US EPA wants to phase out EVs and hybrids by 2035 (April Fool's)

[darwin006]

 

 

Summary

 EPA wants to phase out EVs with current battery tech because making batteries with the current tech is dirty and the rare earth materials are rare.

 

Quotes

Quote

After several years of detailed study, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed new regulations that would ban the sale of all-electric and hybrid-electric vehicles (EV/HEVs) after 2035.

 

My thoughts

This is a bit strange because the push has been that people should be buying EVs and governments have been incentivizing people to buy EVs with tax incentives and by letting EVs use the car pool lanes AKA "HOV lanes" High occupancy vehicle lanes. Over the last year some auto makers have made announcements that they would only make EVs in 10 years time. There is a push for businesses to install EV chargers. And now it looks like the EPA is trying push auto makers to look alternative fuels like hydrogen or there needs to be an evolution in battery technology that is cleaner than what we have currently, is capable of being made and used mass market to save EVs. While that is being worked on tho, I cant help but think this announcement will only stall EV charger infrastructure.

 

Sources

 https://www.electronicdesign.com/markets/automotive/article/21157722/epa-proposes-phasing-out-all-batterypowered-evhevs-by-2035#:~:text=EPA Proposes Phasing Out All Battery-Powered EV%2FHEVs by 2035,-The beginning of&text=After several years of detailed,EV%2FHEVs) after 2035.

[asquirrel]

*looks at date of article*

*checks EPA website*

Sir, this is a shitpost / april fool's joke.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, NZgamer said:

I agree with this, I've always preferred hydrogen over current EV battery technology. It offers the convenience of petrol, while still keeping doing less to harm the environment. Only issue right now with hydrogen over EV's is the lack of hydrogen vehicles and filling stations. Hopefully Toyota continues to improve their hydrogen platform.

I like both options or both in a single vehicle. I have solar on my home so I can charge my car, fuel cells would be a net increase in both pollution and cost to me if it were the only option. The process to create hydrogen fuel is very energy intensive which is one of the reasons the uptake is so slow, their is a legitimate worry that the creation of the fuel is a net loss of energy through the lifecycle and usage of it, which would be bad.

[LogicalDrm]

@darwin006, this thread has been moved to Off Topic and bit more explanation added to title. You are day late for April Fool's on this one. Please have some more source/media criticism when looking for news around this time of the year. Not that you shouldn't have it in general.

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I like both options or both in a single vehicle. I have solar on my home so I can charge my car, fuel cells would be a net increase in both pollution and cost to me if it were the only option. The process to create hydrogen fuel is very energy intensive which is one of the reasons the uptake is so slow, their is a legitimate worry that the creation of the fuel is a net loss of energy through the lifecycle and usage of it, which would be bad.

[April fools joke aside] hydrogen does have some niche uses - particularly in areas regarding long-haul trucking (especially remote regions). Situations where there isn't a lot of infrastructure and you need to be able to carry as much additional fuel as needed.

 

For commuter vehicles, HFC makes little to no sense for the vast majority of car owners. In situations where charging overnight is impractical or impossible (eg: you have curbside parking - and not close enough to run a cable up to an outlet), some kind of HFC vehicle might be more useful. And while do to the inefficiency of creating Hydrogen gas that you mention above this makes it a less-good environmental option - it's still an improvement over ICE.

 

And in the end result, if someone who would otherwise stay on an ICE platform switches to HFC (and was never going to switch to EV)? That's still a net win.

 

Personally we're looking at getting a used Hybrid of some kind for our next vehicle (Fiancee's Toyota Camry is still in great shape, but it chugs gas). We rent, otherwise I would be looking at a full blown EV. Some of the ones we're looking at are PHEV's though - which is excellent because it allows us to use them as a regular Hybrid in the short term, while still having the eventual ability to charge in a garage or driveway for that limited EV only range (most of the ones in our price range are pretty limited, admittedly - around 40-60km - enough for in-town commutes).

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

hydrogen does have some niche uses - particularly in areas regarding long-haul trucking (especially remote regions). Situations where there isn't a lot of infrastructure and you need to be able to carry as much additional fuel as needed.

