Massachusetts To Ban Sale of New Gas-Powered Cars by 2035 (caranddriver.com) 303
While EVs are still in the single-digit area of overall vehicle sales, they continue to climb and have already surpassed the sales of vehicles with manual transmissions. Now it seems that the electrification investments made by automakers are getting a boost from another part of the country. From a report: Massachusetts is joining California with a plan to ban the sale of new gasolined-powered cars by 2035. Governor Charlie Baker released a 2050 decarbonization road map that includes the reduction of emissions from passenger cars. Massachusetts states that 27 percent of statewide emissions come from light-duty vehicles (passenger vehicles). The goal is for the state to reach net-zero fossil-fuel emissions by 2050. In order to make sure those EVs are actually usable, the state plans to expand the public charging infrastructure to take into account that many people don't have a garage in which to charge an electric vehicle. The initiatives by California and now Massachusetts could be the beginning of a trend by states to slowly ban the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles. Several European countries have the same types of measures in order to battle climate change. Meanwhile, President-Elect Joe Biden has a plan to speed up the electrification of vehicles in the United States that includes replacing the country's fleets with EVs.
Good move (Score:5, Insightful)
We should switch all electricity generation over to nuclear, hydro, and solar.
Ultimately, it shouldn't be legal to pump 10 tons of carbon dioxide plus various pollutants every year into the atmosphere. Regardless of whether it causes climate change or not, it's a pretty shitty thing to do.
Re:Good move (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"My bedroom is heated primarily by dutch ovens,"
Le Creuset?
Re:Good move (Score:4, Informative)
Swap out nuclear for wind and you would be right. Wind is the best form of generation we have no. Incredibly cheap, very clean, reliable and safe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no idea. I live in the Netherlands and we'd need a string of 30000 kilometer of wind turbines to power our country, which is about 300 kilometers in length. Not only would it be ridiculous to build that, it would also take nearly a century to build if we'd ramp up production capacity as unreasonably fast as would be theoretically possible.
While we should definitely invest in wind, there's no realistic carbon-neutral future without nuclear.
We should start building nuclear power plants AND wind as fa
You can't have nuclear in America (Score:5, Insightful)
A hundred years ago he'd be living near the plant so this wasn't an option. Today he's hundreds if not thousands of miles away.
If you want nuclear you need to solve that problem. I've read multiple stories of tech on the horizon, but always on the horizon. So far every plant that can be built today has at least 1 fail state where the surrounding area gets irradiated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How does a molten salt reactor irradiate a large area? We already built one...
Re:You can't have nuclear in America (Score:5, Informative)
As for nuclear waste, that's a political problem, not a technical problem. We've had the technology to deal with it since the 1950s. The reason that nuclear waste in the U.S. is dangerous for tens of thousands of years is because we consider the fuel to be spent while it still has more than 90% of the energy in the original uranium still in it. You can tap that remaining energy by reprocessing the fuel in a breeder reactor. That generates energy, and converts it into a form which can be used again as fuel in regular light water reactors. When all is said and done, only about 10% of the energy in the original uranium remains, and that waste is only dangerously radioactive for a few centuries. France and Russia (and I assume China) do not have a nuclear waste problem because they reprocess. Countries like Japan and Korea typically send their spent fuel to France for reprocessing. So why doesn't the U.S. reprocess?
The major downside of reprocessing is that one of its by-products is weapons-grade plutonium. So in the interest of nuclear non-proliferation, President Carter banned reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial reactors in the U.S. Thus creating the nuclear waste problem the U.S. is grappling with. It is a purely political problem, not technological. And if you fast-forward a few hundred years, most countries and probably several companies and terrorist organizations will have the capability to produce their own nukes. The ban on reprocessing to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons will no longer serve a purpose. And all this nuclear "waste" we've buried in Nevada or wherever for tens of thousands of years will suddenly become a valuable energy source. We'll be tripping over ourselves to dig it up and reprocess it. If not for use as an energy source (maybe we'll have fusion reactors by then), then at least to reduce the time we need to keep the stuff safely buried from tens of thousands of years to a few centuries.
