Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB - New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

- Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035 (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142501)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnalogMan (Post 3392866)

Yes, of course you're right that it takes more energy in than you get out whenever you transform one form of energy into another.

My point regarding the Porsche 'miracle fuel' is that it's not really a 'miracle'. Electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen was discovered 1789. The Sabatier reaction to make methane from hydrogen was discovered in 1897. My comment was that this basic chemistry has been around for a long time. The twist with Porsche's could be if you powered the reactions with renewable energy, theoretically it could be a carbon-neutral form of liquid fuel for IC engines. But if it was manufactured with energy off a standard power grid, it would seem to be pointless (it would be more efficient to just use the fossil fuel directly in a car rather than generate electricity with it to then get hydrogen from water and complex it with carbon etc.).

Of course, you could also use renewable sources (wind, solar, tidal, etc.) to generate electricity to then charge batteries in BEVs. But at the current state of technological development, IC engines and liquid fuels still have several advantages over BEVs. Such as, greater range (not everyone can afford the $70,000 for a Tesla S 100 kWh), refueling time (3 minutes at a gas pump beats even a 'fast charger'), and may be more practical for people who don't have ready access to a charging station (such as those who live in apartments).

Taxing fossil fuels more heavily is an economic option but not a technological solution. Unless the tax revenues were somehow used to pay for converting the power grid to renewables, build more charging stations, and and subsidize BEV purchases for people who can't afford them (great idea but could you imagine the U.S. government actually doing that?), all it would do is put a disproportionate financial burden on those least able to afford it.

If gas suddenly was taxed to $10 a gallon tomorrow, or was made illegal, what would everyone who cannot afford a BEV do? Mass transit is the standard go-to answer, but most people can't get to where they work using mass transit. Even if somehow magically everyone was given a BEV, net use of fossil fuels wouldn't change that much right now, because 2/3 of electricity in the U.S. is generated with fossil fuels (natural gas and coal).

Then there's also the elephant in the room that the current electric distribution grid couldn't handle the additional loads if everyone suddenly had a BEV instead of an IC car. The cost of expanding electricity distribution capacity is usually not factored in to the price of going to an all-electric future.

The ultimate answer which underlies any prospects for a future for humanity is the need for the electric power grid to be generated from renewable sources and not fossil fuels. That's when BEVs truly make sense, when the batteries are charged by wind, solar, etc. and not from generating plants burning natural gas or coal. If we want to save the planet, and save ourselves and the future of most forms of life in the process, we will have to stop getting most of our energy from burning carbon-based sources dug out of the ground.

Unfortunately, the ultimate pesky reality is always the same: money. I've seen estimates that the cost to convert the U.S. electric grid to renewables is about $5 trillion. Cost over-runs and the usual graft and corruption with major projects like that would probably increase it substantially. The payback time would be far longer than most corporations could bear (shareholder pressure is fierce to maximize short-term profits), so it would take some kind of government funded effort.

Given the massive long-term damage being done to the world economy thanks to the pandemic, that won't be easy. The U.S. is already adding trillions of dollars worth of long-term debt with economic bailouts that must be paid back. It's hard to see where an extra $5 trillion+ could come from.

I'd love to see our power grid generated entirely from renewable sources. But there's no easy one-click solution to achieve this. If there was, it would have happened. That's always the problem with utopian ideals - they run into the painful brick wall of economic realities. As long as this country (and most of the world) remain fundamentally capitalist where profit is the most important (and often only) priority, money will decide what happens and when.

There isn't really much of an elephant in the room because no one is expecting to switch our entire system overnight. The switch is going to take 30+ years. It could be accelerated if there is a need, desire or push from nature, people or the government, but the projected trajectory is decades away. There is time.

Money really isn't an issue; it is demand. It might cost $5 trillion to switch our system like you say, but what will it cost to not make the switch now, but later? Making the switch is inevitable, so it is just a matter of figuring out when we want to get there. If we wait then we could be facing the economic costs of more floods, rising sea levels on coastline cities, extreme climate complications, air quality problems, etc. We might need to spend to save. Also, the economy is an ecosystem of give and take. Stimulating the economy with change and spur investment in new fields in green technologies that lead to economic prosperity and growth. Name a business that didn't first spend money before it made money. There is no need for a doom and gloom outcome.

