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.
Banning is asking for trouble from the right.
Much smarter to simply put a 100% tax on them. You want to buy an internal combustion vehicle? If you want it badly enough PAY for it.
If you aren't willing to pay the money then buy electric.
Also, you don't have to deal with some agency deciding who is truly in need of an internal combustion error. People that use powered parachutes, or four wheel drive vehicles for people that live in the middle of a national forest with no electricity for miles.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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/
Not everyone can walk out and afford a 40K brand new electric car. Then have to pay an additional pile of money to install a charging station at their residence. And good luck having enough charging stations at apartment buildings or on the street where some people park. Then factor in the high rate for electricity. The issue has become, these cars haven't had a chance to filter down to the non 1% people into the used car lots. Until they make it affordable, I'll be driving my dieselgate VW.
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.
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.
What sensationalist tripe.
What are they going to do, strand millions of lower-income people who can't afford to replace their $2000 clunker with a $30,000 new car?
>why China can do this and not California
Because they're a dictatorship who can proclaim broad life-changing decrees and their citizens have no way to vote them out.
China or California?
Come visit California sometime. Then you might understand what I said.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If they wanted to be super-pollution-nazi serious they'd have a phase out over 20 years or so with a progressive tax on new combustion car sales. This is stupid.
I don't read AC
Los Angeles is one the leading smog capitals of the world.
Yes, and?
If people didn't like that, wouldn't they move? But LA population is rising.
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. Therefore he is right and the stick up your ass serves no purpose other than to give someone a handle to easily control your responses with.
It is a merry tune you dance to, green puppet, but you are not playing for much of a crowd.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
loud =/= polluting more
loud =/= racecar
have fun with the fallout of banning the vehicles of the lower middle class. We both know the idea is laughable and will never happen. You really seem to have something against shitty loud exhausts though, which is likely already illegal but unenforced.
Will all state and local government vehicles and see how it goes for them.
The proposal is for new cars. Nobody's going to mess with your '83 Citation.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
If people leave California, they're going to take their ignorant politics with them and pollute the rest of the country.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
> dorky vehicles really is a terrible price to pay to not warm our planet past a civilization bearing threshold.
They just don't look bad. They handle poorly and are dangerous to drive. Merging with and avoiding commercial vehicles will still be a problem even if you neuter all of the consumer vehicles.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If we look at proportions, with China having 3.5-4 times the USA population, they are not doing that badly.
This is more like a ban on sales of new ICE powered cars.
All they can really do about existing cars is to tighten the emissions regulations, which require EPA approval.
Woosh.
Beware of the Leopard.
I suspect the headline is wildly sensationalist (as is tradition, I did not RTFA). It's designed to manufacture outrage.
There's no way they could outright ban existing vehicles, in California or anywhere else. Hell, even California basically lets old vehicles get away with much looser emissions standards, I guess to help out poor people who can't afford newer cars. There's no way they'd tell everyone in 10 years you can't drive the car you currently own.
Even a strict 10-year cutoff is ludicrous. I'm sure if anything were passed, it would be a very gradual phaseout, with lots and lots of exceptions. While the vast majority of Californians could do all of their daily driving on electric, not all can. And there are plenty of "special case" trips (vacations, mountains) that can't either. Or the entire trucking industry. Or any business needing heavy duty pickup trucks.
What I want to see is a vast reduction in local pollution by slowly moving commuter cars over to electric as people replace them in the coming decades. I wish it could happen now so I don't have to choke on smelly exhaust (especially from all those gross polluter exceptions for old cars) when I'm enjoying the outdoors on a walk, run, or bike ride. But now, or 10 years, is not realistic. A few decades is, if properly pushed forward at a reasonable pace.
We have to preserve our air, and there is no reason whatsover the good people of SoCal should suffer the health risks associated with internal combustion engines, not to mention that gasoline is a hazardous substance and known carcinogen.
Get this legislation to the governor's desk and signed ASAP.
You seem upset. Need some crayons? Hot cocoa?
This is so hilarious
Maybe you should remember the past.
Prior to the Clean Air Act there were days you could not see LA City Hall when you were only two blocks away. Your eyes would burn and some people walked around with surgical masks. It wasn't only downtown, the smog was everywhere, from beaches to the hills. Studios would cancel filing on their back lots. When you see pictures of greyed out Chinese cities like Beijing, that is what Southern California used to be like.
You are an ignorant and selfish cunt.
When are they gonna start enforcing noise pollution laws?
I don't think you realize they have this thing called sunlight, and despite hundreds of years of technological progress it is still free.
To summarize a few points:
* This is just CARB 'talking' about this. It's not legislation, no one has introduced a bill. It's really just a 'what if' they're discussing.
* I hardly think they'd suddenly ban all IC engine vehicles. That would be a disaster, so don't even think about it.
* Furthermore it'd likely be a gradual shift away from IC engines to electric.
* Furthermore, I don't think things like motorcycles would be included in the ban, nor fleets of trucks, emergency vehicles, etc.
* Furthermore, I don't think it'd include existing vehicles, just new vehicles. Otherwise it would be an impossible financial burden on everyone. * Again: It's just above the level of coffee-table conversation the CARB is having about this. It would be at least TEN YEARS before they'd do anything.
* Furthermore, it'd likely have to be legislation. We all know how long that'd take, right?
Basically: No need to get all flustered about it -- YET. But it was worthy of being posted, so you all know what's going on. Also, not like you didn't all think something like this would come up eventually, anyway, we've been slowly moving towards this for a while now.
A steep increase in the number of electric cars will finally be the justification for solar that idiots needed to get their act together.
Fixed that for you.
Anything behind a 10 year time frame is a wish list not policy
The history of CARB has been to set unrealistic goals because they can than quietly retrench.
What's changed, at least from the point of view of the irresponsible people who run CARB is that now there are real electric cars on the roads.
Never mind they require huge subsidies to eke out a microscopic slice of the market, they're real so CARB can once again flex its muscles and hope not to end up with egg on its face.
The irony is CARB may actually get what it wants although not via a mighty mandate. Technology and the free market will, as usual, deliver the solution that government's incapable of providing in the form of autonomous electric cabs.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Nice, I like how you "forgot" that it's possible to replace all this with solar power given only the right incentives, despite claiming to be a sensible thinker. So either you're not actually (sorry to have to be the one to inform you in that case), or you're just evil. Either way, go read a book. Hell, read one about pixies and I bet you'll still learn something new.
Leave it to CA to jump on the banning bandwagon. How about we just let things continue to get better by themselves?
1) Is the motivation reduction of pollution or just "feel good" political nonsense? If the latter, then let people feel good by opening their OWN pocketbooks to buy infant technology freely.
