[Germanauto]

For all the flack we give BMW [deservedly so], I'll give them credit for being pragmatic about EVs. While the rest of the industry hopped on the EV bandwagon in an effort to boost their stock price and spin positive PR, BMW [and Toyota] have been proponents of keeping ICE alive.

The economics of EVs just don't add up; from battery costs, rapid depreciation, geopolitical issues with supply chain (i.e. dependence on China), loss of jobs in the automotive sector, etc.

EVs will certainly continue to increase in popularity but it will take a long time and they will not work for all consumers. ICE bans were a political stunt. The future is EV AND ICE/hybrid.

[NickyC]

Reality remains undefeated.

[JJacksonIII]

Originally Posted by jackaleyess

Yes Mr. Obvious. Even if we produce big displacement based on today’s numbers. The earth will still stood the same even at our great grand child time. So yeah. Cut the crap and push on for big displacement.

No clue what this means

[JJacksonIII]

China disrupted the market with it's mass production of slow charging, low range but super cheap electric vehicles. If they stayed out of the game everything would progress as they had planned.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by JJacksonIII

No clue what this means

Let me try to translate.

"Even if we force all cars to small displacements or EVs, the Earth will still be essentially the same when our great grandchildren are living on it. So build large engines that buyers want and don't worry about it"


I don't entirely agree, but I do agree that even the most optimistic estimates for what switching everyone over to EVs essentially don't even make a dent in the climate issue. The goal of something like the Paris Accords was to "slow the acceleration of the rate of change" of climate change. To put it in car terms, the goal was to do all this stuff to make the car lose steam at the top end of the powerband.

We know that earth has been warming for millenia before we were using hydrocarbons. We know that earths climate has changed dramatically just in our known history. We know that in our history, entire sections of land have plunged under the ocean, fertile areas have turned to arid deserts, and major cities have sunk into the ocean - all before we discovered oil.

Earth is a constantly changing ecosystem. While we are having an effect on it, it's the ultimate hubris of man to think that it would be static if not for us, and that we can do a damn thing about it.

As a species we would be FAR better off taking the money and time we are spending on "green" stuff and spending it on things that will help us when the climate changes more.

[cfm56d7b]

Arbitrary milestones are what they are - entirely arbitrary and designed to influence the electorate as opposed to achieve a meaningful change. So the modus operandi of corporate leaders is the same: when the arbitrary milestones 15 years ahead are announced, say nothing after the announcement and work behind the scenes to extend the milestones, wait for political winds to change, extend again, rinse and repeat.

I don't think BMW CEO is wrong. He is just countering less-than-credible rhetoric about 2035 milestone with a practical approach to weaken it, extend it, and when the time is right influence a regulatory change.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

EV mandates were never feasible. They were just big banks throwing their weight around to make money on EV companies they funded and battery companies they were invested in. Frame it as "saving the world" and you can easily convince the easily manipulated that it must be done.

Not really

[JJacksonIII]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Let me try to translate.

"Even if we force all cars to small displacements or EVs, the Earth will still be essentially the same when our great grandchildren are living on it. So build large engines that buyers want and don't worry about it"


I don't entirely agree, but I do agree that even the most optimistic estimates for what switching everyone over to EVs essentially don't even make a dent in the climate issue. The goal of something like the Paris Accords was to "slow the acceleration of the rate of change" of climate change. To put it in car terms, the goal was to do all this stuff to make the car lose steam at the top end of the powerband.

We know that earth has been warming for millenia before we were using hydrocarbons. We know that earths climate has changed dramatically just in our known history. We know that in our history, entire sections of land have plunged under the ocean, fertile areas have turned to arid deserts, and major cities have sunk into the ocean - all before we discovered oil.

Earth is a constantly changing ecosystem. While we are having an effect on it, it's the ultimate hubris of man to think that it would be static if not for us, and that we can do a damn thing about it.

As a species we would be FAR better off taking the money and time we are spending on "green" stuff and spending it on things that will help us when the climate changes more.

First off, kudos to you for being able to translate that gibberish (that is, if you got the translation correct).

On whether or not we gain anything by spending on green energy, I think we do. If climate change (whether sped up by man or not) is going to produce harsher weather and more frequent catastophic events, then we will need more solar and battery power, as evidenced by the Babcock Ranch community in Florida.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by cfm56d7b

Arbitrary milestones are what they are - entirely arbitrary and designed to influence the electorate as opposed to achieve a meaningful change. So the modus operandi of corporate leaders is the same: when the arbitrary milestones 15 years ahead are announced, say nothing after the announcement and work behind the scenes to extend the milestones, wait for political winds to change, extend again, rinse and repeat.

I don't think BMW CEO is wrong. He is just countering less-than-credible rhetoric about 2035 milestone with a practical approach to weaken it, extend it, and when the time is right influence a regulatory change.

What makes you think it was arbitrary?

BMW CEO isn't saying anything new. The decision was made months ago by the German government leaning on Brussels.