As for nuclear accidents irradiating the countryside, consider the size of the exclusion zones around Chernobyl (2600 km^2) and Fukushima (807 km^2). Divide it by the approx 500 nuclear plants used during that time, and it works out to an average off-limits area of about 7 km^2 per nuclear plant. The land area which is flooded behind a hydroelectric dam generating roughly the same amount of power is about 1000 km^2 per dam [wikipedia.org]. So for the power generated, hydro actually removes from use more than 100x the land area as nuclear accidents.
Re:Good move (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean you need 30,000 turbines?
The Netherlands uses around 100bn kWh/year of electricity.
https://www.worlddata.info/eur... [worlddata.info]
The UK already has around 10,000 turbines producing 65bn kWh/year, and most of those are on-shore.
Off shore generates a lot more energy so I'd suggest you need around 15-17,000 of them for the Netherlands, and could build them relatively quickly and affordably.
Or just buy energy from the UK. It has around 20x as much offshore energy as it consumes electrically, so can export 95% of it. Maybe wait for Scotland to get back into the EU and lay a cable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why does Scotland need to be in the EU to sell electricity? And why not use the existing grid? This silly idea that without being in the EU we can't trade is just fear mongering, the rest of the world has no problem trading with the EU, even China and look how badly they treat people.
But GP clearly mucked up the maths somewhere, Netherlands is ideally placed to get lots of wind energy and of course they have a history of using wind energy.
Re:Good move (Score:5, Informative)
Progress. GE is rolling out [nytimes.com] monster wind turbines for off-short use that generate 13 megawatts of power per turbine. Other manufacturers are also scaling up in size to this and beyond.
Your gov't already is planning on adding an additional 7 GW of wind power by 2030, for a total of 40% of all electricity generation. That's impressive.
With the way wind technology is starting to rapidly increase, it'll probably play a bigger role than people realize. Still need nuclear? Probably, but with the fear factor is going to be an issue.
Re:Good move (Score:5, Insightful)
Wind is the best form of generation we have no. Incredibly cheap, very clean, reliable and safe.
Indeed, wind is very safe, it's only twice as bad as nuclear in terms of deaths per TWh making it one of the safest forms of electricity.
Re:Good move (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably not when you factor in the mining needed to get nuclear fuel and the construction of storage facilities. It's impossible to get exact numbers because you can never attribute a particular cancer to it, but the rate among miners is about 6x the expected level, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I concur. Nuclear power, having a backup civilization by colonizing other planets, and re-greening the Earth (much easier to do if we can do our mining *elsewhere*) are all laudable goals.
Re: Good move (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuclear power shouldn't be a goal. Clean power is the goal. If nuclear could actually do that most effectively, then that would be great. I don't believe that's possible under capitalism, and I don't believe that it's feasible under any system.
Re: (Score:2)
"Green flavoured aspies"
Seriously? If you can't make an argument without resorting to slurs you don't have much of an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
We should switch all electricity generation over to nuclear, hydro, and solar.
Ultimately, it shouldn't be legal to pump 10 tons of carbon dioxide plus various pollutants every year into the atmosphere. Regardless of whether it causes climate change or not, it's a pretty shitty thing to do.
From endless warmongering to manufacturing endless amounts of bullshit electronic trinkets to feed the addicted masses, ever wonder just how many "pretty shitty" jobs are created and sustained by these massive industries? You likely will. In the unemployment line.
I certainly see your point, but if there was an easy answer to the greed and corruption that has infected mankind for thousands of years, we would have likely found it by now. And as the world becomes more and more dependent on sustaining vario
Re: (Score:3)
You're arguing that we should warmonger and manufacture bullshit disposable trinkets so that we can distribute money to people? You'd think there'd be an easier way. Maybe even a more productive one.
Re: Good move (Score:5, Insightful)
Returning something benign to the environment from which it came is largely the *right* thing to do.
In theory... and being a rather simplistic theory, itâ(TM)s both correct and, where it counts, totally fucking wrong.
Re: Good move (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you an idiot?