Yep, personally I like the high temperature hydrogen fuel cell technology for these use cases. Like trains seem perfect for it, large trucks maybe. Main reason I like high temperature technology is the fuel can almost be "anything" that is a hydrocarbon.

 

21 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

And while do to the inefficiency of creating Hydrogen gas that you mention above this makes it a less-good environmental option - it's still an improvement over ICE.

It's also worth it just from the air quality and health aspect anyway, and sound pollution. The change over to low emissions output vehicles as much further reach impacts than often get discussed, health being the biggest and I would argue a greater importance that general environmental impacts which tend to be the primary talking points.

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

while still having the eventual ability to charge in a garage or driveway for that limited EV only range (most of the ones in our price range are pretty limited, admittedly - around 40-60km - enough for in-town commutes).

That's still actually fairly practical anyway. My Gen 2 Leaf only has 70km-90km mixed range anyway and I drive to work and back every day on a single charge, it's very close to the full range. I live in an adjacent town to the city I work in, PHEV with the same range as I get now would be ultimate in utility and flexibility for me right now with current technology. I just don't like most of the PHEV or they are too costly.

[asquirrel]

For those wondering, Hydrogen is plentiful, it's true. But we cannot actually create it in an energy efficient way that is also carbon neutral. Everyone says "electrolysis!" but here's the reality. It takes 48 KwH to create 1 KG of hydrogen (citation). That 1 KG of hydrogen only contains 33 KwH of energy (citation). Note That assumes you could get 100% of the energy out of the hydrogen, which we can't. So you actually get less than 33 KwH/kg. Now, there are other ways to create hydrogen, but all of them involve fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Nuclear reactors can create hydrogen in a bunch of different ways, but most/all of those methods then require you worry about tritium in your hydrogen supply which makes leaded gasoline look like chewing tobacco.

 

So...Hydrogen sounds nice, but it doesn't actually work once you factor in the net energy reality of it. Net energy being: Energy needed to produce the hydrogen vs energy you can get out of it.

[Commodus]

Hydrogen has felt like a stopgap measure at best for everyday driving — it only really makes sense in a world where the practical realities for EVs never get better. Pure EVs are ultimately more eco-friendly if the local power grid is clean (that includes nuclear), and there are already efforts underway to improve material choices and battery recycling.

 

I do think hydrogen is better in some areas, particularly for very long range driving and other industrial uses where EVs might have a tough time. Even that isn't guaranteed to last forever, though.

[dalekphalm]

12 hours ago, asquirrel said:

For those wondering, Hydrogen is plentiful, it's true. But we cannot actually create it in an energy efficient way that is also carbon neutral. Everyone says "electrolysis!" but here's the reality. It takes 48 KwH to create 1 KG of hydrogen (citation). That 1 KG of hydrogen only contains 33 KwH of energy (citation). Note That assumes you could get 100% of the energy out of the hydrogen, which we can't. So you actually get less than 33 KwH/kg. Now, there are other ways to create hydrogen, but all of them involve fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Nuclear reactors can create hydrogen in a bunch of different ways, but most/all of those methods then require you worry about tritium in your hydrogen supply which makes leaded gasoline look like chewing tobacco.

 

So...Hydrogen sounds nice, but it doesn't actually work once you factor in the net energy reality of it. Net energy being: Energy needed to produce the hydrogen vs energy you can get out of it.

It's ironic that the single most abundant element in the entire universe simply doesn't exist naturally on Earth in a pure form (because of how reactive Hydrogen is, it just LOVES to be in bonds).

 

And that's really the problem. If we could simply tap a Hydrogen Gas reservoir and pump the pure stuff straight out of the ground, then HFC's would have taken over years ago. But you can't do that - first you have to extract the Hydrogen, and that's ultimately what makes it less good compared to a proper EV (for most situations - obviously exceptions exist).

 

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

Hydrogen has felt like a stopgap measure at best for everyday driving — it only really makes sense in a world where the practical realities for EVs never get better. Pure EVs are ultimately more eco-friendly if the local power grid is clean (that includes nuclear), and there are already efforts underway to improve material choices and battery recycling.

Definitely agree. And even the age-old problems with EV's people keep on about (Eg: poor electrical infrastructure) need to be solved anyway. And the US at least is trying to push legislation this year that will invest something like $150+ Billion USD into EV/Electrical infrastructure.