It's a jobs program. Germany and the US would otherwise be awash in affordable BEVs but they'd be made in China. Hell, the US domestics have all but abandoned affordable sedans. They leave that segment to Asian automakers.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by JJacksonIII

First off, kudos to you for being able to translate that gibberish (that is, if you got the translation correct).

On whether or not we gain anything by spending on green energy, I think we do. If climate change (whether sped up by man or not) is going to produce harsher weather and more frequent catastophic events, then we will need more solar and battery power, as evidenced by the Babcock Ranch community in Florida.

Oh I have no idea of that translation was right, lol.

Babcock Ranch is an interesting one. It's main advantage is it's new and built to a high construction standard. We have a LOT of buildings in Florida that are built craZy tough to survive storms even more powerful than these. My windows are designed to take a 2x4 flying at 180mph and not break. Babcock Ranch is also massively inland compared to everything else in its area, dramatically reducing the risk vs being right on the ocean, river, or barrier island.

The solar aspect of it is a moot point. What was important about it was it was built inland and built strong. It's a GREAT example of what I'm talking about. Rather than building on something ike Sanibel island that is routinely washed away by storms l, build inland. No you don't get those great views of the Gulf of Mexico, but you also don't have your house washed away.

Clearly, people still want to live on the coast. You can't blame them. When we make requirements to build there enough to prevent them from being destroyed, people complain that only the super rich can afford it. When we don't people complain houses get washed away.

The real issue is that even if we go all in on solar/wind/imaginary clean power and EVs, it still won't do anything. We are still gonna have dirty air travel, incredibly dirty trans oceanic shipping, and developing nations with no emissions controls that dgaf because they feel it's their right to pollute as much as they want to build themselves up.

[DravitPlay]

Originally Posted by Nahlem

BMW and other European car manufacturers have had ample time to prepare for the transition to electric vehicles (EVs). It is ridiculous for them to now express concerns at the eleventh hour, especially when facing intensified competition from China. If they find themselves unable to compete in the global EV market, it signals a significant issue within the EU's automotive industry. 2035 is far away get your stuff together and you will be fine. No more investments in ICE engines you have what you have keep that and now move all resources to BEVs

These manufacturers seemed to treat the shift to sustainable vehicles lightly or as a joke, consistently releasing subpar models while generating substantial profits from their (ICE) cars. When confronted with the realities of market and regulatory changes, they claimed insufficient time for transition. However, from 2001 to 2023-24, clear goals and development plans were established for a greener future. Instead of adapting, they continued producing fuel-inefficient vehicles. Now, seeking to lift bans due to their lack of proactive effort appears ridiculous.

To Oliver Zipse and his industry peers: prioritizing research and development in EVs over expanding the line-up of "X" variants could have positioned you more favourably today. The BMW i3, launched in 2013-2014, was a pioneering effort, but progress seemed to halt thereafter. It's advisable for the industry to reinvest profits, potentially garnered from years of reliance on fossil fuels, into producing affordable EVs. The market for high-end luxury cars is saturated, [...]

So you’re effectively saying the auto industry should reinvest its profits for research, but every other industry gets to pay investors dividends from profits? If you relentlessly attack an industry it’ll eventually topple over! That’s what’s happening to the car industry. They’re the subject of attack from every bought and paid for politician in the west. BMW have said they’ve cracked the hydrogen fuel cell dilemma! Making hydrogen the future, not EV’s. They’ve said they will be cheaper to build, easier to maintain, are much less resource hungry, less reliant on rare earth metals and greener to produce and run. It seems to me that the EV scam has had its day and, if common sense were allowed to take the stand, EV’s will be on the decline any time soon.

Good Riddance I say.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by JJacksonIII

First off, kudos to you for being able to translate that gibberish (that is, if you got the translation correct).

On whether or not we gain anything by spending on green energy, I think we do. If climate change (whether sped up by man or not) is going to produce harsher weather and more frequent catastophic events, then we will need more solar and battery power, as evidenced by the Babcock Ranch community in Florida.

Hurricane proof is easy to build if you have the money. The homes in Babcock go for over $1M.

[kiysersosae]

Agree and get all the benifits the government hand out and then when you realise the EV market is nonsense and not commercially viable, with it’s current infrastructure, force the government to change direction

[Dégoûté]

Nothing written in this thread matters.

[JJacksonIII]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Oh I have no idea of that translation was right, lol.

Babcock Ranch is an interesting one. It's main advantage is it's new and built to a high construction standard. We have a LOT of buildings in Florida that are built craZy tough to survive storms even more powerful than these. My windows are designed to take a 2x4 flying at 180mph and not break. Babcock Ranch is also massively inland compared to everything else in its area, dramatically reducing the risk vs being right on the ocean, river, or barrier island.

The solar aspect of it is a moot point. What was important about it was it was built inland and built strong. It's a GREAT example of what I'm talking about. Rather than building on something ike Sanibel island that is routinely washed away by storms l, build inland. No you don't get those great views of the Gulf of Mexico, but you also don't have your house washed away.