Nobody is advocating for the removal of every molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere. I know inference is a special talent that you don't possess, but the general idea was that digging up a mountain and aerosolizing it into the atmosphere in oxidized form over and over is a shitty thing to do. Don't buy into the CO2 climate change thing? Fine, stop burning entire mountains in order to spare the downwinders of elevated asthma and lung cancer rates.
Are you seriously thinking that there is no problems at all with air pollution from coal power generation? All that legislation such as the Clean Air Act is just reactionary nonsense? Prove it by taking a big suck off a coal smoke stack then.
Re:Good move (Score:5, Interesting)
It should not be legal to dispose tons of toxic sluge manufacturing photocells cells
Uh, "toxic sludge" mostly comes from coal slurry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
or create massive tail ponds full of heavy metal laden soup from mining rare earths by that logic.
Sorry, toxic tailing ponds mostly come from... fossil fuels. https://www.thestar.com/news/a... [thestar.com] https://financialpost.com/comm... [financialpost.com]
(But secondarily from gold and copper mines. https://www.cbc.ca/news/techno... [www.cbc.ca] )
Destroying river ecology and fisheries should also be illegal.
So, what you're saying is: make coal mining illegal.
Congratulations Massachusetts... (Score:2)
Sigh, take action now instead of then! (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of some promise in the far future, I’d rather have the politicians take some legal action now because we need action now. CO2 accumulates, so any ICE car replaced by an EV this year equates to savings in the future. Demand 5% EVs in 2021, 10% in 2022, 15% in 2022 etc. Manufacturers that don’t make it can buy credits from those that have excess. This will help Wright’s law to demonstrate itself and solve the cost problem sooner rather than later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the legislation will mostly get the infrastructure moving. Gas stations and electrical utilities should be thinking about what they're going to be doing in five and ten years, and deadlines help combat any wishful thinking.
Hodge podge of phase out years (Score:3)
Re:Hodge podge of phase out years (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it really depends on two things:
1) rapid development of battery packs that will allow for a range of at least 500 km (310 miles) per charge without making the weight of the car excessive.
2) Adoption of a single universal standard for commercial DC charging with a peak of 350 kW. No more CCS 1, IEC CCS 2, Tesla Supercharger of CHAdeMO separate standards, but a singular plug standard. At least Europe got it right by standardizing on ICE CCS Type 2.
Re: (Score:2)
No more CCS 1, IEC CCS 2, Tesla Supercharger of CHAdeMO separate standards, but a singular plug standard.
Obligatory. ;) [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The 300 mille standard pack is only a couple of years off. I reckon the next gen of all the following will be there or thereabouts: Zoe, iPace (pretty much is today), eNiro/Kona, eTron, iD3, Ariya, i4, Taycan, Mach e, Cupra el-Born, Enyaq, Polestar, EQC...
Electricity Cost (Score:2)
Mandating electric vehicles (the most likely replacement for ICE vehicles) in a state with the 3rd highest electric rates in the nation probably won't go over well with your average consumer.
Re: Electricity Cost (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a toss up. If you take what you spend on gasoline and dump that into your electric bill, will you still come out ahead? In summer with the AC running? Or winter with your electric heater since I'm sure we'll ban burning natural gas for heating at some point as well.
That's why you almost need a house with solar to really make this all work. Most of us don't even have our own condos, let alone houses with roofs and backyards.
I love my hybrid though. High 40s low 50 mpg depending on how cold it is and I c
Re: (Score:2)
It's still cheaper than gas. What's your point?
Great for second hand market (Score:2)
So Cars, Inc. will sell a new car to 2nd Hand Cars, Inc., which will then sell to the citizens of Massachusetts. The vehicle will not be 'new' anymore. And if you think I'm overly cynical, I've seen this done with boats, which were left with their engine running while in the harbor for a few days, just so it would have 1000km on the meter and it could be sold as second hand, thus avoiding certain taxes.
