California To Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars (nytimes.com) 385
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: California is expected to put into effect on Thursday its sweeping plan to prohibit the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, a groundbreaking move that could have major effects on the effort to fight climate change and accelerate a global transition toward electric vehicles. The rule, issued by the California Air Resources Board, will require that 100 percent of all new cars sold in the state by 2035 be free of the fossil fuel emissions chiefly responsible for warming the planet, up from 12 percent today. It sets interim targets requiring that 35 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in the state by 2026 produce zero emissions. That would climb to 68 percent by 2030. The restrictions are important because not only is California the largest auto market in the United States, but more than a dozen other states typically follow California's lead when setting their own auto emissions standards.
California's action comes on top of an expansive new climate law that President Biden signed last week. The law will invest $370 billion in spending and tax credits on clean energy programs, the largest action ever taken by the federal government to combat climate change. Enactment of that law is projected to help the United States cut its emissions 40 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade. Still, it will not be enough to eliminate U.S. emissions by 2050, the target that climate scientists say all major economies must reach if the world is to avert the most catastrophic and deadly impacts of climate change. To help close the gap, White House officials have vowed to couple the bill with new regulations, including on automobile tailpipe emissions. They have also said that reducing emissions enough to stay in line with the science also will require aggressive state policies. Experts said the new California rule, in both its stringency and reach, could stand alongside the Washington law as one of the world's most important climate change policies, and could help take another significant bite out of the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide. The new rule is also expected to influence new policies in Washington and around the world to promote electric vehicles and cut auto pollution. "This is huge," said Margo Oge, an electric vehicles expert who headed the EPA's transportation emissions program under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. "California will now be the only government in the world that mandates zero-emission vehicles. It is unique."
California's action comes on top of an expansive new climate law that President Biden signed last week. The law will invest $370 billion in spending and tax credits on clean energy programs, the largest action ever taken by the federal government to combat climate change. Enactment of that law is projected to help the United States cut its emissions 40 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade. Still, it will not be enough to eliminate U.S. emissions by 2050, the target that climate scientists say all major economies must reach if the world is to avert the most catastrophic and deadly impacts of climate change. To help close the gap, White House officials have vowed to couple the bill with new regulations, including on automobile tailpipe emissions. They have also said that reducing emissions enough to stay in line with the science also will require aggressive state policies. Experts said the new California rule, in both its stringency and reach, could stand alongside the Washington law as one of the world's most important climate change policies, and could help take another significant bite out of the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide. The new rule is also expected to influence new policies in Washington and around the world to promote electric vehicles and cut auto pollution. "This is huge," said Margo Oge, an electric vehicles expert who headed the EPA's transportation emissions program under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. "California will now be the only government in the world that mandates zero-emission vehicles. It is unique."
Back to stagecoaches (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buggies require horses which means more horseshit which means more methane. Not zero emissions!
Power plants? (Score:3)
They're going to need an awful lot more electricity, and they don't seem to have a reasonable plan to get more.
Re:Power plants? (Score:5, Informative)
No they won't. The charging profile of consumer EVs flattens out the duck curve. You don't need a reasonable plan as you already have idle peaking plants in place to handle this load.
Now if you're clever you'll plan ahead anyway, but this isn't some critical issue that is unsolvable, rather it would naturally develop over the coming decades.
A few questions for California... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Can California construct a state-wide charging infrastructure for all these electric vehicles, and do they have the grid capacity to support it?
2) When Californians want to take their electric cars on a road trip out-state, will they find sufficient charging infrastructure to take them where they need to go?
3) Will California provide 800V-charging solutions state-wide? If not, what's their plan to keep their citizens happy when it takes >45 minutes to "fill up" a vehicle?
Re: (Score:2)
1) Can California construct a state-wide charging infrastructure for all these electric vehicles, and do they have the grid capacity to support it?
2) When Californians want to take their electric cars on a road trip out-state, will they find sufficient charging infrastructure to take them where they need to go?
3) Will California provide 800V-charging solutions state-wide? If not, what's their plan to keep their citizens happy when it takes >45 minutes to "fill up" a vehicle?