Clearly, people still want to live on the coast. You can't blame them. When we make requirements to build there enough to prevent them from being destroyed, people complain that only the super rich can afford it. When we don't people complain houses get washed away.

The real issue is that even if we go all in on solar/wind/imaginary clean power and EVs, it still won't do anything. We are still gonna have dirty air travel, incredibly dirty trans oceanic shipping, and developing nations with no emissions controls that dgaf because they feel it's their right to pollute as much as they want to build themselves up.

I thought I read that Babcock Ranch kept power while everyone else was blacked out and that it was due to the solar power they generate along with the use of batteries. I wasn't really referencing their ability to stand up to the hurricane winds.

[STi from DSM]

By 2035 we should ban all electric cars. They are all mostly shit anyways with the exception of a select few.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by JJacksonIII

I thought I read that Babcock Ranch kept power while everyone else was blacked out and that it was due to the solar power they generate along with the use of batteries. I wasn't really referencing their ability to stand up to the hurricane winds.

Batteries maybe. Solar panels don't work too well when there's a hurricane blocking the sky. Or when coconuts smashed into them at 150mph.

My buddy is about half as far inland in fort Myers and lost power for like 6 -12 hours during the storm. It was basically back on within a couple hours after the storm passed. If he jad a transfer switch and either a whole home generator or a shitload of batteries he could have kept power. A lot of times, the "losing power" is from the utility shutting it off to prevent further damage if a line is downed.

We lost power overnight for an unknown period of time. It may have been 3 seconds, it may have been 3 hours, no idea because it was while we were all asleep and it was on when we woke up lol. FPL has been doing a lot to harden our power distribution from storms, either by burying the lines or using much stronger poles.

We looked into a whole home generator. All in we would probably be in the $10k range give or take a couple grand. We rarely lose power, and so it just wasn't worth it. We got a new generator that can run on gas or propane and power the fridges and any sort of charger we need, probably a portable AC system if we had one too. It takes a lot of inconvenience to justify the expense of a large battery backup system and automatic transfer switch. An Anker setup of ~7 kwh on its own is like $7k. Not sure how much I would need to keep the whole house running for 12 hours or so (minus the pool pump I guess), i would really just want to have enough power to keep things going during a storm, then be able to charge the batteries and run the house off a generator.

Again, a lot of expensive solutions for a problem of barely ever losing power.

[ctcarbonari]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Let me try to translate.

"Even if we force all cars to small displacements or EVs, the Earth will still be essentially the same when our great grandchildren are living on it. So build large engines that buyers want and don't worry about it"


I don't entirely agree, but I do agree that even the most optimistic estimates for what switching everyone over to EVs essentially don't even make a dent in the climate issue. The goal of something like the Paris Accords was to "slow the acceleration of the rate of change" of climate change. To put it in car terms, the goal was to do all this stuff to make the car lose steam at the top end of the powerband.

We know that earth has been warming for millenia before we were using hydrocarbons. We know that earths climate has changed dramatically just in our known history. We know that in our history, entire sections of land have plunged under the ocean, fertile areas have turned to arid deserts, and major cities have sunk into the ocean - all before we discovered oil.

Earth is a constantly changing ecosystem. While we are having an effect on it, it's the ultimate hubris of man to think that it would be static if not for us, and that we can do a damn thing about it.

As a species we would be FAR better off taking the money and time we are spending on "green" stuff and spending it on things that will help us when the climate changes more.

+1 to all of ^this^. Well said.

George Carlin touched upon this same observation of reality years ago.

[zx10guy]

I've said this in the ongoing EV thread. None of this is actually about being green and saving the environment/planet. If the powers to be were really serious about climate change and green house gases, they'd outlaw the carbon credits market. The fact there is a market for carbon credits means none of this is really about saving the planet. The powers to be are just attacking the path of least resistance which is us. Because many of us have just bought into the scam they're selling to us. Oh and these industries I'm talking about which take advantage of the carbon credits market have a more profound affect on any potential climate change than the vehicles we all drive....by a huge margin.

Never mind the state of the power grid is still abysmal with major electrical grids only a few steps from total collapse. Just look at what happened in California where they had to tell people to not charge their cars because the grid couldn't keep up with demand. Never mind there are still not enough public chargers to make EVs practical.

Add to the above with the dirty practices around mining the materials needed for EV batteries and nothing in place as to how to recycle spent EV batteries.

And I haven't even gone into the practicality of EVs for many in terms of range that varies based on ambient air temps. Or how long recharging takes.

[dezzracer]

I could of told em that and I’m just some dude. Here’s some more earth shattering news. In a few years we will have IC 4 and 6 bangers putting out 500 hp, getting 60 mpg with half the emissions.

[Custom Install]

I think this video explains the real reason.

[Lifted]

I prefer fossil fuels