In other news, Tesla is bringing out an update so their cars will become fully autonomous. You just need t
Re: (Score:2)
It's not feasible on Earth yet. (Score:2)
With their CURRENT compositions, our planet doesn't have enough of the raw materials, e.g. lithium, cobalt, manganese. And copper, much more heavily used in EVs than in ICEs, is very expensive already. Production of these is also "dirty" and primarily in nations that we have some level of trade war with.
We can't get there from here. A few magic laws won't change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice rant. Why did you attach it to an article about a single state mandating new car sales be EV a decade and a half from now?
Literally nothing you wrote has anything to do with this article.
Talking about gas, methane. (Score:3)
Research to use solar energy and carbon dioxide to generate methane is developing now. And for methane you already have infrastructure, gas pipe an fuel pumps. [www.tno.nl]
CNG powered cars and lorries aren't cool like a sport Tesla, I know, but it's a viable solution especially for not sending perfectly working cars to the scrapyard.
Then give me cheap, renewable energy. (Score:2)
If you make it cheap enough people will switch to electro en masse and you will have the political climate to ban ices on short notice (like 5 years etc.). Instead you just ban them for your place in the history books and expect other people to make your vision reality.
No more gasoline! (Score:2)
Bring on the diesel-powered bro trucks [staticflickr.com]!
Not very courageous, but still. (Score:2)
What is needed is for some nations/states to drop it down to 2025. Say Norway, UK, or California. This would push all Western LICE makers to quickly move to EV on passenger vehicles. And yes, giving LICE makers 5-8 years from now is more than enough time. Even rolls, lambo, etc need to move over.
My uncle has a country place (Score:5, Insightful)
That no one knows about
He says it used to be a farm
Before the Motor Law
And on Sundays I elude the eyes
And hop the Turbine Freight
To far outside the Wire
Where my white-haired uncle waits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Man, mr self-proclaimed sockpuppet, I gotta start browsing at +2.
What is it about an unambitious 14 year target that scares you?
The world is moving away from petroleum. US automakers can adapt or perish.
Re: (Score:2)
AC doesn't want to read his own posts? How sad.
As for banning gasoline (which is essentially what Mass is trying to do here), why bother? Coal is going down the tubes without any ban on it whatsoever. It would be funny if Mass still had coal power plants operating in 2036 (it won't, since Brayton shut down, but they will likely still be burning LNG, and there may be some homes still using fuel oil).
Re: Ban Massghanistan (Score:2)
Lithium and such [Re:Ban Massghanistan] (Score:5, Informative)
I read the first article on that list, and it's mostly bullshit.
Lithium is not terribly rare. Currently it comes from evaporite deposits, mostly, which are easy to mine-- nothing compared to coal mining. Right now there isn't much lithium recycling, but that's simply because up to now there hasn't been much lithium to recycle.
The article goes on "Solar panels gobbles up a significant share of the world’s supply of tellurium,"
Bullshit. Currently used solar panel technology doesn't use tellurium. One of the many technologies that didn't win the race to commercialization, CdTe, did use Te, but it's not in use, and the only reason it would use a significant share of the world's supply is that Te really doesn't have much other use.
"and gallium,"
More bullshit. Ga is used for high-efficiency space cells, not for terrestrial use. Nobody mines gallium; it's refined from aluminum production (you can also recover it from coal fly ash.) World production of aluminum is five thousand metric tons per month; right now hardly anybody bothers to separate out the Ga from the waste, because there just isn't the market to make it worthwhile, but if we did switch to Ga containing cells, we could get all the Ga we wanted from only a tiny fraction of the Al production.
"along with a sizable fraction of mined silver and indium"
If they believe that solar cells consume a significant fraction of silver, they're dreaming. And indium-- well, again, you might use it in space cells, but not in terrestrial cells. Its main use is in low-melting temperature solder.
I don't know why people keep reposting this bullshit. And it is bullshit.