2) Cars are cleaner than ever. Again, is this about pollution or feel-good, drop-in-the-bucket, "save the earth NOW" CO2?
3) Target gross polluters, one "bad" ICE can spit out many, many times as much pollution as a good one.
4) People are generally excited about electric. The market is going to explode for electric with or without government interference.
5) Put some thought into what emissions those generation stations that feed those electric will emit and have that ready.
6) Trying to force alternatives to ICE before the market has products or production capability or infrastructure is a recipe for disaster.
7) Not all vehicles can be electric anytime soon. Motorcycles, towing vehicles, long-distance hauling, airplanes
8) Encourage alternatives, don't punish regular people.
Most modern electronic fuel-injected gasoline engines can burn combination of gasoline and ethanol up to 100% pure ethanol if a software change is applied to the timing. Heck, many vehicles are already FLEX-fuel and the owners dont even realize it or what it means.
Burning ethanol produces half of the CO2 of burning gasoline, but with a range penalty. You need 125% as much ethanol as gasoline to travel the same distance.
Still, 125% of half the emissions is 62.5% of gas emissions for the same distance. Thats about 1/3 reduction in CO2 emissions and you can still run gasoline engines for decades to come. And its arguably healthier for your engine to burn alcohol anyway.
But to produce alcohol cheaply enough to be competitive with gasoline, we would have to drop the alcohol taxes and regulations so it could just be a simple commodity.
Guess unraveling the tax/compliance mafia is harder work than simply issuing edicts, bans and such.
... that has the range, power, and payload of a standard TurboDiesel ambulance.
If California wants to ban internal combustion engines, OK, then let the Great State of California, and LA County LEAD the way, by junking every gasoline-burning police car and ambulance and fire truck they have, and replacing them ALL with electric vehicles.
I'll wait.
The proposal is for new cars. Nobody's going to mess with your '83 Citation.
There is no proposal. There have been zero details given yet. It's nothing but a news bite at this point.
I agree it's highly *likely* that this is how it would play out (aside from being even more likely that nothing comes of this at all), but that doesn't make it a fact.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
It might be more practical to require all vehicles to be plug-in hybrids, that way more parking lots can build up more charging stations, while gas stations can be gradually phased out.
I'm not entirely sure I like the verbiage though...ALL internal combustion engines? Including hydrogen, whose only emission is water?...Unless they're being cognizant of the fact that water is a MUCH stronger greenhouse gas than CO2? Still doesn't make any sense. And what about large vehicles that rely on CNG, which has less carbon than any other fossil fuel?
I have a better plan:
1) ban old vehicles. Sorry, no exemptions for "classics" (esp. not garbage cars from the 70s-80s). Put them in a museum where they belong (private museums are ok). If you really want to drive a historic car, you can transplant a newer engine into it.
1a) compromise: keep the old-car exemption, but increase the cut-off date. 80s cars are not "classics", nor the ugly cars from the 70s.
2) ban 2-cycle engines, typically used in portable lawn equipment (trimmers/edgers, leafblowers). These spew an incredible amount of nasty emissions. The weedwacker makers can make 4-cycle engines instead; anyone too weak to handle the heavier equipment can either hire someone, or convert their lawn to xeriscaping (sp?). To facilitate this, make a state law banning stupid HOAs and other localities from requiring green lawns.
3) pass a law greatly tightening the emissions standards for 4-cycle lawn equipment and boat engines. Lawnmowers are typically 4-cycle, but they're still nasty polluters with engine tech that hasn't changed since the 50s. Microcontrollers are dirt cheap these days, so there's no excuse for them to not use fuel injection, especially on the larger engines like on riding mowers. They don't even need to use the latest GDI technology, just something equivalent to the simplistic EFI cars had in the 80s, and there'll be a big improvement in emissions and fuel economy too.
4) Enact some kind of incentives to move to electric motors for lawn equipment. They already have electric mowers (push and riding); they need to push those more somehow. Stricter emissions regulations would probably make it so the lawnmower makers just give up on gas engines altogether since the electric tech is already here.
5) Pass some kind of legislation to push lithium battery recycling. Right now, lead-acid batteries have an astoundingly high recycling rate; you can take them to any auto parts store, and any place that sells and replaces them for you also recycles them. There's places to take lithium batteries, but it probably needs some more publicity or something. I'm really sick of hearing anti-electric-car idiots talk about the "environmental issues" of lithium, as if these batteries would just tossed in the trash when they get old. For cars, that wouldn't be a problem for the same reason it isn't a problem for lead-acid starting batteries, but for lawn equipment, portable electronics, etc., they need to make sure these things are being recycled safely and properly and not just landfilled, or sent to some 3rd-world country to cause a mess there with shoddy recycling.
6) As for cars, 10 years is too soon for many reasons. Instead, push for a combination of more EVs and more hybrids. I'd say that requiring all cars and trucks to at least be hybrids in 10 years is doable; the tech has been out for quite some time now. A lot of emissions and poor fuel economy are caused by all the stopping and starting in city driving, and hybrids are a big help here. There's even pretty low-cost hybrid systems available that some automakers use; they don't perform as well as the Prius system, but they cost a lot less, and do help economy a decent amount.
There are proposals. The media here in California actually talks about them a lot. None of them involve anything but new cars.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm poor. Are you going to pay the cost to replace all my equipment that I bought with my own very hard earned money?? No, you'll just sit in your rich white ivory tower and declare this and that are banned and charge fines and penalties which go back to people like you from people like me.
Thanks.
--poor people
Some hydrogen cars use fuel cells and an electric motor. Others use hydrogen in an ICE.
Unless they can start delivering American-sized & priced (read: Crown Vic sized with ~$25k price tag) alt-fuel vehicles with similar ranges, no sale.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
All that does is make it so that the well-off can drive whatever they want and that you needlessly restrict what the Rest of Us drive.
If it can't cause pain for policymakers, then it's a non-starter.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
you can use hydrogen in a combustion engine.
it just happens to be stupid so nobody does it.
I got a laugh out of "if china can do this" though. hahaha. a big laugh.
LOOK, if you cut everybodys income to 1/10th of what it is now in california and give them practically free electricity then sure, people will buy electric scooters to replace their cars.
also, anyone in china who can afford it buys a car, duh.
never mind that the typical daily commutes are way shorter in china, due to various reasons(mainly people not being able to afford cars in the first place).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
There are some pretty compelling reasons to have ICE powered vehicles in mountains.
1. Refueling infrastructure is rarer in the mountains, and trips are longer. Electric energy storage capacity isn't anywhere near that of fossil fuel.
