New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035
 

Newsom orders 2035 phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, calls for fracking ban

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...emissions-cars

I’m curious if he saw Tesla’s presentation and feels that such a mandate is within the realm of possibility, but it seems very ambitious, especially considering the economic hit the automobile market took this year. I wonder if many Californians will seek a car purchase out-of-state too or just buy used cars as long as they can. Perhaps the case for the electric car will be so compelling that public interest will be there and prices will be more affordable. Utilities better get moving on building the electric infrastructure too.

I’m sure this won’t completely stick.

It's a executive order, which can be struck down by the swipe of a pen at a later time. Doesn't carry a lot of weight frankly given the timeframe.

I often wonder if these timelines are realistic or just thrown out there because "CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!! WE MUST ACT NOW NOW NOW!!!"

theres just way too much pandering to the whiny activists who dont have any clue how to fix a problem realistically.

Guess who has stock in tesla?
It's all about the money and who's pockets it lands on. I can smell the bullshit from here.

Wild fires, oh please two major faults are over zealous environmentalists that would never cut a single tree, and asshole land owners that gate access roads, and sue anyone that tries to clear brush.

Then other is just stupid people doing stupid stuff.
That's my 2 cents/opinion

Watch the Tesla Battery Day presentation I posted. They could realistically ramp up production of EVs to meet that goal for California. It is fifteen years away.

Most manufacturers already make electric cars; they just add ICEs to them and call them hybrids, so it is entirely possible to do.

The big problem is infrastructure, but it is possible to get it done within fifteen years. This is only for new vehicles. This likely won’t stop out of state sales right now unless something changes that penalizes that act.

Climate change is real. This transition is inevitable, even if it sucks.

He won't be Gov much longer so this is a empty threat and bill. The power grid can't even handle current load let alone the addition of all EV's. Unless all these vehicles are solar charged nothing environmentally is accomplished not to mention the impact the batteries have on a multitude of situations. Every day this moron just never ceases to amaze me.

Marketing grand standing, easy way around for enthusiasts, doesn't actually target the gross polluters in the state (large diesel shipping trucks and what few factories are left). Hopefully something more interesting comes along then this neo lib bullshit so it doesn't linger on here for ten pages of people who can't see past next week.

I'd vote for zero emissions from shipping companies in a heartbeat by 2035. That'd kill consumer ice far quicker, once EVs figure out the better battery and charging solution ice will be like horses, for enthusiasts only.

Drought, warm weather drying the land, long warm seasons, dry lightning, etc have all contributed to the problem. Obviously it isn’t just California because of what happened in Oregon and Washington. Climate change is real, but even if it wasn’t, it is crazy to dump millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year, nor is it wise to continue to burn oil—a finite resource.

https://www.shainblumphoto.com/wp-co...ate_bridge.jpg

As much as I like having fast cars that make pleasing noises, I like snowboarding more.

Interesting how the fires stopped at the Canadian border when they have close to 10x the forests we do.

The rolling blackouts when everyone turns on the air conditioning is a feature, not a bug.

Also, might be prudent to purchase stock in companies that produce extension cords. Gonna be a lot of these things running out apartment windows all over the state if this clown shoes idea comes to fruition.



https://external-content.duckduckgo....jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The mandate would be for fifteen years from now, so there is some time to develop utilities too. I’m for nuclear, but hydro, wind n solar are already planned for a lower emissions future for California’s grid. All new homes have to have solar too.

Batteries should be much more efficiently made and recycled too.

Do you really think there are enough enthusiasts to keep manufacturers making gasoline engines after "everyone else" has gone electric of some variety?

Get me any of these and I;m good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuuT2hXB1Ok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfRH...niganAutoFocus

Depends on the scale you're thinking of.

Less >50k v8 mustangs per year and more like a few thousand Factory Five kit cars or Caterhams or the Synergy guys in New Zealand.

After all, the technology to burn a fossil fuel and make car go forward isn't voodoo magic that takes a phd to make functional, a cottage industry will evolve to keep enthusiasts burning dinos until I'm too old to do so, I guarantee it.

