New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[funwheeldrive]

I'm so glad that California has someone brave like Newsom in charge who sees the very real and immediate threat of climate change. Hopefully this is the first of many steps to prevent ignorant people from destroying our planet.

Newsom is a big part of why California leads the rest of the country.

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I'm so glad that California has someone brave like Newsom in charge who sees the very real and immediate threat of climate change. Hopefully this is the first of many steps to prevent ignorant people from destroying our planet.

Newsom is a big part of why California leads the rest of the country.

Very well said. Thank you!

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think it is clear from that article that hydrogen is clearly not an ideal solution.

Chemical batteries aren't an ideal solution either. I think it's a bit unfair to compare what batteries could look like in 10 years to what hydrogen-based energy storage looks like right now. Both need further development and investment.

The difference between them is Hydrogen doesn't have a rich playboy face willing to say crazy things to make people excited about it.

Oh, and that Hydrogen-based energy storage fits better within our current society/economy/infrastructure architecture than chemical battery storage. Changing machines is actually pretty easy. Changing people is much, much harder.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I'm so glad that California has someone brave like Newsom in charge who sees the very real and immediate threat of climate change. Hopefully this is the first of many steps to prevent ignorant people from destroying our planet.

Newsom is a big part of why California leads the rest of the country.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Why is that?

They don't have garages.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Chemical batteries aren't an ideal solution either. I think it's a bit unfair to compare what batteries could look like in 10 years to what hydrogen-based energy storage looks like right now. Both need further development and investment.

The difference between them is Hydrogen doesn't have a rich playboy face willing to say crazy things to make people excited about it.

Oh, and that Hydrogen-based energy storage fits better within our current society/economy/infrastructure architecture than chemical battery storage. Changing machines is actually pretty easy. Changing people is much, much harder.

The physics doesn't change in 10 years. Either we store energy directly, or we convert it to ammonia/hydrogen then convert it to hydrogen (if ammonia) then convert it to energy for use or storage. That process is inherently less efficient and would require more utilities to generate power to do the same job. The only reason to do that is so hydrogen could do a job batteries alone couldn't do, but this is a shrinking proposition year by year.

With batteries, we have the system in place to already fuel these cars at home. Adding supercharger stations is incredibly easy in comparison to hydrogen fuel stations. Even if ammonia takes off, we would need to have maybe hundreds of 2m sized 'cracking' reactors at each fuel station, or something bigger, to process the ammonia, or we are left with shipping liquid hydrogen from a 'cracking' plant to the fueling stations, which ammonia avoids shipping large quantities of liquid hydrogen in transoceanic tankers, but is still not ideal at the local level.

With batteries, all we need is more, green utilities, and we need batteries. Tesla has laid the groundwork for other manufactures to follow where they can greatly reduce the factory footprint and carbon footprint of generating batteries, while increasing battery production rates, all from local resources.

Right now, we lack the infrastructure to produce ammonia or hydrogen in a carbon neutral way, nor do we have the fuel stations in place, nor do we have the means to rapidly scale these systems and some of them might be economical, as described below:

https://www.carboncommentary.com/blo...carbon-economy

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

They don't have garages.

People can charge and store their cars in parking garages that are better thermoregulated, and then they can summon their car using Autopilot. Just like setting their clock to wake up, they can program their car to arrive at their door at a given time. This technology exists now, and Tesla is set to roll out a full beta version of their full Autopilot system in a few months, but regardless of that timeline, the feature will undoubtedly be available in 15 years.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

People can charge and store their cars in parking garages that are better thermoregulated, and then they can summon their car using Autopilot. Just like setting their clock to wake up, they can program their car to arrive at their door at a given time. This technology exists now, and Tesla is set to roll out a full beta version of their full Autopilot system in a few months, but regardless of that timeline, the feature will undoubtedly be available in 15 years.

LOL

You don't get out of the city much do you ?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

LOL

You don't get out of the city much do you?

I live in Santa Rosa, CA. Stand in the center of the city where hwy 101 and 12 meet and drive 3-5 miles in any direction and you will find fields and typically cows. Along highway 101, a person will be in and out of Santa Rosa in three miles. We have three buildings with ten or more floors (10, 10 and 14). By most metrics, it is a medium city just larger than a large town.

Just for transparency, I grew up on 50 acres in the countryside of Sebastopol with two horses, a pony and several cows. Going from the rural area into "town" meant driving 10-15 minutes into a 7k person township of Sebastopol and another 15 minutes to Santa Rosa.

The average person drives 29.2 miles per day. Wyoming was the most, and in Wyoming, the average person drives 16k miles per year or somewhere around 45 miles per day. The average commute is 16 miles to work in one direction in the US, so maybe it is 25 miles in Wyoming. I don't see any problem with the car parking in a town or township garage then picking up the person at home then dropping them off at work, then charging at the work garage or the storage garage, and then pick them up to go back home and then back to the garage again for overnight storage and charging.

With ride sharing, the car could pick someone up from a graveyard shift and drop them off in the countryside before picking up someone else in the morning and taking them into town. There are all types of possibilities too like garage sharing, where someone can rent out an extra space in their garage and also provide charging for that vehicle.

My point is that there are solutions.

https://www.carinsurance.com/Article...-by-state.aspx

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I live in Santa Rosa, CA. Stand in the center of the city where hwy 101 and 12 meet and drive 3-5 miles in any direction and you will find fields and typically cows. Along highway 101, a person will be in and out of Santa Rosa in three miles. We have three buildings with ten or more floors (10, 10 and 14). By most metrics, it is a medium city just larger than a large town.