California is pushing forward with renewables. Other countries have done the same. It isn't an impossible task.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphireho (Post 3392896)

Wow. You sound like an ignorant fool.

Comparing Idaho to one of the stupidest counties on earth: was that supposed to insult me?

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid nursing student.

Uhh, why the ad hominems? Why don't you just stick to making an argument.

And what county would that be because I didn't mention any counties. I mentioned a country called Somalia, which is a place I mentioned because it is often a location where businesses will set up factories for cheap labor. I never said they were stupid, nor would I, so if you are taking that as an insult, it is because you are insulting Somalia, and obviously you are unable to get my point, so let me explain it again. If you think having cheaper wages, less taxes and having cheaper land is the best thing for businesses like Idaho does compared to California then you must also think Somalia is doing a better job than Idaho because they too have cheaper wages, less taxes and has cheaper land. Do you think that Mexico, China, Taiwan, Somalia, etc are equally as better and smarter for creating a pro-business market than Idaho, as Idaho is better and smarter than California? Do you get the fallacy in your logic yet?

BTW, California's GDP is 1st in the US at 2.9 trillion and Idaho's is 42nd at 77 billion. If we compare per capita then California is 6th/7th, depending on the inclusion of DC, and Idaho is 46th. But you know, California should really be looking to Idaho for business advice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3392894)

You say California doesn't do stuff to lure businesses to come to their state, through what, low or no business taxes or tax-payer incentives? I'm sure those exist too, not in a broad sweeping way of course, but California has invested heavily in public projects and green technologies, among other things. Instead of just giving tax payer money to businesses or eliminating taxes, California has reinvested in companies with grants and projects.

California is ranked last in Cost of Doing Business and Business Friendliness in 2019.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amer...ness-2019.html

Quote:

Cost of Doing Business (350 points)
We look at the competitiveness of each state’s tax climate, as well as state-sponsored incentives that can lower the cost of doing business. Utility costs can add up to a huge expense for business, and they vary widely by state. We also consider the cost of wages, as well as rental costs for office and industrial space.

Business Friendliness (175 points)
We evaluate the legal and regulatory climates of each state, as well as overall economic freedom for businesses and individuals.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/08/how-...s-in-2019.html

This is why Cali is losing major corporations. You can value what you want, but when the business environment turns to shit companies will take it on down the road. We are seeing that happen.

Always amusing to see someone attempting to defend the mess that is California. Most of the disasters that occur in CA are manmade (and I'm not referring to anything related to an invisible odorless trace gas).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3392894)

You say California doesn't do stuff to lure businesses to come to their state, through what, low or no business taxes or tax-payer incentives?

You do realize that, in a practical sense, no corporation in the history of corporations has ever paid a corporate income tax, right? Ultimately, you and I pay corporate income taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3392850)

Every state has weird laws. In high school, during our mock congress, at one point each state had to say an amusing law. I recall one town made it illegal to walk downtown with ice cream. Another city made it illegal to walk into town with your pants tucked into your boots. I don’t want to explain why.

Here are some examples, but there are hundreds that can be found online, and I challenge you to name a state that isn’t authoritarian by your lose definition.

https://www.usatoday.com/list/news/n...-0fec193d389e/

I'm not talking about "weird" laws. I'm talking about the leadership of California interpreting/enforcing the law as they please, and acting against the will of the people who they are supposed to represent. When you account for costs of living California has the highest poverty rate in America despite being the 5th largest economy in the world. It's completely overbearing and the government there has become so inflated that they cannot survive without acting like a financial leech on everything they touch. How long have you lived in California, just curious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomm (Post 3392922)

California is ranked last in Cost of Doing Business and Business Friendliness in 2019.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/amer...ness-2019.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/08/how-...s-in-2019.html

This is why Cali is losing major corporations. You can value what you want, but when the business environment turns to shit companies will take it on down the road. We are seeing that happen.

