Slashdot Mirror
California Considers Banning Internal Combustion Engines To Meet Emissions Goals (sacbee.com)
New submitter Rick Schumann writes about California considering a ban on internal combustion engines: The ban on internal-combustion engine automobiles would be at least 10 years away, and it's unclear at this early stage if it would ban only sales and use of new cars, or ban existing cars as well. There's also no mention of two (or three) wheeled vehicles at this stage. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is nevertheless considering this seriously, in order to meet its ambitious emissions reduction goals. According to state data, tailpipes generate more than one-third of all greenhouse gases, and so far only a small fraction of California's motorists drive electric vehicles. The announcement was made in an interview with Bloomberg news. "I've gotten messages from the governor asking, 'Why haven't we done something already?' The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California," Mary Nichols, the chairwoman of the CARB, told Bloomberg.
like it or not electrics are a lot more expensive up front. They tightened their emissions rules on long haul trucks without tightening labor regulations and the result was desperate truckers forced into "leases" for new trucks where they worked for pennies a week and eventually gave the truck (and all the lease payments) to the company owner.
This is all well and good only if it's followed by worker protections. My question is, is this actual progressive policy or a bunch of rich people that just want clean air for themselves? For the truckers it was the latter.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
quote: "The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California."
So far the Chinese have shown that they can *talk* about banning combustion cars, not that they can actually make it work.
> Not everyone can walk out and afford a 40K brand new electric car.
Well, everyone that counts can. If you can't, you don't count.
First thing to bear in mind, banning all combustion-engine-powered cars would be an absolute nonstarter. There are a number of groups that would absolutely band-together to lobby against it, even if those groups that may not normally have a lot to do with each other (enthusiasts for horseless-carriage-era cars and modern auto manufacturers for example) would immediately find common ground to coordinate efforts.
Second, there are classes of vehicles and types of use that do not readily lend themselves to electric use. In particular vehicles designed for heavy offroad use would not make for good electrics when they go places that the electric grid doesn't service, and the mass-penalty in carrying batteries would be a problem for offroad performance. Additionally many commercial-service vehicles would make poor electrics if their daily range far exceeds what a charge can provide, as commercial vehicles might not even have opportunity to charge at their destinations.
Realistically, passenger cars that are not primarily geared toward commercial use would be the best application for electric adoption. Roads are built close to infrastructure and are themselves infrastructure, so recharging cars is practical or can be made practical. Additionally, when the entry-level electric car has a range equivalent to half a tank of gas, which is usually 100-150 miles, suddenly it becomes practical for most commuters for their daily use. Sure, some people do drive more than that in a given day, but most do not, so most people could make that kind of range work for them.
In addition to passenger cars, many 2wd commercial chassis would be designed with an electric option. While a lot of commercial vehicles would not be suitable as electrics, plenty more would be. It is not unrealistic that delivery vans could be made electric if their routes are sufficiently short, and personal-use "lifestyle" 2wd pickups could also make for good electrics when they're used similarly to passenger cars for things like commuting.
I expect that small and mid-sized sedans would be all-electric first. Small cars are usually least likely to be used for passenger livery, and mid-size sedans are extremely popular and the number of sales would make quite a dent in gasoline power. Large sedans would probably follow last since they're often used for police and passenger livery, and they may well always have a gasoline variant. Once these prove popular and successful then we might see coupes and sports cars work as popular electrics, and eventually trucks, vans, and other chassis.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Will all state and local government vehicles and see how it goes for them.
The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California,"
Because one of the two is is a totalitarian communist regime and the other is....
Wait, I take that back.
Meanwhile LA roads also keep expanding. Pretty obviously as the original post stated, Californians love cars, and LA residents plainly do not care about smog.
Or they do, but they care more about other things like jobs or not leaving their friends/family/support network more.
Your argument is a form of "people put up with it therefore they don't care so we shouldn't fix it". It's facile.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Perhaps,
No, not "perhaps".
http://www.statisticbrain.com/...
Statistically the majority of trips are well within the range of electric cars.
if you can charge them in between (within a 10 min timeframe) or at the end of the trips
Huh? No that has no effect. The average two way commute is much less than the average electric car journey. Charge it when you get home. Problem solved.
Also, the car had many advantages over the horse, while the electric car has almost none over a combustion engine one.
Apart from the massive lack of nasty emissions in precisely the places where people want to breathe and fuel economy?
SJW n. One who posts facts.