Cobalt [Re:Lithium and such] (Score:5, Informative)
Except cobalt is the main critical ingredient of lithium ion batteries and it is in short supply, comes from politically unstable countries, and
Except lithium, not cobalt, is the key ingredient in lithium ion batteries. Lithium cobaltate is a cathode material for current generation Li ion batteries, but fortunately, postdating those 2016 and 2018 articles you quote, several groups have learned how to make Li ion batteries without lithium cobaltate cathodes for next-generation batteries.
https://cen.acs.org/energy/ene... [acs.org]
https://www.machinedesign.com/... [machinedesign.com]
https://www.electronicdesign.c... [electronicdesign.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
is bad for the environment, likely worse than fossil fuels.
Ha! No, not even close. Not even close to close.
Mining for any material contained in batteries is just as bad for the environment as coal mining.
Yes, except for the fact you need many orders of magnitude more fossil fuels than cobalt. People tend to neglect the fact that coal isn't mined by the ton, not by the millions of tons, but about ten billions tons a year.
Re:Ban Massghanistan (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This kind of nannying doesn't help anything. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In your formulation above it is not, because you have specifically dismissed long charging times as a factor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I accept your confirmation of your dismissal of time as a factor of cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how this hair splitting is irrelevant. I note that in scope of your own argument, time cannot be equated to money because you already dismissed time as a cost factor.
You then confirmed that yes, you have in fact done so above.
Therefore, we need no further discussion on the fact that your statement is inherently false according to the merits you yourself accepted and later confirmed. Unless you're of opinion that walking is just as acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In your new formulation, time is defined twice as two completely different concepts. I do not accept this ridiculous formulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unaware of how you holding two mutually exclusive definitions of a single term in your head is relevant to this topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Another irrelevant factoid, because you already defined what you mean prior.
I find it really amusing how some people can't just say "ok, I got my initial statement wrong, let me rephrase" and instead go on to dig themselves deeper and deeper into a hole of being self-evidently wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm unaware of how you holding two mutually exclusive definitions of a single term in your head is relevant to this topic.
If you have difficulty with a single term having multiple definitions then English is definitely not a language you.
Re:This kind of nannying doesn't help anything. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This kind of nannying doesn't help anything. (Score:5, Interesting)
Anecdote: I drove an EV from Ohio to Oregon and back last year. The stopping to charge was a non-issue, as I had two dogs with me that needed to urinate and crap periodically, as well as my wife and I needing to urinate and crap periodically. And eat.
Coordinate that urination, defecating, and food ingestion with your charging times. Hey look, I have a full battery without me standing around waiting for it to be full, which seems to be what people think you have to do.
You're not operating some kind of crank or something to get electricity into the battery - it flows whether you are there or not.
And, by the way, at the end of the day after driving all day, I felt far less exhausted than I did when doing the same trip in a gasoline powered car. It turns out that all the advice we always hear about taking frequent breaks might be grounded in something after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, massive whoosh moment.
Second, tou must be urbanite. Yes, I have. In fact, my daily walk is between 10 and 15km depending on how I happen to feel and weather conditions. It's pretty much the only form of physical activity that isn't currently frowned upon during the lockdown.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I'm just Finnish. Can't wait for the end of pseudo-lockdown we're having now. It will end our national nightmare of having a rule for 2 metre social distancing. We can finally go back to our normal 5 metre.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree with very much you post, Luckyo, but I did enjoy this post.
Having been to Finland a few times with work, I've gotta say every Finn I've ever met has been much warmer and more sociable than I was expecting based on stereotypes shared by Finns about Finns. By contrast, the Finnish stereotypes about being direct, disliking hierarchy and preferring egalitarian approaches, and liking ideas from within and being cautious about ideas from outside -- all those seemed pretty accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is something of a misconception. It's not that we're not warn and social to guests. It's that when you stay for longer periods of time, it's very difficult to get into the culture to become a part of the society, rather than just a permanent guest.
The stereotypes we tend to reference specifically refer to internal treatment of "our own" rather than the way we treat guests.
Re: (Score:3)
I know that you intend this as some kind of sarcasm, but just to be clear: going outdoors is not a risk factor for transmission of COVID-19. The risk factor for transmitting the virus is socializing with other people indoors where there is no breeze to disperse the aerosols.