The answer to all your questions is probably some form of "We're California, so you knuckledraggers east of us are coming along for the ride, like it or not. If we do this, you'll have no choice but to join in and build the infrastructure". The attitude of the state has largely been one of "Either you play by our rules or you suffer economically, because we'll throw our weight around". They love tossing around the "Sixth Largest Economy" talking point when they're trying to civilize the rest of us.
Are they
Re: (Score:2)
You are taking the California legislature way too personally. The required fuel mixtures are for the air quality here in CA, and seasonal. I have a hard time believing that anyone not currently chained to an oilwell is bothered that our summer gas blend has not been adopted where it isn't needed (we switch to something cheaper in winter).
It would be healthier to think of California laws as trying to create economies of scale, rather than trying to force drivers in your neck of the woods to drive a Bolt.
An
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) and 3) - Things to be worked out. As the manufacturers adapt, these will turn to concrete pressing issues - the only kind that actually get resolved. Deadlines self-imposed, but deadlines no less.
2) - Not their problem to solve. If other states like those tourism dollars from your road trip, they'll adapt.
Re: (Score:2)
2) When Californians want to take their electric cars on a road trip out-state, will they find sufficient charging infrastructure to take them where they need to go
I don't see how that is California's problem. Sounds like those other states will be losing tourist cash.
Re:A few questions for California... (Score:5, Informative)
1) Most charging is at home, so infrastructure is needed for apartments and traveling. Most charging is at night, so the grid is fine.
2) I took an 8,000 mile EV road trip this summer, and had no problems charging.
3) With 250kW chargers, I found it rarely took more than 15 minutes, and the car was almost always ready to go before we were.
So in short, stop making up problems. The market is already solving the remaining issues, and the federal money for charging will help fill in the gaps.
Re: (Score:3)
Completely agree. Most of these is phobias are fueled by fuel industries.
Re: (Score:2)
At the gas station where i live average time to fill up is 3 minutes.
If all the cars, not just mine, needed 15 20 minutes to charge up, the queue to the gas station would be 2 mile long. Every gas station.
Good luck.
Re:A few questions for California... (Score:4, Insightful)
With most (95%+) charging at home, the analogy doesn't hold. Making assumptions based on the patterns with different technology will give you flawed results.
Hand waving regarding apartment dwellers (Score:3)
1) Most charging is at home, so infrastructure is needed for apartments and traveling.
Most charging is at home because most EV owners are affluent. And infrastructure for apartments is far far harder than for a home. There is a little hand waving going on here.
Most charging is at night, so the grid is fine.
Most charging is at night because most EV owners are affluent enough to live in homes or condos with garages or driveways. Apartment dwellers will be far more dependent upon daytime charging at work or when shopping.
In short, sometimes early adopters are a bad model for the population at large. That seems the case with EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
2) When a Californian wants to travel to Vermont (for instance) to see whatever it is that Vermont has to offer, why the hell would they drive? There are airports in California, I've seen a couple of them. I would think Vermont has airports too.
3) Once again. Free markets baby! That sounds like something people can make a nice living f
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If they start work on ten (or more) new nuclear plants now, they just might be able to handle it... otherwise no.
There is no legal process by which nuclear power plants can be built in California, and the last working plant (which provides nearly 10% of usage) is being shut down (though delayed, for the moment).
3) Will California provide 800V-charging solutions state-wide? If not, what's their plan to keep their citizens happy
What about the last decade or two of California governance had you thinking happy citizens is even desired, much less a goal.
So far as I can tell, the current psychopaths in control of Californ
California to ban California by 2050! (Score:5, Funny)
California to ban California by 2050!
Re: (Score:2)
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, California is known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. California will have to ship California to a special California-disposal facility.
Norway will have gasoline phased out by 2025 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? Let's see it stop selling oil by 2025.
Re: (Score:3)
Your mom will be for sale far past 2025.
Well she is Norwegian.
Paid for by their oil exports. Its just greenwashi (Score:5, Insightful)
Norway will have gasoline phased out by 2025 [electrek.co] With Pandemics, global warming, the threat of nuclear war etc, it's wonderful to see a few small flowers of hope blooming.
Paid for by their oil exports. Its just greenwashing.
