demand would factor in again. My knowledge on these alternatives is very limited.

One thing people fail to mention is that just a few dairy cows put out more methane gas and are more pollutant than a car. Vehicles are something ling 30% of the emissions and cows are more like 50%. Are we going to put Cats on a cow next. Maybe we could use their methane gas as another alternative. LOL

Sorry for the rant.....

[ChsReb]

86GT, You’re due. Cathartic isn’t it?

Guess you missed the cartoon of AOC running after a terrified cow with a cork in her hand?

You got a bunch of lawyers and enviros planning your states future in California.

All I can say is I’m glad I’m living in SC. There are going to be lots of financial disasters in your state’s future in the years ahead.

California is bound and determined to eliminate fossil fuels ASAP. Denying that is being the three Monkeys. (Hear,See,Speak no evil.)

I have no problems with Wind and Solar. When the day comes the batteries are cost competitive, they won’t catch fire, and it doesn’t take hours to charge your EV, I’ll reconsider my stance on buying an EV. Frankly since I’m 68, I don’t see it in my life time even if I live well into my 80s.

Most of the other 49 will start to return to sanity starting in about 18 months.

[xd41efisc]

The BMW charging up is a Western Australia taged car.

[Chucko]

The way I read the regulation, this only applies to vehicles with OBD2.

Anyone actually been caught out by this?

[tvrfan]

What REALLY annoys me about all this is that everyone, the people in charge too, don't seem to understand basic principles. Instead of delivering gasoline, countries will have to MASSIVELY upgrade all the electricity grids, and yet many of them are destroying reliable electricity supply by 'going green' with windmills, solar, and ridiculous ideas which shouldn't even get off the drawing board. Did you know that windmills aren't even viable without govt subsidies ?? They emit HUGE amounts of CO2 ..Yes really. Where ? In the enormous concrete pad that they sit on. Almost NOTHING of a windmill is recyclable. The turbine blades are typically made of fiberglass composite, and many of them have HEATING ELEMENTS in them, as they can't handle frost and snow. Their life is typically less than 10 years. This is ignoring all the other stuff like vibration, visual impact, bird killers, and so on. Solar only works (well) when the sun shines. What happens overnight when there's no wind ? You're screwed. There ain't no way batteries can handle the load. What is required is 100% reliable 24x7 stable generation. About the best fit the world has right now is nuclear power, and that comes with its own issues.

Then there's all the other stuff to add on.... Where do all the charging stations go ? Where the gas/pterol stations are ? Well the average customers in a gas station spends, er.. 5 minutes ? filling up, but an EV can take 30 minutes or more. Fast chargers ? fine if you want to damage your battery pack and shorten its life... then back to upgrading the grid to supply all those charging stations.....

Is an EV actually better than an ICE over the whole of its lfe ? Typically the start and end lifetime costs are where the numbers get 'adjusted' to make it look better.. It's FAR FAR harder to recycle batteries than ICE engines... where do all the rare earth metals come from ? we've already seen a HUGE price rise as this stuff gets harder to mine....

These points apply to all countries, more or less. New Zealand (me) is supposedly well placed as it has lots and lots of hydroelectric, but the electricity grid is stretched out all over the place and couldn't handle 50% of people driving EVs... All we need is a deep drought.... UK is already struggling at peak times, and a few US states (Texas?) have already shown that EVs will just help tip things over into disaster.

And I've not mentioned climate change at all, whether you believe it or not. This is just logistics and common sense, which seems to be entirely lacking. No. we are being sold a pile of fool's gold, and we are going to have to pay for it many, many times over (rant over...).

[cgrey8]

You make very good points and many of them I agree with. But I do try to think "balanced" and I do have to admit that the performance benefits of electric are undeniable. And there are some aspects that your point of view neglects. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not on the side for electric. But I do believe in giving credit where credit is due, being critical where it's due, and being intellectually honest when doing so.