Just for transparency, I grew up on 50 acres in the countryside of Sebastopol with two horses, a pony and several cows. Going from the rural area into "town" meant driving 10-15 minutes into a 7k person township of Sebastopol and another 15 minutes to Santa Rosa.

The average person drives 29.2 miles per day. Wyoming was the most, and in Wyoming, the average person drives 16k miles per year or somewhere around 45 miles per day. The average commute is 16 miles to work in one direction in the US, so maybe it is 25 miles in Wyoming. I don't see any problem with the car parking in a town or township garage then picking up the person at home then dropping them off at work, then charging at the work garage or the storage garage, and then pick them up to go back home and then back to the garage again for overnight storage and charging.

With ride sharing, the car could pick someone up from a graveyard shift and drop them off in the countryside before picking up someone else in the morning and taking them into town. There are all types of possibilities too like garage sharing, where someone can rent out an extra space in their garage and also provide charging for that vehicle.

My point is that there are solutions.

https://www.carinsurance.com/Article...-by-state.aspx

Your scenario is pretty much the reason for owning a car....which is to avoid the hassle of that scenario. The difference between owning a car and not owning a car in that scenario is that now you have to deal with getting your car via extra stops instead of just going straight to work and then straight back home via rideshare or taxi.

There are solutions yes but are they viable solutions? Are people going to utilize those solutions and are they going to be hassled by it.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

Your scenario is pretty much the reason for owning a car....which is to avoid the hassle of that scenario. The difference between owning a car and not owning a car in that scenario is that now you have to deal with getting your car via extra stops instead of just going straight to work and then straight back home via rideshare or taxi.

There are solutions yes but are they viable solutions? Are people going to utilize those solutions and are they going to be hassled by it.

There are no extra stops. You wake up and the car is in the driveway. It takes you to work and home. The car is autonomous, so it'll park itself back at the garage. I just said it could be made more efficient, but it isn't necessary.

[WildCard600]

I look forward to hearing how much the monthly rent to one of these autonomous parking garage spaces would be to make it economically viable to whoever built it.

Considering how much it currently costs to rent a "dumb" space I imagine it's going to be hilariously absurd.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The physics doesn't change in 10 years. Either we store energy directly, or we convert it to ammonia/hydrogen then convert it to hydrogen (if ammonia) then convert it to energy for use or storage. That process is inherently less efficient and would require more utilities to generate power to do the same job. The only reason to do that is so hydrogen could do a job batteries alone couldn't do, but this is a shrinking proposition year by year.

With batteries, we have the system in place to already fuel these cars at home. Adding supercharger stations is incredibly easy in comparison to hydrogen fuel stations. Even if ammonia takes off, we would need to have maybe hundreds of 2m sized 'cracking' reactors at each fuel station, or something bigger, to process the ammonia, or we are left with shipping liquid hydrogen from a 'cracking' plant to the fueling stations, which ammonia avoids shipping large quantities of liquid hydrogen in transoceanic tankers, but is still not ideal at the local level.

With batteries, all we need is more, green utilities, and we need batteries. Tesla has laid the groundwork for other manufactures to follow where they can greatly reduce the factory footprint and carbon footprint of generating batteries, while increasing battery production rates, all from local resources.

Right now, we lack the infrastructure to produce ammonia or hydrogen in a carbon neutral way, nor do we have the fuel stations in place, nor do we have the means to rapidly scale these systems and some of them might be economical, as described below:

https://www.carboncommentary.com/blo...carbon-economy

Every time you charge and discharge a battery you lose ~40% (~20% each) of the energy to heat generated by internal resistance. And that's not including fast charging, which is far less efficient. It's not "direct" storage of electricity, it's still storing it by chemical means, and there are still significant losses.

Then you need the cooling/heating circuits when the vehicle is not even running to maintain the batteries in certain conditions.

We also lack the infrastructure to produce electricity to produce batteries or the energy to put into them in a carbon-neutral way. The electricity we do make needs to be used on production. If you were to store that in battery banks you are accepting yet another ~40% loss.

Adding a supercharger station is not incredibly easy btw, and you need significantly more of them compared to fueling stations to service the same number of vehicles. I think we talked about this in another thread.

Then you have to look at the whole car. Batteries are heavy, and in order to get good range/performance you need a lot of them. Heavier cars cost more energy to build, use more consumables like tires (which take energy to produce) and put more stress on roadways (which take energy to maintain). The total energy needed to move a heavier vehicle is greater therefore absolute losses from discharging or regenerative braking are going to be higher than a lighter vehicle.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

There are no extra stops. You wake up and the car is in the driveway. It takes you to work and home. The car is autonomous, so it'll park itself back at the garage. I just said it could be made more efficient, but it isn't necessary.

Have you ever worked with autonomous machines? Fun fact, the smarter the machine, the less likely it is to do exactly what you want it to do. It's essentially like perpetually having a teenager that has the ability to make decisions without really thinking through the consequences. One day, your car just doesn't show up, because it forgot to wake up, or drove into a ditch because it didn't see that ice on the road, or broke down and sat in the middle of the road crying for help. Now you gotta go find your car, pay for the damages it caused, get it fixed up, and scold it while it sits there staring at you blankly because it's a car and it don't GAF.