Re:Paid for by their oil exports. Its just greenwa (Score:4, Insightful)
Another way of looking at it is they can't force everyone else to stop using oil, but they can make sure that the profit doesn't go to Saudis and big oil companies that lobby hard against reducing fossil fuel use.
By completing the transition themselves, in a large country with harsh climate, they can prove that it is viable.
Do you remember 10 years ago when people around here swore that electric cars would never work? All their excuses have proven to be false thanks to Norway, which is now a model for other countries to follow. I don't think that's greenwashing.
CARB is retarded (Score:3, Informative)
CARB also banned denatured alcohol, the primary fuel of my sailboats old stove. It was clean burning enough it could be used as a heat source, it was stable, and I didn't have to worry about it collecting in my bilge. Now I have a propane stove. Had to install a blower to suck any latent propane that might have settled in my bilge. Can't leave it on all night, since it gives off enough CO2 to kill a person in their sleep. Had to install a special propane container. NOT a renewable fuel like alcohol is.
CARB is fucking retarded, I can't wait to move out of this state.
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure you can take your boat - Ciao!
Growing up in LA, and not seeing the San Gabriels even from 5-10 miles away, and breathing gunk that hurt and made being an active kid often painful, I can't feel much empathy. California leads the way. And surprise surprise, here we are 50 years later, still alive and thriving.
Re:CARB is retarded (Score:5, Informative)
Your little boat probably isn't an issue but I don't know a way to solve the problems above while also maintaining your supply.
Re: (Score:2)
I normally don't reply to AC's but, it's not just boat owners. Plenty of backpackers used alcohol stoves for the same reason. If I want to own a small sailboat that I paid $6k for, that's my perogative. I earned it.
Re: (Score:2)
#FirstWorldProblems
Re: (Score:3)
"Denatured alcohol" is likely methanol, or "wood alcohol". Oddly enough 190 Proof Everclear is illegal in California, or was when I lived there.
I'm wondering if the OP has investigated 91% Isopropyl, and if has any CO issues. Not suggesting trying it without knowing obviously. Banning Isopropyl alcohol would have huge implications for the medical field and hand sanitizer, etc... But it's California, so... They'll get to it eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem with Isopropyl is it gives of a lot of soot (which is also nasty to breath in)
Re: (Score:2)
If it generates soot, it's generating carbon monoxide... :(
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think California also banned the super-high proof Everclear -- the 180-195 stuff.
I think most people just make a quick trip to Nevada or Oregon and go shopping.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't come to Oregon, they'd have to go to a liquor store and the wholesaler for all liquor stores in the State is the State. You know... the Ebil Gubermint.
They'll definitely go to Nevada.
Nevada (Score:5, Insightful)
The big mystery is why isn't the border with Nevada populated with stores selling everything banned in California?
Re: (Score:3)
The big mystery is why isn't the border with Nevada populated with stores selling everything banned in California?
That is what the internet is for.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people would have to live in Nevada?
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in northern Nevada for five years until Clinton, Gore, and Babbit destroyed my job in mining. I liked it. The high desert grows on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you new to Earth?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think it's not?
Re: (Score:2)
I have been on that border a few times, never saw or heard of such stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, they can and do already legally sell your mom.
Well she is a Californian.
Europe,China,Canada,Italy,Japan all ban by 2035 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
shush. Facts don't matter to Johnny Reb ... they'll just roll coal to own the libs. I use to ask them about climate change and their kids' futures ... after hitting 50, I don't. I'll be dead and have no children, let them burn is my attitude now. It's a shitty attitude but all the facts and hand waving have done nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know that the democratic party's platform banned those pesky laws of physics some time ago. We have plenty of Li (even if it is mostly beyond Mars) and actually understanding energy production is so passe. It is far more important to virtual signal to the crowd (even if all you have proved is that you don't understand thermodynamics). Also, if the poor have any complains on the continuing decline in their standard of living or they actually do the math and research to know that your plans are a
I wonder who is exempt (Score:4, Insightful)
Farmers, wineries, etc are probably exempt.