You are right, subsidized things are a problem. Here in the US, we subsidized Ethanol for decades and every study done concludes that Ethanol from Corn is not worth it and is a net-negative. The claim was that we have to subsidize the industry so they can grow infrastructure and get the production to a self-sustaining point. But that never happened. While they aren't directly subsidizing Ethanol as much as they were, the Ethanol industry doesn't need it because the EPA requires a minimum of 10% Ethanol be blended into fuel which guarantees a demand despite the price/viability of it.

Similarly the technology for wind/wave/solar was said to get better if subsidized. And I have to say solar has done FAR better than Ethanol or its other green brethren. They are getting to the point of sustainability where home/land owners can start to realize a positive benefit to solar. It's not a compelling investment yet, but far better than it was even 5 years ago.

As for the cars, yes fast charging does damage batteries. But one of the things that's true (right now) is that all-electrics and even PHEVs only make a lot of sense in suburbia where the owner can charge at home. So the vast majority of charges don't need to be fast. And when you are charging at home, the cost saving over gasoline is pretty significant. Add to this, the next generation of batteries being release in the next few years is going to be a pretty substantial improvement in longevity, charge capacity, charge rate, and density compared to today's packs. I'm actually encouraged by the progress the battery industry is making at cleaning up the battery making process while also improving the battery performance, including making battery recycling a planned part of the battery life the way lead-acid batteries are today. But again, we aren't there yet, so it's not a fait accompli.

The fast charging is only needed when traveling to minimize charge wait time. Add to that, they are placing charging stations in areas that have things for people waiting to do (restaurants, shops, malls, etc). Add to this the charge rate & durability are improving a LOT. I envision in the next 10 years, an all-electric will be able to recharge (80%) and get ~400 miles charge in about 15-20 min.

But that's the future. Right now, charging to 250 miles takes well over 35 minutes and the charging infrastructure is often broken and not nearly as readily available as gas stations. This has produced quite a problem for electric owners traveling during holidays. So have fun pulling into a charging station to find its broken OR there's a 3hr wait to get to a working charger, and the next closest station is a distance away and has no promise of being any better. Add to this that fast charging prices are not THAT much better than gasoline prices.

So for now, the best compromise is a PHEV if you live in an area where plugging in a vehicle at night is practical. Electric charging for home and day-to-day driving and a tiny high efficiency engine barely powerful enough to produce enough electricity for the vehicle to maintain ~80MPH would get you the best of both worlds. For all others such that those that live in the city or apartments and don't have the ability to charge their vehicle while parked at home, all-electrics and even PHEVs are a tough sell and will be for quite some time. Even for the suburbanites, you really have to be someone that "wants" an electric and are willing to be live with the differences and problems unique being an all-electric owner.

But overall, I do have to say the electric car industry has done a better job of capitalizing on the subsidies than the Ethanol (in the US) has done. The fact is, corn just makes a lousy feedstock for ethanol production as compared to cane and sugar beets. It's just a shame that neither of those grow well in our heartland.

Those are my thoughts on electrics...

[86GT]

Well said Chris.

California is making leaps and bounds on the charging stations. I see them poping up everywhere. They have some sort of charge card that you get when signing up for their charging stations. The funny thing is, I see lines of cars at the charging stations just like cars did in the 70s during the gas crises. Since Tesla is near me, I see them everywhere. Tesla has to make sure their stations are up and running and very reliable as their name and livelihood depends on it.

I believe fossil fuels are not going anywhere soon. We still have big rigs driving across the states, Old farming equipment and ships and so on. Not to mention those living in apartments and or high rise building that have no means to charge a vehicle.

What I do see coming is those that refuse to move to electric will pay out the butt for fuel. California is already the highest in the nation on fuel. With simple demand for fuel going down the price will go up even higher. Simple supply and demand principals. Oh not to mention taxes will go up on fuel to try and get rid of it, just like cigarettes and tabaco.

I am really curious how we plan on getting rid of these so called battery packs. I know we can only re cycle about 10% of battries as of today and the rest is buried. So we did big holes to mine lithium and then we dig big holes to burry them. The so called slave labor that goes along with that and the fact that there are only 3 locations in the world for lithium is a real problem.