It has always been this way. Businesses just needed to come here because this was a hotbed of software engineers and innovation. This was also one of the largest markets, so setting up shop next to buyers made logistical sense. Companies that are leaving California may also be the type of companies that eventually leave other states for Mexico or China for cheaper labor, less unions and less taxes. Corporations will do what is in their interests to maximize profits. The only thing that will effect these behaviors is public sentiment/demand and legislation. The US does this by setting up tariffs on importing products. Should California set up a tariff that cars, for instance, sold but not produced in California is subject to a tariff?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k (Post 3392946)

It is always amusing to see someone single out California. It is cliche.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dadhawk (Post 3392951)

You do realize that, in a practical sense, no corporation in the history of corporations has ever paid a corporate income tax, right? Ultimately, you and I pay corporate income taxes.

Awww, they just pass on everything to the customer, so we should do what, give them more?

Where does it stop? We provide tax relief and incentives. We give land away. We provide corporate welfare by giving tax payer’s money to these businesses. They take all the handouts and then keep the money and the profits. They outsource jobs, try to prevent unions, raise executives bonuses, offer crap benefits. The income gap keeps growing.

I really don’t get this line of thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive (Post 3392970)

Interpreting the law as they please. Example? Acting against the will of what people? Example?

I work with plenty of coworkers who were traveling nurses who settled here because the pay is so good, even relative to the high cost of living. This isn’t true of everyone. Many areas are saturated because demand is so high and housing supply is so low that workers aren’t staying here. My area has laws to avoid urban sprawl by limiting development. Even if it was more open, housing development is going to be low in a hot housing market that can burst like it did in 2008. There is a simple supply and demand here. Eventually that balance will flatten or even reverse. This is normal market conditions and isn’t a reflection of poor policies. It is natural corrections. What would you suggest?

Lived here my whole life. I have family in other states like Georgia, Idaho, Colorado, Texas, South Dakota and as south as San Diego and north as Mendocino.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3392983)

I was referring to corporate taxes only. Corporate welfare, land giveaways, etc we are in agreement. I'm not a fan of any of that. No company should be big enough to fail, and taxpayers should only subsidize for-profit businesses with their purchases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dadhawk (Post 3392996)

Aww but what is the difference? No corporation has ever paid for their own land, nor has any corporation not been given public money because they all pass this on to the consumer if they don’t. In fact, corporations never fail because we bail them out when ghe market takes a dump with our corporate welfare programs, but we have to, or they will just pass the money onto the consumer.

How do you distinguish between taxation and other things highlighted above using the same logic that the consumer will ultimately pay for everything they impose?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 (Post 3392979)

I'm not mad that California has a massive workforce. I think its great but I also think that those tech companies can relocate and they won't have any trouble filling seats. My point is, if the state keeps pushing these major corporations out of state, their GDPs are not going to sustain. Especially when you consider the top contributors of Cali's GDP. California can do whatever they want but consistently over-regulating businesses is not going to attract new start ups nor sustain old giants. California only offers certain incentives that are only applicable to certain industries that promote the generally accepted narrative at the time. You took that the entire wrong direction, I want less regulation, not more. If you can't find the benefits of deregulation on the internet, I can't help you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomm (Post 3393011)

California also ranked 1st in “technology and innovation” and “access to capital”. Of course all the computer scientists, developers and engineers can leave California and set up shop somewhere else. Other states might have open arms for California businesses, but not for Californians to come with those businesses. We see this with businesses and people moving to Texas or Georgia like with those liberal Hollywood folks working in Georgia’s film industry. No one wants their red state turning blue.

California isn’t pushing corporations out of the state. If they are leaving then it is because those corporations have a better offer or want to go to a state where they can pollute more, pay workers less, not have to pay workers healthcare or whatever. Again, the same thing that is driving any corporations to other states will also drive them to other countries. It is a slippery slope. What corporations are leaving?

It is the internet. There is just as much information about the problems of deregulations.