I see the value in putting the brakes on adding more gas-powered vehicles on the road. But when I first heard this discussed a year or two ago, often the question asked was why aren't we doing a phase-in and tax instead. Almost everyone I talked to felt that a soft landing to lower our state's emissions was less disruptive while still accomplishing the core goals.
Charge me $1k for a new ICE car starting in 2023. Add $1k every year for ICE and $500 for hybrids. By 2035 that's a $12k tax over an EV. Pretty damn sure everyone that can is going to either get an EV before that point.
Instead, we're all going to wait until 2034 and buy the last ICE and then drive it for the next 20 years. For me, I might be too old to even be driving by that time. I'll give up my old run down truck and ride on a senior shuttle service. And in my case it seems like I never have to buy another EV again.
historical / classic car registration (Score:2)
Farmers, wineries, etc are probably exempt.
And the wealthy. The wealthy are always exempt in California.
Here is my historical / classic car registration. Yes its a new car but its internal combustion, that makes it historical in California.
Re: (Score:2)
Electric utility equipment for single-site applications like farms is becoming more popular. Farmers are always reluctant to spend money on anything, but some of them are getting persuaded by the lower cost of energy to operate the equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
the winery near me doesn't have to get a water meter, but I got a notice that I do. so I'm a bit jaded on this topic of exemptions. It's totally backwards from what I understand of de minimis category for domestic water usage.
At least out of state cars will be legal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the above loop hole exists, then I am fine with California doing the experiment.
There will be an exemption for historical / classic cars. The definition of classic cars will be updated to included internal combustion. If you can afford the extra annual registration fees for a "classic" car California will be happy to accommodate you. California is always happy to accommodate the wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a symbolic start... (Score:2)
It's a small but symbolic start.
In contrast, if the fossil fuels industry were required to maintain their equipment in good working order & prevent le
There will just be an extra annual fee for ICE (Score:2)
It's a symbolic start towards doing something meaningful against global heating.
It's virtue signaling. It's how politicians win in California. Whether the plan will work or be a horrible failure won't matter. Its only the "good intentions" that matter.
Plus as the date gets closer there will be some alternative registration process for internal combustion. One will just have to pay an extra annual fee.
Re: (Score:2)
It's virtue signaling
Hilariously, shouting about virtue signaling is... virtue signalling.
No ICE emissions in CA? Not really a problem! (Score:3)
ICE vehicles will be equipped with stretchy tailpipes that can reach Arizona or Nevada. Done.
Near zero effect on the 1% (as usual) (Score:2)
Car dealerships in Texas will be happy to ship them used luxury vehicles with a few thousand (or less) miles on them, in pristine condition.
P.S. Back in the 90s Honda, and maybe others, had ultra high efficiency cars with exhausts that put out air cleaner than that of downtown Los Angeles. It's sad to see legislation that discourages innovation like that, and which acts with blunt force.
Re: (Score:2)
Car dealerships in Texas will be happy to ...
Engage in fraud across State lines? It wouldn't really surprise me, but I suspect it will be a bit different than that, and people who want to get around this law by buying a Texas car will have to go to Texas and buy one.
Dumb. Tax, don't ban. (Score:2)
I hate outright bans like these. Just gradually crank up a fee for new gas cars. That has two advantages. First, it brings in revenue for the coffer, and second those who really want a gas car can still get one.
California not the only place banning ICE vehicles (Score:3, Informative)
From the comments, you'd think that California was the only place phasing out ICE vehicles. This page has a nice list of what's happening around the world:
Countries Are Banning The Use Of Petrol Cars, See The Dates They Have Set
https://autojosh.com/countries... [autojosh.com]
Posting anonymously because I'm moderating...
Re:Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:5, Insightful)
So the guy I hire to take care of my lawn is going to have to pay off his Cybertruck rather than a Nissan Frontier or a Ford Maverick, to replace his aging whatever-it-is. I'm going to predict that we'll see a lot more older vehicles with owners trying their best to skimp on smog tests (or even fake the test results somehow) in the future.
Every time things change, there's ton's of naysayers. I remember when flat screens started replacing CRTs and co-workers were complaining that the LCD gave them headaches. So silly.
