Internal Combustion to Electrification….

Electric Truck heading into the future.

Internal Combustion to Electrification….

Mike,

I have been pondering some things and I know you are very much more in touch in the transportation world than I curently am.

Everyone seems to be using all these new code words of being Zero emissions, Global warming etc. and Calif is trying to pass legislation of no internal combustion engines by 2030 or 2035. I very much believe in keeping our plant safe and clean but I also believe to not cut your nose off spit your face. I sincerely always believe in diversification is always better approach to things than a one an done approach.

So this brings me to the things I am pondering. If we build and all electric society this means we will need more electricity and we are already trying to decommission coal and gas fired generators and using more solar. That’s ok but we are falling short already at being able to supply the grid at peak times. Solar panels degrade at one to two percent a year, are extremely hazardous waste, heavy metals, arsenic, silver and lead. Car batteries last 100,000 to 150,000 miles approx depending on where you get your info in optimal conditions and produce all kinds of hazardous gases.

Now we have not gone through a complete cycle of waste on many of these but when we start filling the world with more and more vehicles and we haven’t even put the transportation industry into the mix and I am sure life expectancy will be less. So the question is are we trading gas vehicle for something that maybe much more hazardous, use more of our raw materials, have less infrastructure for empowering, put a heavier load on an already strained electric grid and push the cost up exponentially. We have not even got into having enough technicians capable of even handling our current transportation market. Are we pulling our gun out of our holster and shooting our self in the foot. Is the liberal society even addressed any of these thoughts?

Just an old country boys thoughts. I just wondering what yours maybe?

John,

You pose some great questions that warrants study and consideration from several standpoints.

Clean Air Act of 1970:

My biggest compliant is the federal government fails to learn from previous challenges to roll out new technology in order to reduce emissions as well as carbon footprint. Their first attempt was the Clean Air Act of 1970 which had some good points as well as some that were very detrimental to society and small business owners. Yes, all the two (2) stall gas stations that disappeared from the topography of America and became convenient stores and no longer serviced vehicles. This happened right when we had an influx of new drivers on the road. More cars, more potential pollution and drastically reduced number of repair facilities. Ouch! Another problem with the Clean Air Act of 1970 was there no regulatory stipulation on a common platform. As such, every manufacturer had their own proprietary platform which is why when the influx of microprocessors hit the market the small shops couldn’t afford all tools that would enable them to troubleshoot the now proprietary systems properly. This same factor hit the shade tree mechanics right smack in the proverbial head impeding the development of future technicians. More cars, less technicians to repair them, Ouch number 2. The one (1) things that was included in the Clean Air Act of 1970 was there could be no patents on emission control systems. The purpose of this was in hopes the manufacturers would share the knowledge in hopes of improving our environment.  Yeah, right. This actually had the reverse-effect or backfired (pun intended) when the manufacturers implemented more and more proprietary systems with only vague operational descriptions in attempt to protect their intellectual capital. These and several other factors lead to the Clean Air Act of 1990.

The Clean Air Act of 1990:

The Clean Air Act of 1990 attempted to rectify some of the aforementioned challenges and get everyone working with some commonality as well as forced the issue of generic software that could read the diagnostic codes. However the manufacturers continued to lay more and more layers of code and options on the equipments that we have arrived at where we are today.

Sorry, I got on a little rant there, but I feel it was necessary step on where I’m going with this. Yes, our power-grid that is not only inadequate for our current and future needs it is very antiquated. Tree-huggers tend to feel that once we have a glimmer of hope on a long term solution that it will magically become efficient and the laws of supply and demand will bring the costs in line. Yes, for somethings like cell phones and computers that philosophy has worked out well. However, you mentioned solar-panels and batteries. Solar panels are not cost-effective nor will they be unless some drastic change is made to the technology. As yes, they are a huge environmental waste!  Some technological advances  make perfect sense and some really don’t. Kinda like the one Congress person is of the belief that we need to control cow farts. Where do these idiots come from and who elects them? We need real leadership in Washington, who will put the well-being of the nation first not these individuals who are out to line their own pockets.

The Rusty Reality:

The rusty reality of the truth is whether it is electrification, autonomous, or fuel cell technology we need a common platforms in order to build and advance these and future technologies for numerous reasons such as safety, ease of maintenance, and most importantly, security. As such, there is so much time wasted because of this, getting these technologies engrained into the market to where they are reducing emissions and fuel consumption were all going to die before they come to fruition. Just think about how long it took in order to get fuel and emission efficient vehicles on the road after the Clean Air Act directive of 1970. From my perspective, if there had been a common platform we could have solved they problem much quicker thus eliminating tons and tons of air pollution. The good news on the electrification initiative, the ATA has put some recommend engineering practices in place in regards to the connector plug and other various items. However, we still need a common platform going forward.

Thanks for listening and please chime in if you have comments or suggestions.

 

For more articles on a variety of aspects fleet maintenance and leadership please see https://mcbconsulting.com/blog/

For more inspirational quotes and percepts please see https://www.passiton.com

 

 

No Comments

Post A Comment