2. It's a lot easier to power a small aerodynamic vehicle on level ground than it is to power a truck over hilly terrain. Regenerative breaking helps some, but it isn't a panacea.
3. Waste heat is less of an issue, and is actually a boon in colder areas.
Are the insurmountable problems? No. But until we see much higher density electric energy storage, I think ICE will keep the lead in mountainous automotive powertrains.
Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
loud =/= polluting more
So you'renot a physics major.
Explain how a car with a factory resonator pollutes less than the same car without one.
Sound is not a function of pollution.
It would be unrealistic to ban IC-engine vehicles in a decade. As others have pointed out, short of some revolution in battery capacity, they just don't have the range.
What would be more realistic would be a ban on diesel engines and a requirement to use hybrid drivetrains for passenger and freight vehicles. The technology is mostly available today and the pain and cost would be much lower.
We shall replace all internal combustion engines with external combustion engines!
Long awaited, the time for turbo rocket space car is here!
Los Angeles is one the leading smog capitals of the world.
Umm... no.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/a...
... and get to be possibly the last generation to be able to own a car with a V8 roar and manual transmission.
By the time my kids get to the point of responsibly buying anything more than a simple commuter car everything will be electric.
Which isnâ(TM)t bad. Just different. But I really enjoy a big combustion engine. Too much Dukes of Hazard as a kid?
For this to happen, the electric car must be roughly equivalent to the combustion engine powered car. It must be able to provide at least 600km autonomy in a less then 10 minutes charge. An electric car with a 200km autonomy and 4 hours recharge is fine if you have a garage to store and charge it, most people just don't have that possibility. Combustion engines are so successful because you can charge them to 1000km autonomy in less than 5 minutes.
I don't say that this wouldn't exist in 10 years, but until then, there is no practical replacement for at least 50% of trips. And you are not supposed to buy 2 cars, 1 electric for small commutes and 1 combustion for larger ones or where you won't have easy electricity to charge them.
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
Nope.
Combustion means redox, but redox does not necessarily mean combustion. Combustion is fast (and, since it's exothermic, hot). Fuel cells are not considered combustion engines unless things go really wrong...
Furthermore, the "internal" part of an internal combustion engine stems from the combustion of fuel occurring within a chamber that can extract work energy from the expansion of the gaseous results of combustion, whereas an external combustion engine uses a working fluid contained within a separate chamber to transfer energy from a heat source. A common example would be a steam engine.
This is a good point, but why stop there? Norway has the highest amount of electric vehicles on the planet per capita even though they're a major oil producer because they pay no taxes on EVs, meaning no VAT and no additional vehicle taxes that normal cars are subject to. Additionally, electric vehicles are not subject to road tolls. AT the same time, gas costs 2 dollars a litre, meaning 7,5 dollars a gallon, and that's cheap for Norway, the last time I was there it was higher.
This isn't rocket science, the 2 primary factors affecting the adoption rate of electric vehicles are: the prices of the vehicles themselves, and the price of gas. Both can be heavily affected by taxes (and tax-breaks) I understand that in the current American context where you're used to having gas that's dirt cheap (don't get me wrong, the Norwegian prices are high as hell even for a European standard, but even here in Finland we pay around 6,10 $ a gallon, (E9510 which is 10 % ethanol) raising the tax on gas is probably a political no-go for several reasons, but even just giving significant tax-breaks on the electric vehicles will increase adoption rates significantly.
Secondly: start putting pressure on the oil companies themselves to create less polluting fuels that can be used to power conventional ICEs. You could set a goal of: by the year NNNN X % of all fuel produced most come from non-fossil sources. You currently produce around 140 million gallons of biodiesel a month (figures from june), with the yearly total capacity being around 2,3 billion gallons, which is less than 1 % of all the oil you currently consume. You can do a lot better, as can the rest of us..
The thing is, we (as in, the globe) don't have a lot of time to react if we wish to keep the warming below 2 degrees celsius, after which point it starts getting beyond our control due to feedback-effects from the glaciers melting as well as methane starting to be released from the permafrost, after which we're royally screwed. This means drastic actions are needed from everyone, so focusing on lawn mover engines is putting a bandaid a paper cut while the body is suffering from cancer that needs immediate treatment.
The good things is we can do this, we (the advanced economies) have both the money and the technological knowhow to ditch fossil fuels at a rapid pace, and we should, but for that to happen we need large players like the US, together with EU and China to start actually doing large scale systemic changes in the ways energy is both produced, used and taxed. Emission costs are currently heavily externalized, in that fossil fuels are waaaaaay cheaper than the should be considering the damage being done to everyone by their continued use, but as the effects only appear years after the stuff has been burned, they've managed to remain as cheap as they have. This needs to change in the relatively near-future, because the economy will naturally reroute to low-emission alternatives once fossils become economically inefficient. However we cannot wait for that to happen naturally (ie. waiting for the oil to start running out) because at that point it's likely going to be too late, so really, a carbon tax of some description, together with other sensible policies like those mentioned above by you, me and others, is the way to go.
You can't raise the price of gas (yet) with so many people dependent on it, but if you aggressively push for adoption of EVs not with bans, but with sensible market policies, once the price of an EV is below the price of an equivalent ICE vehicle you can start to increase gas price at which point it will only further increase
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Within 10 years it will be the ban of selling new ICE cars, and maybe ICE's that are 30+ years old (and don't pass a certain emission standard).
It'll take a few decades before the whole fleet of ICE cars have been replaced, you just cannot ban cars as a lot of people still depend on them and do not have the money to buy new ones. Also at this time the technology for batteries isn't commercially viable/good enough for replacing the ICE for long range/offroad situations. But in 10 years that will have changed, just as the ammount of charging stations, because if they thought people having airconditiongs on during the warmer periods is already a problem for powersupply, wait until it also has to charge every EV (which ofcourse takes a lot of energy). So it's great if they want to ban ICE's, but they first need to make sure that range is much better and there is a good infrastructure to charge all those EV's. Both are heading in the right direction.
Let's not forget, people still want to drive the old cars as they love them, so there needs to be a plan to let people be able to do so (even if it requires a total conversion to EV).
This is an excerpt from Wikipedia on air pollution in LA: "..air concentrations of volatile organic compounds declined by a factor of 50 between 1962 and 2012.[75] Concentrations of air pollutants such as nitrous oxides and ozone declined by 70% to 80% over the same period of time."
The q. is then - is this still necessary? Another q. would be - do we all also need the same policies as L.A. does?
Weird, =/=
Never saw that ideogram in 45 years of coding and design. Used to program in algol and looked hard at smalltalk,, Nope.....