Anyway, by 2035 every single manufacture will have every model of their vehicle available in electric. It's on literally every manufacture (except Toyota's) publicly available roadmap. There will be plenty of small electric trucks and at similar prices to gas vehicles. Stop being silly.
Re: (Score:2)
LCD's weren't 40% more expensive than CRT's.
Re:Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:5, Insightful)
BMW is not the typical car (Score:3)
Not even Tesla's cars are 40% more expensive than the equivalent BMW. The prices are pretty close to the same.
Do you by chance live in a highly affluent California neighborhood, if so please consider that BMWs are not the typical cars.
Re: (Score:3)
You can compare any two similar models. I pre-paid my 3 year lease on Bolt for $5500 (in 2020). That is way cheaper than Honda Civic. I had no trade-in or prior lease or anything. First GM vehicle ever. A friend who had previous GM lease got for 4000.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider that it costs $10 to “fill” the Bolt vs $60 for the Civic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider that it costs $10 to “fill” the Bolt vs $60 for the Civic.
How does one "fill" the bolt when you cannot do so in your garage nor in your driveway nor in a parking spot at work nor in a parking spot at the store ...?
"At this time, GM is asking all Chevrolet Bolt vehicle owners to park their vehicles outside and away from structures, and to not charge the vehicles overnight."
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-re... [nhtsa.gov]
Re:BMW is not the typical car (Score:5, Informative)
The starting price of a bolt ($25,600) is about 13.5% more than a civic sedan ($22.550). And the civic is a better car.
You *might* find a Civic that cheap, but most of them seem to be more expensive than that. For example, this Honda Civic (2022) [hollerhonda.com] has an MSRP of $25,045, which is just 2.2% less than the Bolt. It has a 2.0L engine that produces 158 hp with 138 foot-pounds of torque, and gets 30 MPG in the city, or 37 MPG on the highway, with 0 to 60 likely taking somewhere in the neighborhood of 8.2 seconds.
A Chevy Bolt produces 200 horsepower with 266 foot-pounds of torque, gets a rating of 131 MPGe in the city and 109 on the highway, and can go from 0 to 60 in 6.5 seconds.
So the Bolt is faster, has much better acceleration, is cheaper to operate, and will probably need zero maintenance for hundreds of thousands of miles (*maybe* brake pads at 200k), whereas the Civic will require oil changes every 5k, brakes every 50k (if you're lucky), etc.
So it seems to me that the Bolt stomps the crap out of the Civic in basically every performance and reliability metric except range per fill-up. How did you conclude that the Civic is a better car?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, wait [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you shot your own example down.
All electric cars, with the possible exception of the Bolt and the Tesla 3, are being built, and sold, as up-market luxury cars.
But not everyone can afford that sort of car.
Re: Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> All electric cars, with the possible exception of the Bolt and the Tesla 3, are being built, and sold, as up-market luxury cars.
Define "up-market luxury car"
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
>"Not even Tesla's cars are 40% more expensive than the equivalent BMW. The prices are pretty close to the same."
Why BMW? They are certainly no gold standard to many of us.
If I compare the features and performance of what I have now, which is not a BWM (it is a small, loaded, performance Japanese luxury sport sedan), most equivalent electric vehicles are, indeed at least 40% more. And that is WITHOUT any optional autonomous driving stuff. I know. I have been pricing them for years and still waiting f
Re: Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:2)
Initially they were, you just bought them in expensive laptops.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. It was more like 100%.
Re:Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Every time things change, there's ton's of naysayers. I remember when flat screens started replacing CRTs and co-workers were complaining that the LCD gave them headaches. So silly."
No it isn't silly. The first LCD's sucked BADLY. Compared to CRT they had horrible viewing angles, horrible brightness, and horrible contrast, and were crazy expensive. And nobody BANNED the sale of CRTs, especially not in some magical moment in the future.
What happened was the MARKET CHOSE them natually. A little a first, and the price went down, and they got better, and more models came out, and more people CHOSE them, and the price went down, and they got better, etc. Until there was just no market for CRT anymore. The same will happen with electric vehicles. It is already starting. People are not blind to the performance and lower maintenance. But they are also not blind to the existing price tags, range and model variety limitations, and lack of charging options. This will change.