We have to find a better energy source that can be reusable. Not sure what that would be. I know Toyota is working on hydrogen cells. This has it own problems concerns like the storage of hydrogen has to be at extreme pressures. The conversion process for vehicles is expensive and the MPG is horrible. I only briefly looked into it.

All of the different technologies are getting better, just not sure it will ever be ready for prime time in my life time. Sure makes me think about reconsidering collectors cars. Its like steam engines today. Very few people have them and or drive them.

Sorry for the rant.....

[cgrey8]

...I am really curious how we plan on getting rid of these so called battery packs. I know we can only re cycle about 10% of battries as of today and the rest is buried. So we did big holes to mine lithium and then we dig big holes to burry them...

The problem isn't that they are not recyclable. The problem is there's no standards on how the batteries are made. So they cannot be recycled in an automated way. See with lead-acid, there's only a few standard shapes of those batteries making it easier to produce machines that can cut them open, extract the spent innards, and replace them. But these new batteries range from tiny batteries smaller than AAAs all the way up to battery packs that go in cars. And none of them are made in a way that extracting them can be automated. The time and effort it takes to get at the guts that are recyclable is too laborious and costly to be worth it, especially given they can't just be opened in atmosphere. Exposure to oxygen is what causes them to heat and catch fire. The next-gen high capacity batteries are "supposed" to address the standardization concerns and encourage/require that car mfgs adhere to standard shape batteries instead of designing whatever conveniently fits into their cars.

...Toyota is working on hydrogen cells. This has it own problems concerns like the storage of hydrogen has to be at extreme pressures. The conversion process for vehicles is expensive and the MPG is horrible. I only briefly looked into it...

And while you can get hydrogen from water, the far more efficient way of getting hydrogen is splitting it off of methane. Thus the VAST majority of bulk hydrogen just comes from Natural Gas. The inefficiency and overhead of extracting hydrogen from water using solar electricity just isn't worth it.

If we do go electric, the saving grace is going to be nuclear. And I know that scares a lot of people, but nuclear technology isn't what it was in the 60s. It can be scaled WAY down and made much more economical. The problem is the regulations surrounding nuclear are so cost prohibitive that you HAVE to make giga-watt nuclear facilities to justify the cost.

I know they've been trying to get Thorium reactors reliable. The weak point on them is that they use molten sodium or salt as the heat transfer. It works great from a thermodynamics and safety standpoint. But its biggest downfall is how corrosive it is. The units have to be rebuilt every few years to replace parts that wear due to the corrosion. The big thing about Thorium over Uranium is it is what's called walk-away safe. If you stop "managing" a Thorium reactor, it fizzles itself out. The opposite is true of Uranium reactions which can run-away if not managed. They have Thorium reactors so small they can fit on a semi truck. Plant 4-5 of them in a large neighborhood, and you have power to the entire area. They are also not targets for terrorism since Thorium doesn't decay into products that can be used as dirty bombs. In fact the opposite is true. You can feed it spent nuclear waste and it'll continue to digest it from having a dangerous half-life of thousands of years to material with a radioactive 1/2 life in the 15-20 year range. Add to that, the ability to pepper an area with these small reactors so even if one does go out, you can have numerous others in the area to absorb the load...further insulating the grid from single-point terror attack targets like mega-watt power stations today are.

Point being, once we can perfect nuclear AND get it sold to the people as a genuinely safe alternative, all-electric vehicles become a much more viable solution. A charging facility with a dozen charging stations could be powered by one of these semi-trailer reactors, in the middle of nowhere. No big power-lines needed to bring the electricity to remote areas. Trailer it in.

You asked what's to come? That's what I think makes a lot of sense...

[86GT]

I never brought nuclear up just because of the shere scare factor people have of it. When I was in the navy it was the best thing for power and quite and so on.

Makes me curious if these reactors can be made small enough to be put into a car. The power a car consumes is so small in the big picture. Big reactors are not needed. Also they can make them in a standard way like an alternator. Obviously bigger than that, but you get the idea. Batteries would be nothing more than a big filter for energy. No mass production of charging stations would be needed.