How about this for instance, this company alone makes over 2000 horse drawn carriages every year.
https://frontierequestrian.com/produ...ert-carriages/

Factor in technological advancements in manufacturing technologies and information availability, I wouldn't be surprised if I have a retirement project to 3d print a fuel injector of my own design at home. And that's ignoring the fact that EVs will be fun to drive anyway.

Aftermarket engine parts have a big enough market, that's all you really need. There will be more than enough junkyard engine blocks for years to come.

The bigger problem I see for gasoline engines is making them competitive with electric drivetrains when batteries improve. If new chemistries can get batteries to double the energy density of LTO with equal power and cycle life, then it's pretty much game over for gasoline...All the parts associated with producing motive power on a basic econobox weighs >500lbs, including emissions equipment and fuel tank. A highly boosted engine is lucky to get to 1hp/lb (including gas tank, evap, exhaust, engine, transmission). Electric would get very close on total mass with a 2x better battery since the motors are so light.

Most car engines have an emphasis on low end torque, but throwing that out and letting them spin a bit faster improves the hp/lb figure by a lot. If the gasoline engine spins to 12000rpm, then it's still very competitive :)

Probably the young crowd that has never heard a Porsche 935 dropping gears into T2 at Laguna will welcome the EV evolution.

Uhh they don’t.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKBN2672GW

We like to keep our forests tidy and give them a good cleaning every spring.

https://governmentofbc.maps.arcgis.c...2ee385abe2a41b

I definitely think enthusiast vehicles will be available. Realistically, our numbers aren’t high enough to warrant concern, so I’m sure they will allow a little CO2. Access to gasoline might be an issue. Registering the car or smogging it in California could be a future issue, but we are far from eliminating all ICE vehicles from the roads. It’ll be another fifty years before ICE vehicles are rare classics. EVs will be better for the non-enthusiast and for many enthusiasts. Only a few people will have a classic for the feel, sound or ability to row their own gears, and it certainly won’t be for going fast compared to other vehicles. Much like classic cars today, performance is second to nostalgia.

Haven't you heard, the Canadian border is closed - :D

Uhhh they don't what?

"residents have also been struggling with smoke billowing over from the California wildfires. "

Between shitty forest management and arson we have a big problem.

Don't get me wrong I believe in climate change, but there is jack shit we can stop it. What I am for is zero/less pollution. The idea of banning big diesel haulers, that would quickly back fire when shipping cost triple to CA. Yes we can improve diesel, but you have to look outside the little box, cause the whole world runs on diesel. And it would still be running on diesel.

But that doesn't mean we have to rely on it.

I rather place my bet on hydrogen tech than ev's.
In my opinion musk is the greatest con man of the mondern century. Yes ev's are awesome. But if he truly wants the save the world money shouldn't mean much to him. But it does more than the saving the world. At lest what I see when he tries to sell his stuff.



Yes natural causes for forest fires is always there. The problem is what happen a few months ago when a fire broke out here at one of our lakes. The only accessible road was fenced off. And when the firefighters broke the gate to put out the fire that landowner sued the local fire department for trespassing.

Meanwhile, behind the tesla store....

https://www.ar15.com/media/mediafile...pg-1604062.JPG

The scientific data on climate change are overwhelming. We need to save our planet and do whatever we can to combat climate change. After all, this is the only planet we have, so not killing it - and ourselves in the process - seems like a really good idea. This year’s horrific forest fires on the west coast are yet another example of what we will have more of in the future if we don’t do something. But no matter how much some people wish it were true and how often they might say it, a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) is not on its face necessarily ‘environmentally friendly’. The hard facts are that it primarily depends on how the electricity is generated to charge the EV.

Electricity is not ‘free’. It doesn’t just come out of a wall socket on its own. Some other primary energy source must be used to generate the electricity. Most promotion of BEVs ignores this.

The fundamental problem is that right now, fossil fuels still provide about 63% of the electricity generated in the US, with nuclear an additional 19%. There are significant regional differences, but overall only about 11% of US electric power is generated from renewable sources:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

A BEV can make more sense in a place like Oregon that gets 70% of its electricity from ‘clean’ sources (hydro and wind), but not so much in Minnesota that is heavily dependent on coal and natural gas, or the country at large.

California gets about half its electricity from renewable sources, but also about half from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas. It might make sense for California to push for BEVs, since they would actually be half natural gas plus half renewable source powered (and hopefully more by the 2035 timeline), but that’s not necessarily the case for the rest of the country.