Banning ICE car sales by some date in the future is foolish and irrational. We have no idea how much they will cost, if the range will be enough, if the charging infrastructure will be ready, if the grid and electric generation will be ready, if the repair and maintenance of them will be ready, if the taxing structure will be ready, if we have enough lithium and rare-earth materials, and a lots of other factors.
The future is electric. WE ALL KNOW THIS. Allow the market to do what it needs to do to on its own to respond without creating massive artificial shortages, huge price hikes, chaos, materials conflicts, and anger. There is already TONS of demand in the market, it doesn't need to be forced.
For example, I want an electric car RIGHT NOW. But NOBODY makes one with the design and features I want (at any price). When they do, and it is affordable, I will jump. Meanwhile, my existing car is in excellent condition, gets good mileage, has most of the features I want, looks great, and is very very clean compared to cars in the past. There are many, many, many people out there like me, waiting for the right thing to come out.
>"Anyway, by 2035 every single manufacture will have every model of their vehicle available in electric."
It is likely. So at best this legislation is nothing but virtue signaling, if you ignore all the other factors I mentioned. At worst, it will cause a lot of unnecessary problems.
Re: Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:5, Informative)
The market has never just "done it's thing" thought. Especially the venerable ICE vehicle has had its future shaped by policy for a century.
Safety and emissions standards drove companies to innovate to meet specifications. The buildout of the interstate highway system kick-started making cars the cornerstone of our transportation system, even at the detriment of other systems. Carveouts and rules for ubiquity of gas stations, decades of fossils fuel subsisidies to keep gas for cars cheap, the government has always played a part in steering the markets.
And anyways, this date is 13 years out and voters in California will have multiple opportunities to vote in people to undo it. If electric cars aren't affordable by 2030 this gets pushed back another 10 years.
Re: Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:5, Insightful)
>"The market has never just "done it's thing" though"
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but the markets are doing their things all the time. Free markets are what create what people need and want at the best prices and with the features we crave. Pre-declaring the death of ICE at some future point will do nothing to help the markets, and it could hurt them (in ways I already explained previously).
The roads and other supports really have little to do with the type of car or its features, other than some reasonable standards (operation and safety) and perhaps maximum sizes. And yes, I am against fuel subsidies- petroleum or otherwise.
Re: Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:5, Insightful)
but the markets are doing their things all the time. Free markets are what create what people need and want at the best prices and with the features we crave.
Bullshit. The free markets need a push once in a while. Emissions standards didn't get better until California mandated them. Manufacturers cried and moaned and had to do actual design work and lo and behold less polluting cars started appearing.
Re: Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:2)
I'm sure we agree on more than disagree but in this case we're not so much arguing about whether the government does or should interfere in markets just where we put the line. I could just as easily call this is an aspirational goal where you call it a premature death sentence and neither of us are wrong.
I think the roads and everything else has a huge effect. The fact we are doing measures like this at all is because as policy after WWII we declared cars the winner by all that car development. Of the g
Re: (Score:3)
Free markets are what create what people need
No they don't. Perfect markets are what create what people need. Free markets create what can maximise cost transfer to the producers. You can't have a perfect market without regulation.
Pre-declaring the death of ICE at some future point will do nothing to help the markets, and it could hurt them (in ways I already explained previously).
The free market approach creates the cheapest, most dangerous, and most polluting ICE vehicle. You can see this play out in any part of the world where regulations differ. The most popular vehicles in 3rd world shitholes do not meet minimum safety standards in the west. The same company selling vehicles in Europe vs USA offe
Consumer demand vs political mandate (Score:2)
remember when flat screens started replacing CRTs ...
That switch was actually driven by consumer demand, not political mandate.
Re: (Score:3)
Do math. Even if the entire fleet is converted to EV, it will only add 15-20% extra load on the grid. The full EV fleet conversion will not happen for another 10 years, so less than 1% increase in electricity demand.
Re:Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:5, Insightful)
Low-income immigrants drive 30 year old cars now, this will not change suddenly in 2035. There will be plenty of used and out-of-state ICE cars available after 2035.