I never knew of Thorium so it looks like there is an alternative. I have some reading to do. Lol


Its all a pipe dream because no one would have a re occurring revenue.

[tvrfan]

All good points after my rant above.....

I totally agree that from a PERSONAL point of view, EVs make good sense for commuting and city/urban use. They are unbeatable in traffic, simply because they use nothing whilst they are standing still. (as long as you don't have aircon running) No way can an ICE replicate that. Some eco models switch off the ICE engine whilst standing which gets them closer, but increases wear on starter (etc.) The ICE engine is over 100 years old, and we've pushed the envelope a hell of a long way, but I think the ICE is about as advanced as it will ever get. A hybrid seems like a good idea, tune the engine for max econ/efficiency (e.g. Atkinson cycle), but downside is that it has two drive trains/power plants, and costs a lot more....

No, I was ranting more from the political and council management level, where our everyday lives are being changed/limited/upended and at the same time WE will be paying for those unsound decisions. Those decisions are likely to lead to unreliable power, more costs, etc.

Also agree, the ICE isn't going anywhere soon - the average vehicle age here in NZ is already well over 10 (hell, MY car is 10 this year...)
I think some US states are longer, and they don't even have regular vehicle checks ???

[cgrey8]

From the political standpoint, I'm right there with you. But there's numerous political issues I think we all could rant about. Unfortunately the moment we wade too deeply into those waters, you never accomplish anything other than pissin' people off or reminding them why they need to be pissed at the state.

The only option we really have is voting, and some (on both sides of the isle) would question how effective that is anymore...at least here in the States. And I guess if you are a glutton for punishment, you could run for office. But I see how politicians, even the good ones, are treated by the other side and by the media, its a tough sell. The other side just wants to hate you because they need a person to embody everything they disagree with. And the media just needs to keep people glued to the screens so they can sell ads...and what better way to keep people engaged than to feed them doom-n-gloom?

As for fitting these power plants into cars, I don't know. And I'm not sure how much sense it makes either. Nuclear power is, at its core, about producing heat, then generating energy from the heat production. Add to that, starting that reaction is not as easy as keeping it going. The VAST MAJORITY of the time cars, are not being used. I'm not convinced that'll happen in our lifetimes or even in the next few generations.

Now Element 115? That's a different story. But something that powerful will guaranteed be suppressed by governments due to the economic upheaval it could have on society if it was found to exist and be viable at replacing...well every source of power we currently know and understand. If you don't know what Element 115 is (or rather is claimed to be) and you enjoy a good conspiracy theory, research Bob Lazar. I'm not saying whether any of it is true or has merit. But as stories go, his is interesting and will send you down a rabbit hole I can't even begin to describe. You'll either give up on it in about 15 seconds of google searching his name OR you'll get sucked into an interesting story that'll definitely give you lots to think about.

[tvrfan]

Fair enough... I'll go and look that up.
I saw an article yesterday that claimed that California is losing a lot of residents who are moving away to reduce their living costs, which is interesting to me. I think LA has been at or near the top of the most expensive places to live for a long time.....I do wonder if this latest green initiative stuff is adding more pressure.

[tvrfan]

Ah, yes UFO power systems..... Definitely some rabbit holes there, along with rather ...um.... esoteric theories. Can't prove or disprove any of them of course. I might dig in further for a fun read.

Interesting you mentioned heat above, as an ICE is also a heat engine in classic physics, and leads me to a good idea I read about. The idea is that everything (EVs,ICE, energy storage and generation, batteries, hydro lakes, nuclear) can be thought of as an 'energy equation', Fuels (petrol,diesel,hydrogen,etc) all have a defined 'energy density' (kw per Kg) and so can be compared to each other easily - but so can batteries (kw storage/discharge by weight and size, also recharge rates), windmills and solar (Kw by hour) etc. and so on. Vehicles/machines (even houses) have a negative value, as they take energy to operate. What this shows is NOTHING has close to the same capacity/density as petrol,diesel,LPG,etc. and add their ease of storage/carriage as they are liquids (well, not quite true for LPG) makes ideas like hydrogen TERRIBLE by comparison. Batteries are [relatively] poor. It doesn't mean EVs are a bad idea, just that until we have more breakthroughs, there will always be 'range anxiety' , and their recharging is going to prove a big problem when there are millions of them being plugged in every night. If someone does manage to make 'mini-reactors' safely then we've solved the problem.