There’s no reason to ban real classic cars, there aren’t nearly enough of them to make a difference. And no point in having a strict cutoff year either. What you need to address is cost: many people hang on to their “classic” old car (and will do so in the future) because that’s cheaper than replacing it. Old cars used to be very popular here because of a considerable road tax exemption on classic cars. So they changed the rules for classics that were just being used as cheap daily drivers: you can claim the exemption but you can only drive the car in summer. That’s just one way of separating the car enthusiast from someone taking advantage. I remember when they put in that rule: my wife’s “classic” Mercedes dropped from €20.000 to €2.000 overnight: it was a very popular car to drive tax free. I’d hate to see a complete ban on IC engines and see our other legitimate classic lose it’s value like that, because now we’re talking serious money. Same goes for a lot of new cars. Yeah, I’d expect a buyback program at market value.
If EVs take off, greenhouse gas emissions from cars is going to be a problem that is going to disappear on its own. Just like what already happened with particulates and NOx from cars. The big problem with EVs is that they are still fairly expensive even when produced in large numbers... and there are no affordable second hand ones on the market yet. So we still need some subsidies or perks for EVs to speed up adoption. But by the time we’ve convinced most normal motorists to go electric, the few remaining petrol heads can have their classics. It won’t make a difference for the environment.
By the way: banning 2 stroke engines makes a lot of sense but not for greenhouse emissions. That’s more about pollutants. And if you really want to make a dent in those, ban coal fired BBQs and wood burning fireplaces. Where I live those are by far the biggest contributors to particulate emissions.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', so they renamed it climate change. Now we have this level of insanity - trying to ban internal combustion engines.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Car emissions are such a small part of the problem.
However, if they would return to nuclear (using modern nuclear) instead of relying on coal and oil, they would probably meet their goal easily.
If people leave California, they're going to take their ignorant politics with them and pollute the rest of the country.
Thereby diluting that power bloc significantly. I don't see a problem there, especially if they get to experience what other people's environment is like.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
It's Jay Leno on line 2. Something about your mother...?
Most likely they will ban new vehicles and encourage replacements with carrot and stick (higher road tax for internal combustion engine and scrappage allowance for trading in an old car)
I think banning internal combustion engines is a good idea. I would love to see external combustion engines catch up.
Because we're not a totalitarian state - yet.
CFL bulbs suck and are toxic to the environment. Thanks for the apt comparison.
CFL light bulb was a stupid stop gap measure launched by panicking manufacturer.
It didn't make any sense from engineering pov (it uses toxic substance in the tube, use complex starting circuitry that can easily fail).
It was mainly done so :
- classical lightbulb manufacturer can do something that "passes" such potential laws, while using technology that they already have the patents for since ages (most classic lightbulb manufacturer have also been making various fluorescent tubes for age - CFL was a small incremental evolution).
they did successfully manage to circumvent ban (but so did even the manufacturer that replaced plain classic incandescent filament with slightly better efficient halogen bulbs. I joke you note - in Europe, OSRAM successfully managed to circumvent incandescent lightbulb ban using another incandescent technology, just by being enough more efficient)
- with any chance, the back lash against the poor light quality and high failure rate will cause backlash against classic incandescent bulb ban.
It did not.
LED light bulb is the actual real step ahead. It requires a lot less weird substances (e.g.: doesn't need toxic mercury) and the electronics are much simpler. (Modern LED bulb imitating the old classic edison filament style manage to cram all the electronics inside the screw) and the overall efficiency is even better than CFL.
Yes, LED bulb require a little bit more resource (and cause a little bit more emission) per unit built.
But over the life-time of a LED bulb (usually in the decade range - the warranty of some Phillips models is actually 10 years) those initial building impact is completely dwarves by the enormous power economy.
over 10 years, your LED bulb will have ended up being a lot less toxic to the environment than the long serie of incandesent
----------
The same "LED" situation is currently happening with EV.
Yes lithium battery are toxic to the environment to produce.
But ICE engine don't grow on (organic) tree neither.
Compared to the production of a classic car, the production of an EV is only fractionally more impacting (to lazy to google, seem to remember it being in the ball park of 25%).
But this number (environmental impact at production) is completely insignificant compared to the rest of the lifetime of a vehicle (environmental impact during years of use).
Current research show that over the life-time of a car, even lots of country that still burn fossils for electricity production, the environmental impact of an EV ends up being smaller.
(Again, too lazy to google. If I remember correctly : only India, China and Australia have such awful electricity production that there's no difference between driving an EV or an ICE car. Even in the US that relies a lot on fossil for its electricity, the EV end up being less impacting. Here around in Europe it's even better due to several countries moving to renewables)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
A little while. Like 2 days or so?
Weird, =/=
Never saw that ideogram in 45 years of coding and design.
Just goes to show that all education / experiences are not equal...
In that video game where he plays the city governor, sound IS the important pollution.
I think I nailed it.
"His name was James Damore."
Their power bloc is self-destructing.
Their problem is that each of their achievements is yet another thing for liberal people to be conservative about. The faster they achieve, the faster the population trends conservative. This isnt about dislike of the achievements, but about protecting them. Peoples memories go back to their childhood, not to the 1700's.
"His name was James Damore."
Does this mean that NASCAR won't be able to race in California? What about diesel-powered cargo ships, are they no longer able to port in California? California also has a massive military presence, will they be exempt? Too many questions that need answered first.
I called it a mighty Sperm Whale, she called it Finding Nemo.
It was the muscle car renaissance! Some of the most bad-ass design ever. I guess this is a case of "there's no accounting for taste", because I can't think of any objective reason to call them ugly.
I'm not entirely sure I like the verbiage though...ALL internal combustion engines?
You realize that includes leaf blowers and lawnmowers, right? And what about recreational and commercial boating - all currently rely on internal combustion engines...
Ken
No, you'll just sit in your rich white ivory tower and declare this and that are banned and charge fines and penalties which go back to people like you from people like me.
Worked for healthcare, where millions of Americans too poor to afford even subsidized healthcare coverage are forced to pay a fine... itâ(TM)s called the individual mandate.
Ken
Norway has the highest amount of electric vehicles on the planet per capita even though they're a major oil producer because they pay no taxes on EVs, meaning no VAT and no additional vehicle taxes that normal cars are subject to. Additionally, electric vehicles are not subject to road tolls. AT the same time, gas costs 2 dollars a litre, meaning 7,5 dollars a gallon, and that's cheap for Norway, the last time I was there it was higher.
