New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Lantanafrs2]

I'll burn my trash as soon as I'm done with my cousin. Stop the steal!

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Is it authoritarian to say I can't take my garbage down to the local lake and dump it there?

The fact that there are laws doesn't inherently make something authoritarian.

I was talking more about how you can get fined $1000 for having a car that's too loud but taking a dump on the sidewalk is socially acceptable.

California has lots and lots of laws, they just pick and choose which ones to enforce.

[Sapphireho]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I was talking more about how you can get finned $1000 for having a car that's too loud but taking a dump on the sidewalk is socially acceptable.

California has lots and lots of laws, they just pick and choose which ones to enforce.

In Nancy Pelosi's district there is a law that you have to put down a towel of some sort before you can sit naked on a bus stop or park bench.

Can't make this shit up.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I was talking more about how you can get fined $1000 for having a car that's too loud but taking a dump on the sidewalk is socially acceptable.

California has lots and lots of laws, they just pick and choose which ones to enforce.

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

In Nancy Pelosi's district there is a law that you have to put down a towel of some sort before you can sit naked on a bus stop or park bench.

Can't make this shit up.

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/

[Dirty Harry]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I might be missing the point of all of this, but aren't we already producing synthetic fuels?



https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...nvironment.php

I think the difference is the carbon used to produce the fuel is filtered directly from the atmosphere and the power used to power the refinery is powered by the wind. So if it uses no carbon to power the refinery and then the fuel created had the carbon extracted from the atmosphere, if you then burn the fuel, you are putting back what you have filtered/taken out = carbon neutral.

This is the key point from your article: “Some ethanol producers burn coal and natural gas for heat sources in the fermentation process to make fuel ethanol, while some burn corn stocks or sugar cane stocks.”

Plus land use, fertilisers etc. mentioned in the article, the Porsche process does not have this.

[Sapphireho]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

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/

My point is California politicians have zero common sense. Zero. That is why people and businesses are leaving.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

I think the difference is the carbon used to produce the fuel is filtered directly from the atmosphere and the power used to power the refinery is powered by the wind. So if it uses no carbon to power the refinery and then the fuel created had the carbon extracted from the atmosphere, if you then burn the fuel, you are putting back what you have filtered/taken out = carbon neutral.

This is the key point from your article: “Some ethanol producers burn coal and natural gas for heat sources in the fermentation process to make fuel ethanol, while some burn corn stocks or sugar cane stocks.”

Plus land use, fertilisers etc. mentioned in the article, the Porsche process does not have this.

Yeah, but those sources could use wind or other green energy just the same.

The big advantage might be land usage, but we are already exporting 10-20% of our corn each year, so even if 40% of our corn is used for biofuels, we could just use more corn for ethanol.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

My point is California politicians have zero common sense. Zero. That is why people and businesses are leaving.

It could be because land is expensive, the workforce is expensive, taxes are expensive and because other states are offering tax-payer-paid-incentives or tax breaks for businesses to come to their state. Some of these deals aren't great for the residents:


https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/29/...r-scott-walker

The details of the deal were famously written on the back of a napkin when Gou and the Republican governor first met: a $3 billion state subsidy in return for Foxconn’s $10 billion investment in a Generation 10.5 LCD manufacturing plant that would create 13,000 jobs.

The size of the subsidy was stunning. It was far and away the largest in Wisconsin history and the largest government handout to a foreign company ever given in America. Like most states, Wisconsin had given subsidies to companies in the past, but never higher than $35,000 per job. Foxconn’s subsidy was $230,000 per job.

The size of Wisconsin’s subsidy quickly began to grow, as spelled out in state legislation passed about six weeks later and implemented by the Walker administration. By December 2017, the public cost had grown to include $764 million in new tax incentives from local governments in Racine County, which is just 40 minutes south of Milwaukee where the plant was to be located. Other additions included $164 million for road and highway connections built to service the plant, plus $140 million for a new electric transmission line to Foxconn that would be paid for by all 5 million ratepayers of the public utility We Energies. With other small costs added, the total Foxconn subsidy hit $4.1 billion — a stunning $1,774 per household in Wisconsin.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ents-displaced

'They demolished my house for this?' Residents outraged by the Foxconn factory that fizzled

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...psm-story.html

Three years later, federal, state, and local governments have poured hundreds of millions into upgrading the utility and roadway infrastructure around the site, which was forcibly acquired through eminent domain. In exchange, Foxconn has built a handful of buildings, the largest of which isn’t even capable of hosting a much-smaller Generation 6 manufacturing facility — the backup plan that Foxconn has claimed it is pursuing.

Given that the company has no plans to complete the project and hire the 13,000 workers it promised, you’d expect the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation to scrap the deal. Instead, Secretary and CEO Missy Hughes says that while they can’t offer payments for the scaled-back facility, her “commitment to find a path forward remains steadfast.” In other words, the failures to date have not dissuaded Wisconsin officials.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This is true of all fuel sources technically. Pesky laws of thermodynamics.

This isn't necessary if fossil fuels are taxed to make them more expensive or are made illegal.

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.

[Sapphireho]

Fify

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It could be because land is expensive, the workforce is expensive, taxes are expensive due to decades of poor leadership in a one party state, and because other states (just like every state has done, including California) are offering tax-payer-paid-incentives or tax breaks for businesses to come to their state. California no longer does this, and in fact now has no concept of how a capitalist system works, and is making laws to chase businesses out. There are other states that have leadership just as ignorant as California, so some of these deals aren't great for the residents of these poorly ran states.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

Fify

It could be because land is expensive, the workforce is expensive, taxes are expensive due to decades of poor leadership in a one party state, and because other states (just like every state has done, including California) are offering tax-payer-paid-incentives or tax breaks for businesses to come to their state. California no longer does this, and in fact now has no concept of how a capitalist system works, and is making laws to chase businesses out. There are other states that have leadership just as ignorant as California, so some of these deals aren't great for the residents of these poorly ran states.

One party state? I don't even know what that means. We have had Republican governors. 34% of Californians voted for Trump. Only 50% of the state is registered in a party and of that number 43% are Democrat and 24% are Republican. Many states aren't swing states, so I really don't get your point. Is Idaho a two party state?

Poor leadership or is stuff expensive because there is a high standard of living with a short supply and high demand situation. Idaho's land is expensive, the workforce is expensive, taxes are expensive compared to Somalia, so does that mean that Idaho has poor leadership?

Businesses will always do what is in their best interest. If they can get away with evading taxes all together by setting up a shell company in Ireland or exporting work to foreign countries where labor is cheap then they will. If they could get away with using slaves, dumping pollutants in rivers and never paying taxes they surely would because capitalism. Asking companies to pay their fair share for an opportunity to have front door access to one of the largest markets in the world is fine by me.

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.

https://time.com/5553039/green-new-deal-california/

[Sapphireho]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

One party state? I don't even know what that means.

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.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

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.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

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.