New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

No other state, to my knowledge, has that executive order in place by 2035. Several have an order in place to reach that by 2050.

@Rampage posted last week that Massachusetts also will be banning the sale of gasoline powered cars by 2035, mirroring California's mandate -

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/m...-powered-cars/

[Tomm]

I foresee some constitutional challenges with these regulations but time will tell.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I foresee some constitutional challenges with these regulations but time will tell.

Not sure I follow, the automobile industry is heavily regulated, this really isn't any different.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not sure I follow, the automobile industry is heavily regulated, this really isn't any different.

I'm speaking on the power of government, specifically the federal side. Is it actually within the power of the federal (not state) government to regulate commerce to this extent? Its a mostly subjective question which is why I say, time will tell but I believe the issues would arise with the commerce clause and police powers if it were to be rolled out on the federal level.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I'm speaking on the power of government, specifically the federal side. Is it actually within the power of the federal (not state) government to regulate commerce to this extent?

I think it will boil down to whether or not the manufacturers want to fight it. They are pretty much throwing in the towel already because of what they'll need to do to meet global mandates.

All the current mandates are at the state level so until the Feds step in, I guess we won't know

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think it will boil down to whether or not the manufacturers want to fight it. They are already pretty much throwing in the towel already because of what they'll need to do to meet global mandates.

All the current mandates are at the state level so until the Feds step in, I guess we won't know

Agreed.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I'm speaking on the power of government, specifically the federal side. Is it actually within the power of the federal (not state) government to regulate commerce to this extent? Its a mostly subjective question which is why I say, time will tell but I believe the issues would arise with the commerce clause and police powers if it were to be rolled out on the federal level.

I'll agree with Dadhawk's statements and add a few things. Tax laws and product regulations are not my forte, but it seems like states have imposed their own taxes and bans of chemicals, products, etc for a long time. Obviously Trump revoked California's waiver to set its own emission standards, and that issue is being challenged in court, but California could probably resort to other methods to get rid of ICEs. One method could be taxing them so high that no one would buy them. That strategy worked with cigarettes (and California isn't even the worse state for tobacco taxes), and it could work with ICEs, as an extension of the Federal Gas-Guzzler tax. Automakers seem to be interested in moving forward.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/c...pollution.html

Defying Trump, 5 Automakers Lock In a Deal on Greenhouse Gas Pollution

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/28/us-c...e-causes-.html

California taxes proving hazardous to cigarette sales

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think it will boil down to whether or not the manufacturers want to fight it. They are pretty much throwing in the towel already because of what they'll need to do to meet global mandates.

All the current mandates are at the state level so until the Feds step in, I guess we won't know

1. Thanks for bringing the table and correcting my info.
2. Going electric is good for the business. It creates a differentiation when comparing to current vehicles and also brings newcomers from the big cities which were dropping vehicle ownership.
3. If the petrochemical companies are smart, they can relocate their products and still be profitable (if not more profitable). This will be a huge challenge for them.

[WolfpackS2k]

Some of the regulations brought down in this country by the EPA has been operating outside of the bounds of the constitution for decades. I'm not saying the effects have been for better or worse, I'm just stating the reality. Unelected bureaucrats aren't supposed to be able to wield such power.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Some of the regulations brought down in this country by the EPA has been operating outside of the bounds of the constitution for decades. I'm not saying the effects have been for better or worse, I'm just stating the reality. Unelected bureaucrats aren't supposed to be able to wield such power.

Which part of the constitution?

[soundman98]

this is ironic.
https://jalopnik.com/theres-a-caveat...les-1845938567

yes, it's less recurring damage to the environment, but it's still damaging the environment.

[Irace86.2.0]

https://carbuzz.com/news/evs-just-ou...rce=apple.news

In an effort to reduce emissions across the globe, many countries will ban sales of new combustion-powered cars. In the UK, this will come into force in 2030, though automakers will still be allowed to sell some hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles until 2035. Norway, on the other hand, is banning sales of combustion cars as early as 2025. The country is already on track to achieve this target, too, because 54 percent of all new cars sold in Norway in 2020 were fully electric, up from 42.1 percent in 2019.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

this is ironic.
https://jalopnik.com/theres-a-caveat...les-1845938567

yes, it's less recurring damage to the environment, but it's still damaging the environment.

These issues are always a consideration. Hopefully they can find a balance. The good news is that we have a lot of lithium on the planet, so we may not need to force our way into delicate ecosystems like this example. Moreover, lithium may not be a necessary material for future batteries, or at minimum, for all future batteries.

From this article we get this quote, which is what we currently know of, so it will only grow from here:

Owing to continuing exploration, identified lithium resources have increased substantially worldwide and total about 80 million tons. Lithium resources in the United States—from continental brines, geothermal brines, hectorite, oilfield brines, and pegmatites—are 6.8 million tons.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mc...20-lithium.pdf

There is less than 300 million vehicles in the US. Some BEVs have large batteries like the 100-200 kW variety in the top tier Teslas, Cybertruck and Hummer and some have small batteries like the Golf EV, BMW i3, Nissan Leaf, etc that are sub 50 kW. Battery size in hybrids and hydrogen cars is typically sub 5 kW, which will likely exist alongside BEVs for decades. We also use lithium in batteries for grid storage, computers, phones, ceramics, etc, so our total resources won't go just to car batteries. Regardless, at 6.8 million tons, we currently have 13,600 million pounds of lithium that we know of in the US. That is enough lithium to give each car 45 pounds of pure lithium. How much lithium is in the average sized battery?

That number depends on who your asking. I have read that a 65 kW EV would have 22 pounds, but numbers vary. This prospect doesn't look good. Even if all batteries were recycled and 80% of the lithium could be recovered, then we still would need to find more reserves or do what America does best, which is use more of the world's resources than our fair share. At 80 million tons of lithium worldwide, that is 160,000 million pounds of lithium or 160 billion pounds, or 20 pounds of lithium per person, if the global population is 8 billion, which is barely enough for a Tesla for everyone. We would need to use smaller batteries in vehicles, different batteries that don't rely on lithium, find more lithium, shrink our population, etc to replace every vehicle with an EV.

Clearly, the world is doomed.

[Irace86.2.0]

It seems like Tesla plans to get lithium from clay, which might be different than the 80 million tons reported in the .gov article. Lithium, according to the presentation above, is so abundant that it isn't an issue to Elon Musk, especially if you believe his take on getting it easily from clay. I don't agree with this guy on a few points like his opinion that Tesla hasn't thoroughly explored lithium. Uhh, hell no. I'm sure they aren't just leaving out lithium from their product development, but every other element is under a microscope. It was an odd statement. Nevertheless, this was in interesting exchange.

Looks like the government is researching clay too.

https://www.usgs.gov/energy-and-mine...center_objects

More...

https://www.jadecove.com/research/teslasaltclay

News...more output and statements about lithium from clay...

https://auto.economictimes.indiatime...ction/78301845

https://www.reuters.com/article/albe...-idINL4N2JI2KS