I remember someone pointing out that the mini gas turbines (= jet engines, used in many (all?) planes as generators when sat on the tarmac), would actually be more efficient than an EV hybrid, but politically I can see why this isn't a viable idea. They are smaller than most V6/V8 IC engines and very light indeed - some even use fibreglass/carbon composite shells, and are very clean burners.

So there are good ideas out there....... Anyone got an anti-grav drive for sale ?????

[cgrey8]

...Ah, yes UFO power systems...I might dig in further for a fun read...

The most interesting were his interviews with people like Joe Rogan. I'm not normally a Rogan fan, but I stumbled across that episode just looking for other interesting things about Lazar.

...NOTHING has close to the same capacity/density as petrol,diesel,LPG,etc. and add their ease of storage/carriage as they are liquids (well, not quite true for LPG) makes ideas like hydrogen TERRIBLE by comparison. Batteries are [relatively] poor...

Yes and no. Yes, the energy density of batteries doesn't come close to the petrol fuels. But for passenger cars, it doesn't need to. One of the downfalls to petrol is the inefficiency of burning it. We lose 60% of the power of the fuel in the combustion. The loss goes right out the tailpipe and radiator as waste heat. Electrics don't have nearly this high of a loss hence how they are able to compete. Now if someone could build a fuel cell that could digest the fuels into electricity at say 90-95% efficiency, then suddenly you could get 3x the distance from a gallon of fuel because you could extract more of that potential energy than ICEs can.

...there will always be 'range anxiety' , and their recharging is going to prove a big problem when there are millions of them being plugged in every night...

I thought this too. But if/when the availability of recharging stations is better, then that anxiety will diminish. It'll also wain with higher capacity. Think about the Nissan leaf that only has a 90mile distance when full. That's like perpetually driving on 1/4 tank of gas. Once all-electrics have, standard, 400+ mile capacities, that won't be quite so bad. You'll be able to recharge at 1/2 or even 1/4 capacity, and still have the confidence that you have ~70 miles before you are sweating bullets wondering if you'll make it or not.

...If someone does manage to make 'mini-reactors' safely then we've solved the problem...

My guess is this will come when things are bad enough that it is required. Right now, there's too much money to be made from other sources. And no politician will be seen as a hero for making "nuclear" power more accessible. They'll just be tarred and feathered as another politician that just wants "dirty air and dirty water."

But when nuclear (of whatever type) can mean the difference between people having power or not, people's attitudes about it will change. It unfortunately means things have to get a lot worse before we can get to this OR a huge marketing campaign/re-education of the public to rebrand "nuclear" will have to be done.

[tvrfan]

Again, good points.

I'm sure that in the comparison I saw, the losses WERE included, and (as you say) this still showed a big range difference between a full tank of juice and a full battery. I also read that in real life, the EV motor doesn't get to be nearly as good as for a static machine, as most of the existing 'leccy motor designs are best/efficient at constant running speeds, which is definitely NOT an EV profile. (Q. Are there any EVs with a true CVT system? I don't know...) There's all sort of losses of course, right down the drive train, and all vehicles have that.

There are innovative ideas appearing for 'leccy motors too, so agree it's all about improving the tech. I saw an idea about how a 'battery' could be a compressed air tank...not for an EV (too small scale), but for a power station. I guess it's only an extension of the 'pumped hydro' system, which does exist right now in various places (Wales, UK has one). But maybe one day....

Totally agree with last point, when the 'crisis' gets deep enough, attitudes will change.
Here's hoping someone does make a breakthrough.