 

Whether that gets through the Senate is an entirely different question.

 

Other places, such as Ontario, invested in their electrical infrastructure well over a decade ago (in the aftermath of the 2003 blackout). We could literally flip the switch tomorrow and have a massive portion of our population move to EV's and our grid could handle it without any issues. 100%? Maybe not. But we can currently already handle WAY MORE EV's than are currently being driven.

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

I do think hydrogen is better in some areas, particularly for very long range driving and other industrial uses where EVs might have a tough time. Even that isn't guaranteed to last forever, though.

Definitely - it excels in areas where EV's don't, and is particularly useful when you're more concerned about range or practicality than price and efficiency.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, SGT-AMD said:

Well, we know atleast 1 police dept might drop its ev: https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-police-car-low-batteries

I mean that's no different from if they had forgotten to fill up the gas tank. Even if it would be quicker to refuel, by the time they did, the guy they're chasing is long gone either way.

 

And with Tesla V3 Superchargers (depending on if their model supports the top charging speed), you can literally charge the battery at 250 kW - you can fill a Model 3 to 90% in under 40 minutes. For a cop, you could put in a significant chunk of charge in say, 10 minutes. For example, in 15 minutes, you can get about 180 miles of range added to your charge (less if doing high speed maneuvers obviously, but still plenty).

[Guest]

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

I like both options or both in a single vehicle. I have solar on my home so I can charge my car, fuel cells would be a net increase in both pollution and cost to me if it were the only option. The process to create hydrogen fuel is very energy intensive which is one of the reasons the uptake is so slow, their is a legitimate worry that the creation of the fuel is a net loss of energy through the lifecycle and usage of it, which would be bad.

If you're specially inclined to own a Nissan Leaf (Like our dear friend Chris Bishop), you can use them to power your house. So use car as a battery. 

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

Definitely - it excels in areas where EV's don't, and is particularly useful when you're more concerned about range or practicality than price and efficiency.

To be fair, most new EVs have a capacity of around 250kms. Definitely enough for at least a 2 hour drive, depending on temperature and speed. When EVs become the mainstay of public transport due to regulations on ICEs, I think the tech will have improved dramatically. Probably would be like 2030, keep in mind. I think by then, it won't be too difficult to have a charging station in a petrol station, it's really just a 32a caravan plug. (Tesla supercharging is proprietary I think, but would be more)

[Commodus]

28 minutes ago, SGT-AMD said:

I can't find an article, but atleast 1 nypd station is running a fuel cell.

 

If this was 5 years ago, I could make a call and tell you how many.

Also, Pratt and Whitney was using hydrogen to power its buildings.

 

 

Hydrogen makes sense for the NYPD, at least so long as there are enough filling stations. You wouldn't have to worry about having enough charge to respond to an emergency call. Of course, recent and upcoming EVs could solve this with very fast charging, but I wouldn't expect cruisers that advanced for a while.

[Commodus]

Just now, SGT-AMD said:

The stations themselves, not the cars

 

Ah... well, what I said is also true, but point taken!

[Zodiark1593]

15 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

[April fools joke aside] hydrogen does have some niche uses - particularly in areas regarding long-haul trucking (especially remote regions). Situations where there isn't a lot of infrastructure and you need to be able to carry as much additional fuel as needed.

 

For commuter vehicles, HFC makes little to no sense for the vast majority of car owners. In situations where charging overnight is impractical or impossible (eg: you have curbside parking - and not close enough to run a cable up to an outlet), some kind of HFC vehicle might be more useful. And while do to the inefficiency of creating Hydrogen gas that you mention above this makes it a less-good environmental option - it's still an improvement over ICE.

 

And in the end result, if someone who would otherwise stay on an ICE platform switches to HFC (and was never going to switch to EV)? That's still a net win.

 

Personally we're looking at getting a used Hybrid of some kind for our next vehicle (Fiancee's Toyota Camry is still in great shape, but it chugs gas). We rent, otherwise I would be looking at a full blown EV. Some of the ones we're looking at are PHEV's though - which is excellent because it allows us to use them as a regular Hybrid in the short term, while still having the eventual ability to charge in a garage or driveway for that limited EV only range (most of the ones in our price range are pretty limited, admittedly - around 40-60km - enough for in-town commutes).