So all we need to do is:
Slap huge vehicle taxes on non-electric cars,
Impose a hefty VAT on non-electric vehicles,
And tax gasoline until it is $7.50/gal?
THEN weâ(TM)ll start to see sales of electric vehicle increase? I canâ(TM)t imagine any unintended consequences from such market manipulations, can you? /sarcasm
Ken
If your gas guzzler runs out of fuel, you're fucked. If an electric vehicle with a solar panel runs out of energy, you just wait a little while.
Says the commenter that hasnâ(TM)t run the numbers for how long it would take to get a useful partial charge from âdecorativeâ(TM) solar panels on their roofs...
ICE automobiles donâ(TM)t run out of fuel on hillsides simply because the owner ensures they have sufficient fuel before heading off in the wilderness. For those times when a 30 gallon gas tank wonâ(TM)t suffice, carrying 5 gallon cans of gas is a popular solution - this is a non-problem.
Ken
You know a Southwest ticket costs about the same as all of the gas you'll need to buy and will bring you to your destination much faster, right?
Then you just walk from the airport to your hotel, and then walk to your business meetings because you have no need for a car once you get to your destination, right?
Ken
The government doesn't need to do anything. Electric engines are better. Range is going up, cost is going down, and the reasons to buy a gas powered vehicle instead are fading away. If the government sets an artificial timeline for switching over, it will increase prices, cost jobs, anger consumers, and just generally make a mess of things. Let the changeover happen naturally and it will be a smooth transition led by happy consumers.
Perhaps a âoegreater thanâ and âoeless thanâ pair would be filtered out by /. HTML parser?
Ken
Splitting 53 pounds of greenhouse gasses across 200 passengers gives you a quarter pound per passenger mile... how does that compare to the greenhouse gasses generated per mile in a 20 mpg automobile?
Ken
why China can do this and not California
Because poor people in China donâ(TM)t have cars, poor people in California do - and rely on them to get to their jobs so they can eat.
Ken
...California would therefore ban all heavy construction as well?
Precisely how are you going to build a highway, or dam, or large building without heavy equipment like bulldozers and dump trucks, or do they believe those can be electrical too?
-Styopa
Are there no experienced software developers on this forum at ALL??
For God's sake stop with the HOW and discuss the WHAT. What are the WHATs we're looking for here? Here are some "whats" I'd like to see: Less pollution, less fuel use, fewer traffic deaths, to name a few.
Now we can discuss HOW to get these. Here's how to get these great results without worrying at all about fuel consumption, type of fuel, even to some degree, safety features.
Just make a drivers license really hard to get and keep. Base it on demonstrated skill, tested every few years. Only allow someone to drive who can physically demonstrate superior driving in a hard test. Instant revocation for driving impaired in any way, e.g., any measurable blood alcohol and instant revocation regardless of being in an accident. Massive penalties for driving without a license. I'm sure you all get the point.
Far fewer drivers on the road and the one's that are driving are only the best drivers.
Then, who cares what kind of car you have? Giant SUV gas guzzler? Won't be enough on the road to really matter. Cast iron dashboards or what not? Too bad for you if you have a wreck.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Norway has the highest amount of electric vehicles on the planet per capita even though they're a major oil producer because they pay no taxes on EVs, meaning no VAT and no additional vehicle taxes that normal cars are subject to. Additionally, electric vehicles are not subject to road tolls. AT the same time, gas costs 2 dollars a litre, meaning 7,5 dollars a gallon, and that's cheap for Norway, the last time I was there it was higher.
So all we need to do is:
Slap huge vehicle taxes on non-electric cars, Impose a hefty VAT on non-electric vehicles, And tax gasoline until it is $7.50/gal?
THEN weâ(TM)ll start to see sales of electric vehicle increase? I canâ(TM)t imagine any unintended consequences from such market manipulations, can you? /sarcasm
It's already happening (unintended consequences). Now that most modern vehicles use much less gas than before, U.S. states are losing fuel tax revenue and are starting implement 'electric car fees' to make up the difference. Uncle Sam is gonna get their pound of flesh no matter how you try to avoid it. https://insideevs.com/u-s-stat...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
My uncle has a country place, that no one knows about. He says it used to be a farm, before the Motor Law.
Are you claiming that we have not manipulated the markets already?
Maybe a better approach would be to internalize all the costs of each technology and let the markets decide the winner.
-rd
tailpipes generate more than one-third of all greenhouse gases
Hah! The tailpipe fell off my shitbox years ago.
Have gnu, will travel.
Most city driving is probably fine for battery work. Highway driving (trips > 100 miles) is likely going to require an infrastructure change.
Redoing the highways to allow for charging of vehicles while enroute is still coming. Once that's done - there won't be a reason for ICEs except for extreme cases.
People like you are so tricking parochial. Last time I went to Denmark, I flew in, then took the train to Copenhagen, and yes -- I walked to business meetings. No need for a car. Infrastructure doesn't need to look like America, you know. Better possibilities exist elsewhere.
Ahh...living!!
Yep, nice to still be able to live where you actually still have freedom of choice, freedom from the thought police, and can fully enjoy your constitutionally protected natural rights.
Wow...funny, that used to be something ALL Americans enjoyed and fought for....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
LOL, same here, and many others I believe. Spend a weekend swapping the cats and stock exhaust and intake back on the car, and a couple other nik-naks. Then take it in to get smogged, and spend another weekend putting it back afterwards. It's worth it for the extra 100+ HP over stock for the rest of the time (subaru wrx in case anyone thinks that claim is bs).
There are WAY too many problems with banning ICE vehicles. For one, we have a millions of them on the road, I'm not sure manufacturers could keep up if everyone had to purchase new cars in a short timeframe.
EV's don't work for everyone, many here in the major metropolitan areas commute 120+ miles per day because housing is too expensive to live closer to work.
EV's aren't made in all form factors, and while there are a lot of people who don't *need* an SUV for a daily commute, there are families who do *need* larger vehicles like SUV's and Mini-vans for any trip where the whole family goes (local or distant). Distant trips, like vacations and fun day trips often require larger vehicles because you not only need to carry the people, but often luggage, or camping gear, or ice chest, or recreation clothing (snow trips/beach/hunting) etc. along with the people.
There are just too many trips that require a range more than an EV can make. It's common in California, for families to make the trek from SF to LA or vice versa to visit family, or do vacation. There are a lot who do Ski/Hunting/Camping trips to the mountains. These trips cannot be made with EV's.
If California tried this there would be a revolt on their hands.
Isn't this a moot point? Many EU countries and China are setting ban dates. Automakers will have to start making electric cars for those markets. Do they really want to run two different plants, one for ICE one for EV. It'll be cheaper for them to switch to all EV. When no one is making millions of ICE cars what is the point of a ban?