Globally, China currently gets 60% of its electricity from fossil fuel, mostly coal, which changes the BEV calculation there. Shockingly, Japan is building 22 new coal powered electric generating plants, which together will release about as much CO2 as all the cars sold in the US:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/c...fukushima.html

As a result, in aggregate BEVs essentially have a ‘long tailpipe’ to whatever form of primary energy was used to generate the electricity. A report in Scientific American estimated that a Nissan Leaf and Toyota Prius both produce on average about 200 grams of CO2 per mile (though it would be about 100 grams/mile CO2 in California, and 300 grams/mile CO2 in Minnesota):

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ssarily-clean/

There is also a fundamental problem with how BEVs are promoted and the resulting perception of their ‘environmental friendliness’. The way MPGe numbers used for BEVs are calculated assume 100% efficiency in converting fossil fuel to electricity. This violates the laws of thermodynamics. In actuality, only 30-40% of the energy contained in fossil fuels can be converted into electricity in any thermal process (though newer combined cycle natural gas power plants can reach 50%). That means about 2/3 of the energy is wasted (plus about 10% lost in transmission). This has been widely discussed and reported:

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/m...electric-cars/

https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/Chapter4.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenm.../#54dc4b4929de

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67645.pdf

With only about 30-35% of the energy contained in fossil fuel actually converted into usable electricity, this means that to put 85 kWh of electric charge into a BEV requires 269 kWh of fossil fuel or nuclear energy. Thus, a Nissan Leaf that is advertised with ’99 MPGe’ in an apples-to-apples comparison is actually getting the equivalent of 28-36 real world MPG. Not bad, but certainly significantly different than what the flawed MPGe number suggests, and objectively not much better than a modern ICE car.

When financial subsidies are taken into consideration, the picture gets murkier (though of course multi-millionaire Tesla buyers enjoyed getting unneeded discounts on their purchases):

https://www.politico.com/agenda/stor...ronment-000660

The calculation becomes even less favorable when taking into account the environmental impacts of lithium and rare Earth metal mining, battery disposal at end of life, etc.

Nuclear fission energy is also not the answer. Nuclear energy (being a thermal process) is also about 30% efficient in converting the heat released by the fission of uranium into electricity. Nuclear power generates 19% of the electricity in the US and does not directly generate carbon emissions. However, mining and processing of uranium requires massive amounts of energy, impacts water supplies, as well as the thorny problem of disposing of nuclear waste (spent fuel), so nuclear fission might not be the best option for increased electric power in the future (fusion is another story, but unfortunately we’re not there yet).

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702249v

Of course the situation would be completely different IF electricity were predominantly generated from renewable sources (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.). But at present, only 11% of electricity in the US comes from renewable sources. Hydro generates an additional 7% but has its own issues, including the environmental impacts of flooding regions when dams are built, questions about the future reliability of hydro power because of climate change, and the fact that it’s already fully developed in the US with little expansion ability.

Like most things in life, the solution is going to be complicated, and not simply buying more electric cars. At its core, a fundamental need is to change the US, and world, electric generating grid to renewable sources. That will take a lot of money. Just for the US it would cost $5 trillion:

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com...e-spending-go/

Especially in the new coronavirus reality, with the world likely heading into several years of economic recession if not outright depression, and the US having to deal with trillions of dollars already spent on ‘economic recovery’, it’s hard to see where and when the money could come from to convert to renewable sources.

So unfortunately, the bottom line is that with the CURRENT US electric energy grid, one would probably be better off simply burning fossil fuel directly rather than converting it into electricity to then power a BEV. As much as it might sting to some people the think about it, in many areas of the country, and world, a BEV essentially just has a ‘long tailpipe’ back to whatever power plant is generating the electricity – which more often than not is still fossil-fuel powered. It still comes back to having to change the US electric grid and how electricity is generated. Unfortunately, we are not going to save our planet one Nissan Leaf at a time. Until then, we’re just kidding ourselves with artificial and inaccurate ‘MPGe’ numbers that might make some people feel good, but don’t reflect reality.