Call California crazy, smog regulations have worked and there is ample evidence:
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rese... [aqmd.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Electric trucks are affordable now. Based on this guy's math [youtube.com] the premium cost of an e-Transit over its gasoline counterpart will be paid off in maybe 60K miles on "fuel" costs alone.
(Base model eTransit is ~$15K more than base model Transit, but I've not compared all the specs so it might not be perfectly fair. Also not counting any tax incentives.)
=Smidge=
Re:Low-income immigrants are going to love this (Score:5, Funny)
You think you'll have a lawn in 2035?
Re: (Score:2)
First thing, replace your lawn with artificial turf or something to save water. Next, that person will not need to worry about until buying a new vehicle. By that time, there will be many cheaper option and they will save a ton on fuel cost by going electrical.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah thing like deepwater etc never happened. All these fracking wells are very environmental...just that you can set the your tap water on fire. And oh...all the massive storms, fires, flooding are very clean too !
Oh the folly: mining lithium or other battery metals is destroying the environment and windmills are killing thousands of birds
Re: (Score:2)
All these fracking wells are very environmental
Oh the irony. You sweet summer child. All that fracking is what powers CA's renewable dreams. In fact that's really what renewables are for, greenwashing natural gas. To make backup renewables you need either a huge battery (which we don't the material to build available on Earth) or a power source that can spin up quickly (natural gas peakers). And since renewables generate power only a small amount of the time, most of the time it is the natural gas powering CA. Which is why CA's biggest source of e
Re:We knew this already. Let them cripple themselv (Score:5, Informative)
You only need 15-20% extra electricity to power all the EV cars. Assuming full EV fleet by 2045, you need about 0.6-0.7% compound growth. Not a difficult target.
Re:We knew this already. Let them cripple themselv (Score:4, Informative)
You only need 15-20% extra electricity to power all the EV cars. Assuming full EV fleet by 2045, you need about 0.6-0.7% compound growth. Not a difficult target.
And that's 15 to 20% extra electricity, which doesn't necessarily translate into extra capacity. Most of that electricity will likely be used when people charge their cars overnight, which is when energy consumption is typically at its lowest. Thus, moving to EVs likely translates to approximately zero extra capacity, i.e. they almost certainly don't need to do anything at all other than building out enough HVDC charging infrastructure for long-distance trips, giving tax credits for installing chargers in apartment complexes, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
California has a lot of wind generation capacity, dillweed. The wind blows all night.
Re: (Score:2)
That which isn't banned must be mandatory!
DNC Motto
Re:EVs -- so SHITTY, they're now MANDATORY in CA. (Score:5, Insightful)
They had to mandate light bulbs, too, but it turns out there was nothing wrong with the new ones and they really do save people money in the long term. The only problem was in people's heads.
Re: EVs -- so SHITTY, they're now MANDATORY in CA. (Score:3)
In my fuse box / consumer unit or what ever it is called in English. I had a dimmer that was controlled by the switch on the wall in my living room by how long time you had it pressed down. So I switched to LED and had to replace the dimmer. The one I have from Eltako, has multiple dimming profiles. One for incandescent bulbs and two for LEDs. Seems to work great. Bought a few LED bulbs that gets a warmer color when they are low. But those seems to be harder and harder to find.
The dimmer remember last dimmi
Re: (Score:3)
Just a small thought here. Since LED lights are dimmed by the wall switch varying the duty cycle of the power sent to the bulb, have you tried different switches along with those many LED bulbs? I know the dimmable feature is a cooperative effort between the switch manufacturers and the bulb manufacturers so perhaps one of the many new switches will work better? Quick Google search result from thousands Best Dimmer Switches [thespruce.com]
Re: (Score:2)
California isn't one of those shitty red states that pays people peanuts. In fact you pay less taxes in California than you would in the republican utopia that is Texas. https://www.houstonchronicle.c... [houstonchronicle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Turbine blades are pretty inert in a landfill and they're working on recyclable blades. https://electrek.co/2022/08/02... [electrek.co]
Re: (Score:2)
And I believe that California is already pretty close to their definition of 35% zero-emission vehicles as some high-efficiency ICE vehicles count as a partial zero emission vehicle. (i.e. selling them gets yo