Majority of neighbors now use electric outdoor tools. Cause it's either use crap fuel that kills the motors or buy 30 dollar gallons of gasoline. Some of these electric law mowers work better than gas ones.
I'm not poor, but I'm certainly not remotely rich. A new car purchase would bury me. Are you going to bail out the poor people on my back making me poor without the benefits?
Thanks,
Working[lower] middle class.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
There are great swaths of this country that don't have mass transit infrastructures of any kind, pretending they do won't change that, and since we are talking about California and driving vs. flying, the scope of the discussion is places within driving distance from California.
The basis of the original comment was that the cost to fly was lower, my argument is that once you land, transportation is a non-trivial problem in many major US cities. Sure, in certain areas the mass transit system is wonderful, but outside a few major metropolitan areas our mass transit system in the US is lacking. Europe is a different matter, but then again, comparing drive time/cost from CA to Denmark versus flying is a pointless argument. Cabs, buses, Ubers, Lyfts, etc are all great, but add to the cost of the flying option.
Ken
On the other hand, it might spur the auto industry to step things up, offer more models, promote them more, which will increase sales, causing more production, which will lower prices. Don't we all work more efficiently when we know we have a schedule to keep? Don't we all tend to procrastinate more when we know we're not going to be required to get something done on any sort of schedule? Any way you look at it, mandate or no mandate, in ten years there will be many many more electric vehicles on the roads of California, and there will be more infrastructure to support them.
LOL!
Brown asks why a Communist Authoritarian Dictatorship can do something , but not California.
What's wrong with this picture?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
https://www.theecoexperts.co.u... -- "The standard solar panel has an input rate of around 1000 Watts per square meter, however on the solar panels available at present you will only gain roughly 15-20% efficiency at best. Therefore if your solar panel was 1 square meter in size, then it would likely only produce around 150-200W in good sunlight."
Teslas get something like 3 miles per kwh.
So If you are carting three square meters of panels around with you, you're gonna go 1.5-ish miles per hour -- you'd sit for ~5 hours to drive ~7 miles. It makes way more sense to have roadside solar panel accumulators and charge a LOT for the energy they produce so that they're only used for emergencies. Put them in the right places and they'd pay for themselves quickly. (As opposed to free super-chargers which work on the slurpie-selling business model.)
A 'proposal' is still a long ways away from a bill being submitted in the legislature.
I originally thought this was a dumb idea, but now not so much. If they pass this law, it might force the Mexicans to go back to Mexico. If it accomplishes that, I'll pay for a new car happily.
Then who is going to
- mow your lawn
- clean your house
- work in your restaurants
- pick your fruits
- clean your restrooms at the office
- clean your hotel room
and so on, and so on.
Without the good, hardworking people from Mexico, your life would be a lot different.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Exactly. And that's what makes all the outrage about "You can have my '83 Citation when you wrest it from my cold dead hands" so ridiculous.
I don't know if you've eve been to California, but there's a little-known reason why they're so big on the environment: Because it's really, really, really nice here and they're trying to keep it that way. It's approximately the same as when you walk into someone's home and they ask you to remove your shoes. Do you say, "Fuck you, I'm wearing these muddy boots on your carpet and you can't do anything about it!" or do you take off your goddamn shoes?
It's a well-kept secret that California is one of the most beautiful places in the world (especially the Coast. you can keep Bakersfield). They're trying to come up with ways to not fuck it all up. Good for them.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, you can't use solar, the air's too smoggy.
If you mean ethanol-free fuel, in my area it's about 10% more than fuel with alcohol. But you go to a station that sells it , of course.
In California you have to buy it at $6 a quart at a home improvement store. http://www.homedepot.com/p/Tru...
I've lived here my entire life, I already know everything you're saying.
Why can China do something about this and not California?
Dose the governor really have that shallow of an understanding between the US's version of rule by law, and China's version of rule by fiat of the communist party? He and Obama should get together to whine about why they have to go through legislatures to get things done.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The "electric care fee" was always there. The fuel taxes are earmarked for building and maintaining roads. It doesn't matter what powers the vehicles, the state still has to get the money to make a byway for them from somewhere. The 'electric fee' is actually their fair share for using the roads that road users have paid for.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
At least, according to this:
Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/
Perhaps a âoegreater thanâ and âoeless thanâ pair would be filtered out by /. HTML parser?
Yeah, they are. You have to use > followed by a semicolon for > and < followed by a semicolon for <
God only knows what /. did to your post though (unless you meant to type repeated "a-circumflexes" that is)...
I don't know about you, but my house isn't owned by a "company", it's owned by me, an individual. I suspect most people who have lawns to cut are the same.
And I can mow my own damn yard. I've hired lawn services in the past, and the guy with the weedwacker always destroys the irrigation.
Are you stupid? Where in there did I propose banning existing (already sold) lawn equipment?
As soon as you can figure out how to keep your fucking car from polluting MY air, we'll do that. Until then, fuck you.
and there are no affordable second hand ones on the market yet.
You can get a Nissan Leaf for well under $10k now, maybe even close to $5k.
Thatâ(TM)s more about pollutants. And if you really want to make a dent in those, ban coal fired BBQs and wood burning fireplaces. Where I live those are by far the biggest contributors to particulate emissions.
Different pollutants. 2-strokes aren't bad for particulates, but are bad for a bunch of other things like unburned gasoline. For particulates, in urban areas, you need to ban diesel buses and trains and replace them with electric (or hybrid for buses).
People who have switched to electric vehicles in California are finding out its cheaper to drive gas powered vehicles due to California's mismanagement of public utilities (namely electric companies) which make California one of the most expensive states in the nation to buy electricity from.
You know a Southwest ticket costs about the same as all of the gas you'll need to buy and will bring you to your destination much faster, right?
Only for very long distances.
You first have to get to the airport. Unless you live next to it (I don't) that will take a bit of time. More if you take some form of public transit.
Then you have to allocate extra time because the airline will give your seat away if you don't show up at least an hour early. The most generous time requirement I've ever seen an airline give is 45 minutes. In no way does "checking in" online mitigate this requirement.
Then you have to allocate extra time for security checks. Hey, it's gotten better, but you want another hour on top of this. You have to be really generous with your time cushions, because if you don't give yourself enough time, it's not you'll be a little later, like you would be if you were driving. You're just fucked, and you have to hope that somehow you can endure waiting for eight hours in the airport on standby, looking for another flight. Since they're all overbooked, good luck with that.