Re: (Score:2)
I value my time, and spending hours to walk across a major city and back isn't a good use of my time.
It costs nearly nothing to smash your own forehead with a hammer, but I don't see you doing that either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This kind of nannying doesn't help anything. (Score:5, Insightful)
Range: 300mi is good enough for day-to-day unless you are driving a taxi or delivery van.
Grid infrastructure: really? Seems like Tesla, ChargePoint, ElectrifyAmerica aren't having much problem getting energy delivery to their charging networks, and they are all rapidly expanding still.
Charge time: HVDC charging is doing really well here, and getting better. 200+ miles in 20 minutes isn't bad - gives you time to grab a beverage, use the toilet, eat a snack and then get back on the road. Doing the piss and moan over an extra 5 minutes on a fuel stop is pretty fucking stupid.
Price: correct - this still needs to come down. But the overall industry trajectory shows massive cost reduction over even the last 5 years, with far more to come sooner than leter.
Charger infrastructure: it's already there. See above comment about 3 competing services in the US alone with nationwide buildout, and even more regional operators.
So really your only complaint is price, which is valid.
Re:This kind of nannying doesn't help anything. (Score:5, Insightful)
Queue all the bogus "You don't need to travel more than 150 miles without a 30 minute break" comments.
Since most EVs these days are capable of double that range, you're right. That would be a bogus comment.
And quite honestly, even if the drivers seat were made by La-Z-Boy, your ass, eyes, and brain need a small break after 4+ hours of driving anything on public roads. A study by AAA done recently found that more than 31 percent of highway vehicle drivers admitted driving while so tired that they had trouble keeping their eyes open.
Unfortunately, I don't think allowing Greed to go unchecked and rush autonomous solutions prematurely to the market, is the best answer to that deficiency in personal responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority are not capable of double that range, though. I think only Tesla and the new Mach E are capable of 300 miles, and they're not the majority.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct about Ford, incorrect about Tesla.
They are, by far, the majority of the EV market. [ev-volumes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Queue all the bogus "You don't need to travel more than 150 miles without a 30 minute break" comments.
Since most EVs these days are capable of double that range, you're right.
I don't think *most* EVs are capable of double that range today - particularly those road tripping on the freeway. It is important to note that EV range decreases dramatically when driven at freeway speeds (wind and other resistance) and in cold weather (keeping the cabin warm takes a lot of energy).
I drive a Chevy Bolt which has one of the larger advertised (EPA) ranges of 238 miles per charge. If I drive around town (at residential speeds) without using the climate controls I can easily get 250 miles per
Re:This kind of nannying doesn't help anything. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually you're right. No one *needs* to do that. In fact doing so makes you a hazard on the road considering you should have a minimum 20min break every 2 hours while driving otherwise you become impaired by fatigue.
For some reason people still *want* to do that. Or they make incredibly poor life choices and simply do it anyway without any need associated. But there's nothing bogus about the claim.
Re:This kind of nannying doesn't help anything. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another? (Score:5, Insightful)
As the world slowly wakes up I guess all the idiots who feel like it's their god given right to fuck up the environment will slowly all congregate in one place while the rest of the world joins the 21st century. I propose after 49 states have made the switch we build a big glass dome around the 50th state.
Re: (Score:2)
No EV proponent thinks EVs won't fuck up the world. But the *extent* matters -- EV proponents think EVs will fuck up the world a lot less than ICE vehicles: lower carbon intensity well-to-wheel, fewer particulates, no exhaust gases, less noise, almost no vibration, etc. But the order of preference for how to take a journey to minimise impact remain: active travel first, then public transport, then EVs.
Re:Another? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would it really be THAT difficult it wire up most parking spaces? Not saying it is nothing but doesn't really sound like an insurmountable feet either.
EV are definitely easiest for people with a garage and unfortunately that's the minority of us. If more retail parking lots could get charging in place that would go a long way. A trip to the grocery store, you plug in while you shop and by the time you are out the car is ready to go or at least topped off a bit.