For commuting tight, winding roads, hydrogen can offer a significant weight advantage as well. EVs are really heavy for the job. Between the instantaneous torque, and slinging 3500 pounds of weight around tight turns, I don’t see tires enduring for very long with my commute. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

If you're specially inclined to own a Nissan Leaf (Like our dear friend Chris Bishop), you can use them to power your house. So use car as a battery. 

Gen 2 Leaf can really only do that in Japan, newer Leaf's can in any country but for the older ones this was only offered in Japan so I don't know how much of a pain in the ass it would be to try and do it with an older one.

 

Doesn't really matter I have my own 10kwh battery system anyway.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Zodiark1593 said:

For commuting tight, winding roads, hydrogen can offer a significant weight advantage as well. EVs are really heavy for the job. Between the instantaneous torque, and slinging 3500 pounds of weight around tight turns, I don’t see tires enduring for very long with my commute. 

Well that depends, my EV is lighter than my other car (1521kg vs 1650 kg) and the tyres are going to fail warrant of fitness due to age not tread wear so will need to be replaced because of that. Most new cars no days are just damn heavy due to safety standards and aren't necessarily designed in a way to actually save weight because it's costly, where as EVs have to make that effort due to having to figure out how to actually get a giant ass battery in to a car in a practical and usable way for the owner of it.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Gen 2 Leaf can really only do that in Japan, newer Leaf's can in any country but for the older ones this was only offered in Japan so I don't know how much of a pain in the ass it would be to try and do it with an older one.

 

Doesn't really matter I have my own 10kwh battery system anyway.

Older leafs are garbage anyway. Tbh.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Older leafs are garbage anyway. Tbh.

They are, but they are dirt cheap and come in abundance so are good for that reason only lol. Got mine for $8000 and now instead of paying ~$14/day it's around $2/day.

 

edit:

Oh and my other car costs $2k for a full set of tyres which need to get done every 2 years as well (well not any more since I drive it far less).

[Zodiark1593]

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well that depends, my EV is lighter than my other car (1521kg vs 1650 kg) and the tyres are going to fail warrant of fitness due to age not tread wear so will need to be replaced because of that. Most new cars no days are just damn heavy due to safety standards and aren't necessarily designed in a way to actually save weight because it's costly, where as EVs have to make that effort due to having to figure out how to actually get a giant ass battery in to a car in a practical and usable way for the owner of it.

I drive a lot. I go through tires about every year and a half due to worn tread than age. (Alignment is spot on btw) And a large portion of my commute takes place on faster, curved roads (55mph speed limit, though most go 65+) which wears down tires very quickly compared to straight freeways. Then theres a couple mile stretch which is much tighter, with about half on a descent, and half going back uphill. From a safety standpoint, having a lighter vehicle makes it quite easier to navigate and faster to react, especially in the rain. Further, the downhill is quite rough on the front tires. 
 

My own car weighs about 1247 KG. If I can get an EV of about that weight, or even less, I’d be more than happy to go EV. That is literally my only hesitation to eventually getting one. 
 

Thinking about weight distribution though (EVs have more weight focused towards the center of the vehicle than up front), could probably go a bit higher on the absolute weight and still get similar handling to what I’m used to. 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They are, but they are dirt cheap and come in abundance so are good for that reason only lol. Got mine for $8000 and now instead of paying ~$14/day it's around $2/day.

 

edit:

Oh and my other car costs $2k for a full set of tyres which need to get done every 2 years as well (well not any more since I drive it far less).

$14 a day! Lucky you guys get paid more up there. 24kwh just isn’t enough for where I live and for commuting to and from Dun to Te Anau. 

[dalekphalm]

6 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

For commuting tight, winding roads, hydrogen can offer a significant weight advantage as well. EVs are really heavy for the job. Between the instantaneous torque, and slinging 3500 pounds of weight around tight turns, I don’t see tires enduring for very long with my commute. 

I'd be curious to see aggregated statistics about vehicle weight vs tire wear, as well as tread wear on straight vs curved roads.

 

For the average person I doubt it makes much of a difference. Modern cars are pretty heavy. Yes there are some that are inherently lighter, but especially in the North American market, people love SUV's, trucks, and large cars.