On the other end, there's the fun time waiting for your luggage to arrive. Some airports are really good with this and you can get in and out with your luggage pretty quickly. Unfortunately I live close to an airport that always has a half hour wait between when the flight lands and the luggage is available on the carousel. Who knows why.
Then there's getting a rental car, a process which unreasonably takes forever. I'm hoping that the increased presence of the ride-sharing companies makes it so I never have to do that again. I live in the US, and rare is the case where the place I want to go is next to public transportation, which is pretty shitty almost everywhere in the country. In other countries, YMMV. I certainly wouldn't need a care, or even a taxi in London or Paris, though.
500 miles, maybe. That's the breakpoint for me where it makes sense for me to fly. Since even a short flight is a way to blow 2/3s of a day.
Sure, in certain areas the mass transit system is wonderful, but outside a few major metropolitan areas our mass transit system in the US is lacking.
We're also talking about electric cars here, and in California, while you're covered in major metropolitan areas, outside of that your recharge options are so few as to be almost non-existent. If you have a Tesla, their supercharger network is pretty good, but if you can't use that you're SOL.
I'm not entirely sure I like the verbiage though...ALL internal combustion engines?
You realize that includes leaf blowers and lawnmowers, right?
Oh please... please please please PLEASE be right. I mean, I don't think you're right (and the whole thing ain't happening anyway), but fuck.
Then who is going to
- mow your lawn
- clean your house
- work in your restaurants
- pick your fruits
- clean your restrooms at the office
- clean your hotel room
Maybe we'll just have to do it ourselves! You know, like in the old days before somehow we became too "good" for that work. Companies should pay the actual value of the work, not a fraction of it because they have a pool of illegal under-the-table desperate for a few dollars.
I'm sorry if that throws the economy for a loop, but it is morally unjustifiable to build it on less-than-subsistence indentured labor.
Nice excuse, but most mountain roads aren't obscured by trees. Mountains also mean elevation, which mean sunshine.
We're not talking about driving up and down Everest here. Unless you're above the cloud line, mountains still mean shade, and (hopefully, otherwise it can be a miserable drive) trees. Plus, it's just as likely that a good portion of the day you'll be in the mountain's shadow, bad news for solar.
You also said: "Electric vehicles have 300+ mile ranges now" some upper-end, super-expensive electric cars have 300+ mile ranges. If you spend an extra $12k on top of the $35k bare-minimum price tag, you can get a battery that has 330 miles of range. Of course, that range plunges if you're not traveling on flat land. I have a 2016 Leaf as my primary car. At best, it has a 110-mile range on the battery, and that was the best you could get without going into the high-end market. With moderate (not even mountain) uphill roads, that decreases to about 60-70m of range between full recharges. Of course, if I was going downhill the whole time I'd probably get something like 180m of range, so it all evens out, but that doesn't help if you can't reach your destination without spending 4 hours charging. Solar panels are nice, but their throughput is not fast. Even if you could magically convert 100% of the energy of the sunlight falling on your car, there's just not that much hitting it, just a small, small, small fraction of what you'd need to drive in real time. If solar panels could do that, manufacturers would be fucking falling over themselves to bolt them on. Your 120V electrical adapter recharges at best, 5 miles of range per hour, solar panels on cars even less so. That's not very fast.
Enjoy your 2 day walk to the nearest gas station though.
Gas stations in remote areas is an example of a "solved problem." Electric chargers are absolutely not.
is already stretched to the max. It wasn't that long ago we had rolling blackouts.
The grid was fine in 2000-2001, those were mostly political and business decisions. IE, the blackouts were entirely artificial and created intentionally. The reasons were:
1) Partial, not total deregulation of the energy market. Wholesale prices were deregulated, but retail prices remained frozen. That worked under the assumption that the frozen rates would always be higher than wholesale, which was true until 2000. Energy producers started shutting down plants to raise prices. That meant the utilities had to purchase energy at a loss.It encouraged transmission constraints on the part of the producers since customer demand of energy didn't change.
2) Faking overcongestion because the overcongestion fees became pure profit.
3) Drought in the pacific northwest reduced their power exports, removing one of California's out-of-state producers of energy.
4) The main north-south electrical relay became a bottleneck, and that actually is the fault of the grid. It constrained moving energy around.
5) The large power producers (Enron was most successful at this) was able to create shortages by shutting down plants, allowing the restricted supply to increase the price of energy on the spot market. Power that was $45 / mWh in 1999 was now sold up to $1450 / mWh on the spot market, because the politicians had the unfortunate choice of allowing the blackouts to continue, or pay through the nose for the new prices of energy.
In short, a few things were grid-related, but most of this was easily avoidable.
To Meet Emissions Goals.
China HAS to do this. I have been there and the pollution there is HORRENDOUS! Mind you, it is primarily from burning coal.
Yet, still, the sooner humans can reduce pollution - of any kind - the better.
Sure, your little pittance of pollution is in itself relatively insignificant.
Yet, if we let you do it, we have to let everyone.
So, then, it is the death penalty for any polluters! Even the assholes that throw trash from the car!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Dumba$$, California already uses roadside IR scanners that detect both HC and NOx emission overages.
If you think you're "getting away" with something, all you're doing is setting yourself up for a CHP pullover with portable analyzer followed by seizure on the spot.
So enjoy the walk
The rest of us are going to breathe even if you hate the idea
I like Bakersfield in the spring
There are no problems with terminating the ICE IF the state will electrify the freeways for online charging via microwave coupling under the roadbed.
120 mile commute?
Excuse me, either you're the most 9-5 jerkoff in the state or you lie
Avg. freeway speed in rush hour in San Jose is SEVEN MPH. Even assuming you are in LA doesn't help, with the 405 avg. being 12 MPH. Either way, you either don't sleep or you don't work.
I'm betting on the latter
There's no surfing in Bakersfield.
You are welcome on my lawn.
At major airports there is no longer a significant delay at the rental car counter. The key is to join the loyalty program of the company (or companies) you use. Then you don't have to go to the counter at all. You go to the lot, pick out a car from the correct group (they're parked by rental class so it's not difficult), and drive it to the exit. Unless you're there at a peak arrival time and the exit gates are backed up, ten minutes tops.
So, does it include the necessary infrastructure commitments to go with banning the internal combustion engine? Stuff like ensuring there's enough EV charging stations? What about sufficient power plants as to keep up with the demand and keep it affordable? Or, hey, how about efforts to ensure access to the necessary infrastructure for having EVs will not be limited to, say, rich majority-white neighborhoods?
Even if it is limited to new-new cars, it's going to fuck the used car market after it's been around for a bit--if you can't do an EV, you're going to have to be able to afford to get something brought in from outside of California or find something older and typically less safe. The commitment to infrastructure improvements is necessary to prevent the proposal from being yet another classist and racist measure with a green coat of paint.