I would think EV owners would top the car off every night but I of course am not an EV owner.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, you don't think that might be the reason why they put it so many years into the future, do you? Perhaps to allow other automotive manufacturers that want to sell cars in the state a chance to design and manufacture some EV competition?
Re: (Score:2)
I've driven a non-Tesla electric car for a few years now.
The infrastructure is fine for me since I charge at home
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you in the US? Getting an ID.3 in the US is nearly impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
How much do those things cost, pre-subsidy?
Re: Taxachussettes (Score:2)
Re:Taxachussettes (Score:5, Informative)
What is it that you think those EVs are powered by?
In many states it's wind and increasingly also solar. Especially in red mid western states who are the biggest adopters of renewables in the US being that they have lots of wind and quickly realised that it allows them to generate energy with zero fuel costs, they may be flatlanders but apparently they ain't stupid. But, even if you go the flag waiving patriotic MAGA route and use obsolete Luddite tech like coal and nat-gas power to charge your car the EV still has a lower carbon footprint than the gas and oil guzzlers.
Re:Taxachussettes (Score:5, Insightful)
So, have you looked at wind and solar intensity maps in Massachussetts?
Why would we look at maps when there's plenty of real-world data to look at instead? Data, I would point out, which directly refutes your belief?
Who is paying you to be so anti-renewables? I mean, it's not a rational position supported by data, so it doesn't seem to be one that a reasonable person would come to based on their own investigation of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Best I can tell it's just kneejerk contrariness and identity politics. Side A sees side B is *for* something therefore Side A must be against it. The recent, I'll die before I'll wear a mask, nonsense is a good example.
Personally I'm beginning to think some articles stating that the left believes breathing is good for you would solve some problems.
Energy payback time [Re:Taxachussettes] (Score:5, Informative)
Neither (wind nor solar) will recoup carbon emissions needed to make and maintain the generation hardware in its lifetime.
I have a thought: why don't you get some information from this century instead of repeating energy payback times from the 1980s?
https://cleantechnica.com/2018... [cleantechnica.com]
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04... [nrel.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
>In many states it's wind and increasingly also solar.
So, have you looked at wind and solar intensity maps in Massachussetts?
Because if you're trying to make a case for environment, both forms of power generation are nothing short of a crime against environmentalism in that state. Neither will recoup carbon emissions needed to make and maintain the generation hardware in its lifetime. This isn't Texas.
But then, you also decided to TDS in the same statement, so I guess it's just general ignoring of reality in favour of delusion of the day in your case.
You did not limit your statement about EVs being charged with fossil fuel generated electricity, you generalised about EVs being charged with fossil fuel powered energy so I figured them were the rules and I didn't limit myself to Massachusetts either. If you don't like that you should not make stupid generalisations about EVs. Massachusetts also has a clean energy plan so whatever they are burning now their electricity generation mix will be considerably different by 2035 if they have any kind of sense, u
Re: (Score:2)
I made no statement on what EVs are charged with at all. I merely asked what another person thought it was charged with when they made a prima facie ridiculous statement.
You appear to be engaging a wrong person.
Also, if you think fossil fuels are "Luddite tech", remind me what it is that you're typing this on? What are you looking at to see what it is you type? It would appear that you have a product of this "Luddite tech" in your hand just to perform those two functions.
One should not throw stones when one
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing power grids don't stop at state borders then, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
That was all about the TDSing nonsense-spouting ignoramus above...
Except he made a good point and your objections to it are... all over the place. Like you can't control where your mind goes. What's the word for that? Heh.
Umm, 35 - 21 = 14 (Score:2)
Bit worrying if a firefighter can't even do preschool maths.
" I have difficultly believing all our trucks are going to be battery powered any time soon"
Probably not, which is why AFAIK no jurisdiction anywhere in the world has mandated it, unlike for passenger cars. However for something like a fire or bin truck that only does a few dozen miles back and forth from base a day, battery power would be quite possible. Long distance trucking? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
My dad also thinks Biden is going to force him to buy solar panels for his house...
Re: (Score:2)
California does on new construction...
Re: (Score:2)
Is there an increased cost to the builder?