If we really want to save the planet - and ourselves - we need to elect political leaders with the courage, wisdom, and willingness to make the massive financial investments needed to create an electric power grid fueled by renewables such as solar, wind, and tidal sources. With Trump’s actions of cutting corporate taxes and reducing government revenues, and the increasingly short-term thinking by private companies focused on instant profits, it’s hard to see where all the money will come from without some dramatic changes.

This BEV push might make sense for California, with half of their electricity coming from renewable sources and hopefully more by the 2035 mandate. But in general, wishful thinking about BEVs doesn’t change the facts that they don’t really make sense yet for the country or world as a whole as long as the electric grid is primarily generated by fossil and nuclear fuels.

They don’t stop at the border. They were in Mexico and Canada too, but those areas are both very different in terms of climate, geography, population density and/or vegetation than California’s West Coast, which is why not as much of Canada and Mexico was as effected, and similar to why other parts of America are not effected.

He has said before that climate change is a part of it, but his original interest in electric cars was based on the realization that oil is finite and that running out of oil without a transition to electric would lead to a market collapse. Emissions was just a secondary part that has recently become a bigger issue. The cars will sell themselves the more people get in them and experience them.

Hydrogen will be a part of the equation, but we need more tech now to make hydrogen feasible. As it stands, it leads to more waste by introducing more intermediate processes. For instance, we generate hydrogen from natural gas, so it isn’t green right now. The only reason to go with hydrogen is for unique applications, but it isn’t necessary for the vast majority of passanger and basic commercial vehicles.

so is lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, gold, platinum, and palladium... re-use is only going to kick the can so far if we are continually expanding the use cases for those materials.

With any luck the San Andreas will have let go completely by then and that entire communist shithole will have slipped into the abyss where it belongs.

jeeze, did you like visit and had one bad burrito? maybe try the fish taco next time.

nothing to do with poor management and arson I’m sure

The sky is always falling for some people, it gets really old. Without getting too political, it’s sad to see how mismanaged California is. They are in bad shape in so many ways, I don’t see how unrealistic environmental laws will help.
It’s also ironic that new cars are mostly very low emissions, it would make more sense to try and get older cars and trucks off the road first. The problem with that is how do you justify it when some people can’t afford a new car, much less a new electric car. Public transportation is great when it’s done well, but it’s not very realistic in some places. They have tried to expand the light rail system in my area and it’s a slow process.
I wouldn’t be surprised if California tried to eliminate new car sales and make it too expensive to keep an older car or truck by making it difficult to pass emissions. So you have a state with high taxes, high cost of living, and electric cars only. Sprinkle in the companies that are leaving your state. Sounds like a recipe for success! [emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think you realize how many wind turbines and solar panels would be needed to power a state as big as California. Nuclear is an option but the Left doesn’t seem to like that option either. Not to mention the catastrophic failures they can have. Ask Japan how that has gone. [emoji3525]
There isn’t an easy solution to any of this, it will take a combination of many things and people working together. Eventually the only living things left in California will be Silicon Valley billionaires, “celebrities”, homeless people, and rats. Nobody should look at that state as an example of what to do. Texas has its own power grid that is very reliable for the most part. I work in that field and I’ve seen how other states fail miserably with their power grids. Larger numbers of EV’s will push most of those systems to a breaking point.
I’ve said it before, but hybrids like the Prius make the most sense as a next step towards zero emissions. That should be the priority, not all electric all the things immediately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you do your undergrad in ecology and then grad school for a ppm? Or pp then ecology?

https://globalnews.ca/news/7286199/b...fire-map-2020/

Just because it's not reported doesn't mean it isn't on fire... don't forget Canada had some pretty bad ones in years past, the 2016 Fort McMurray one was one of the worst.

The Oregon fires last week was a crazy one, completely caused by Santa Ana-like wind conditions resulting from the extreme cold in Colorado last Monday. I drove from WA back to CA last week and passed the brunt of it, including Thursday night when I stayed in Portland, home of the world's worst air quality.

The long term problem isn't forests... it's what happens years down the road. The real fear is that forests will burn and not come back, replaced by grasslands...

Raptor Jesus will save us
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...67c0161e33.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please name me more than 5 fires that started in California in August that was arson related. Or 4. Or 3.

I'll wait.

Lithium is abundant. Watch the Telsa presentation for some insight into how they are tackling these things. Recycling will be big in the future.