There are no problems with terminating the ICE IF the state will electrify the freeways for online charging via microwave coupling under the roadbed.
while this sounds nice and dandy, state roadwork takes longer than this to complete a small freeway section improvement or new overpass, let alone tear up/trench thousands of miles of freeway in a metropolitan area in a 10 yr period. not to mention that they'd have to spread out the work, and even then it would cause massive, massive traffic issues for years while all that is being done.
Excuse me, either you're the most 9-5 jerkoff in the state or you lie ... Either way, you either don't sleep or you don't work.
I'm betting on the latter
First off, You don't know me, so get off your high horse and quit making assumptions and name calling that are completely and utterly wrong and make you sound like a complete ass. I didn't say that "I" commute this far daily, but many do, and varying degrees of distances near what I posted. Personally, I work for myself, freelance programmer (for 15 years), so my daily commute is all of about 2 minutes from bed to desk, including time to take a morning pee and pour a cup of coffee.
However, my gigs do require travel to jobsites with most projects I'm working on, so while 80-90% of my time is working from my home office, I do have to spend some time for each project deploying in the field. This often involves traveling over 60mi each way (+120mi round trip) to where ever the current project location is at. In any given week, I could be working at home all week, or several different project sites, each with various distances away. One day I could be in San Jose, and the next in Sacramento, and another day, have to go as far as Fresno. These are just examples, but yes, an EV would not suit well.
Secondly, the speeds you posted, while mostly accurate, aren't for an entire long commute that I was mentioning, and are at peak commute times as well. If I have to drive 60-70mi to San Jose (as I do once in awhile), the speed I'm traveling is NOT 7mph the whole way like you make it sound, some of that I'm doing 60mph, and some 45mph, and some even 25mph. The worse of it will be 7mph (average). Depending on start time, some days it can take 1.5hrs to make it to Santa Clara area, and some days it can take 3 hrs. to the same location (different time). Luckily, when I do this, it once in awhile, and I'm not beholden to 9-5 work times.
While it's anecdotal, I've worked with many people who make similar commutes. Many people who have long commutes like this do what they can to time shift their work hours, say start work at 6 or 7am, so traffic isn't as bad when they leave their house at 5:00am, or they work longer days and shorter weeks, or try to work from home some. I'm sure there are some people that make the horrible commute every single day though. This is why housing around silicon valley is outrageously priced. A small little home can be $1M, but you'll live close to work. Those who don't want to be house poor have to move further away and commute. The sad part is, that in the Bar Area at least, the distance required to get out to more reasonably price housing has steadily gotten further and further away (depending on your particular value of "reasonably priced" is). To further illustrate my point that many people commute this far, try commuting between Sacramento and SF bay sometime, there are a LOT of people making this drive one way or the other. There isn't a whole lot of jobs in between these major metropolitan areas, much of it is farmland, and most of it is residential housing. So they have to be commuting somewhere at a great distance over 60-80mi.
What do you do when your insurance form asks if the vehicle is modified from the production model? Tell them and have the insurance assessor come out to examine the vehicle, or lie and drive without valid insurance?
What are you going to do when you're pulled over for a roadworthiness check? Shoot the inspectors?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
then we should buy stock in horse and ox farms because that's what Californians are going to be riding and using to pull wagons again. Electrics are never going to replace internal combustion UNLESS someone invents the magic battery to make it possible, and that effort is not going well.
At major airports there is no longer a significant delay at the rental car counter
Hmmm, every airport I've needed to pick up a car from has been the same: reserve car online (no need for a rental counter at the airport). Sit outside and wait for awhile for the rental car company shuttles to pick you up, because the cars are always located pretty far from the airport itself. When you finally get there, stand in line at the rental counter -- someone has to give you a key, after all.
I certainly am not loyal enough to join their loyalty program. I expect it would make sense if you're renting many times a year.
I don't think you understand what the word "remote" means. By definition if there is a gas station nearby, then the location isn't remote.
Fine. Unless you're in Alaska, or the very heart of a national forest, there's really no such thing as "remote" in the USA anymore. People live everywhere.
By the way, the sun is everywhere. If you got out of your mother's basement, you would know that.
Light is everywhere. Sun is not. It's quite possible to be in the shade, have the sun hidden behind, say, a mountain, or even to be driving at night. Exotic, I know.
True.
There are no desert flowers in Santa Cruz or Pacifica though
No, that's the Caltrans posted AVERAGE just like I said! The 237 during rush hour is frequently THREE miles per hour the entire length!
No need to play dumb.
I have made the commute.
NOBODY works a 14 hour (min tech onsite work in hardware for instance) and drives the 6+ hours per day for long
That 4 hour per day eat, sleep, sex and shower is impossible for the human body.
It's very different here in Boston. The rental car companies are a short ride from the terminals, and they are all in one building that the airport shuttle bus goes to. The maximum wait time for the bus is under 10 minutes. Once you get there, no counter -- you go out to the lot of cars that have keys waiting in them, you choose one and drive it to the exit gate, and your rental is finalized there. I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes at the exit gate, though I haven't been there just after a jumbo jet full of passengers arrived at the rental company.
The loyalty programs are free. There is no good reason not to join even if you're only going to rent once. Not even privacy; the rental company gets all your info anyway.
1. Most of the West (BC,WA,ID,OR,CA) has access to renewable power for electricity. This may not be true of the buggy whip states to our East, but we use green power here and have recharge stations along our major highways.
2. By next model year, electric vehicles will be cheaper than fossil fuel combustion vehicles.
3. It's fairly easy to limit sales of new vehicles and fleet purchases by business. They save money by going electric, so this not only reduces kid-killing exhaust but saves people money. You just remove the deductibility of non-green vehicles and all exemptions for fossil fuel vehicles. Easy.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yeah, I still remember the first time I visited LA in the late 70s. The Santa Anna winds had blown the smog away the day prior, so I showed up and wondered what people were complaining about.
By the next day you couldn't see stuff a mile away, the pollution from cars was so bad.
Btw, It was really cool to see all the cars from when I was a kid (because back in New England they had all rusted away long ago due to road salt).
Flying into LA at the time was gross... coming in from the east over the mountains, you would sink into this yellow/brown goop that was hanging low over all of the basin. It's really been quite a transformation over the last 40 years.
Actually, you could use a hydrogen fuel cell to charge batteries to run an electric car. But, the issue with hydrogen is the storage issue. It even permeates out of pressure cylinders sitting on the shelf.
NRRPT/RCT