New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

45 is what the CRX got. When you are blue collar I guess you roll the dice on value VS crash safety of a new car

Yea, that's always in play. Heck, a 2024 vehicle is going to be safer than my 2013 FRS, thanks to additional nannies and cameras, etc, etc.

Ultimately not everyone can go out (or wants to go out) and buy a new car until they actually have to, or maybe never (choosing to always by used, and sometimes REALLY used cars).

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Personally, I much prefer the Chevy Volt drivetrain to a typical hybrid drive train. I still find the Volt battery lacking though.

What I would prefer is a PHEV with a 200 mile electric range, and a Volt style generator so that the vehicle is always (well 99% of the time) running of the electric engines even when burning fuel.

(And, yes, I know the Volt has some situations where the gas engine assists with driving the wheels)

As a day to day commutor, grocery getter I could get away with something that only got 100 miles in cold weather. I would buy it too if they were out there at a decent price. I am not paying 30K for a vehicle to fit that role unless it can fill a lot of other roles for me.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Curious of @Irace86.2.0 's opinion on this.

https://www.thedrive.com/features/to...-evs-heres-why

It's what, in my view, anyone with half a brain already knew.

We had the hybrid discussion below:

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...postcount=1584

Most hybrids have a 10-30% improvement in fuel efficiency, but EVs have 3x the fuel efficiency, so it isn't really a comparison why we are moving to EVs. The argument by the article is that we could move more cars to battery vehicles if we use one EV battery for multiple hybrid batteries, and this is true if we had bottlenecks in battery material supply chains that pushed the cost of EVs up, but that is yet to be seen, and we have mandates for EVs from governments, so getting people into battery vehicles faster isn't an issue of battery supply. Hybrids have been around for a long time, and their popularity hasn't really grown. It wasn't until Tesla showed that EVs could be economical and have better performance that hybrids started to be built to appeal to people wanting a performance improvement and not just an economy improvement (contrast the CRZ hybrid for lackluster performance for a mild economy improvement to the Rave4 Prime, or compare the Prime PHEV to the hybrid).

I've said this before, but I think there is a place for manufactures to make PHEVs for many people who need the range. Their batteries can be big enough to give them 50-70 miles of range, which is good enough for most people's daily needs, while still having the ICE backup. I still think the majority of people will just choose an EV because it will be less complicated, it will likely have better performance and driving characteristics with having more frunk/trunk space and cabin room than comparable PHEVs. Compare the price of a hybrid Rav4 and Prime and the EV bZ4X, and the Prime is more expensive than the EV and weighs only 30lbs less, yet the EV is AWD and the Prime is FWD.

Again, the premise of the article is that:

--We could get people into more fuel efficient vehicles faster. Well, yes, this is true. They could say all new vehicles would need to be at least PHEVs by a sooner date or increase the targets from only a fraction EVs to that same fraction plus the rest can only be PHEVs, so 100% plug-in, but they can mandate all electric too. I would like to see them push PHEVs, so we have 100% plug-in-capable, so no new ICEs are sold, but I don't know if this is too aggressive for the industry to adapt.

EPA officials calculate that their proposal would require between 54% and 60% of sales of 2030 models and 67% of 2032 models to be zero-emissions. In comparison, the California mandate, adopted last August by the Air Resources Board, requires 35% of new 2026 cars sold in California to be zero-emissions, increasing to 68% in 2030, until reaching 100% in 2035.

About 19% of new cars sold in California last year were zero-emissions (1).

--EVs are expensive, so PHEVs would be better. As I showed, they are about the same as a PHEV.

--Batteries will get more expensive to make because of material cost bottlenecks, so PHEVs will be cheaper. This is speculation, and we typically see the opposite where prices of production drop, as volume increases. We will likely see more lithium production come online like what Tesla is doing to make battery-grade lithium. Refining is the bottleneck, not lithium mining/supply.

--We need PHEVs until we can build out the grid and infrastructure. The growth of EVs is still small. Even if we were mandating all new vehicles be EVs, we are growing only 6% per year, and maybe less if some EV owners are replacing cars with EVs. Every home has a charger in one form or another, and we can add more superchargers to the grid faster than we will need them, so it is mostly about building green energy infrastructure, but this is only going to happen when there is demand, so utilities aren't sitting around doing nothing. I don't see this as an issue. Wind and solar are the cheapest and fastest forms of energy to build, and we can build all types of non-lithium-ion-based storage systems. I don't know that we need PHEVs because of the grid, especially if 90% of their propulsion is suppose to come from the grid.

The best case for PHEVs is high mileage users and trucks, in which case, I'm onboard using them over larger batteries.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The best case for PHEVs is high mileage users and trucks, in which case, I'm onboard using them over larger batteries.

I have a lot of interest in a hybrid truck but with everything going on I am holding out to see what the future holds with BEV trucks. I'd like to make some kind of decision in the next couple years.

[Irace86.2.0]

So Texas is making so much power from wind and solar at peak generation and during peak use that the grid can't disperse the power fast enough. They will either need to upgrade their grid, or they will need to work on local (to the energy generation sites) storage solutions, so they don't waste energy.

One form of local storage is battery storage in BEVs by charging them during peak times. There are other storage solutions like the Rondo battery, to name one of many solutions.

This article highlights two problems: the need for comprehensive improvements to electric grids, and growth/supply of energy infrastructure can outpace demand. Many people continue to suggest that there is no way we can grow the grid fast enough to accommodate BEVs, but this highlights the fact that growth can outpace demand, and that BEVs could be a part of the solution through local energy storage.

***The quotes from the article assume no investment in the grid, but continued investment in energy production.***

Texas solar and wind are setting records, and the state’s grid can’t handle it

https://electrek.co/2023/07/13/texas-solar-wind-grid/

Texas solar and wind are going to double by 2035, but if the state’s grid isn’t upgraded, then all that power is going to go to waste, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Our analysis shows that on days with more wind and solar generation and strong system electricity demand, limited transmission line capacity restricted wind and solar generation flows, and curtailments occurred. These types of curtailments account for 36% of the projected curtailments in 2035, which could be reduced by upgrading the transmission system.

In 2022, ERCOT curtailed 5% of its total available wind generation and 9% of total available utility-scale solar generation. By 2035, however, the EIA projects that wind curtailments in ERCOT could increase to 13% of total available wind generation, and solar curtailments could reach 19%.

The Texas grid isn’t connected to any other US grid, so it can’t shed or share load where there is a supply-demand imbalance for electricity – and that’s why it had such major problems in the Big Freeze of 2021.

[WolfpackS2k]

Can't use liquid salts? I don't follow it much but I thought that's what solar plants did for storage. Hell, could also do water pumping....though on that scale...nevermind, lol

[Irace86.2.0]

Seems like axial flux motors like the Koenigsegg below and Mercedes below might be a big hit with enthusiasts in sports cars. About a third the weight of a radial motor, but might require shifting a few gears, which could be ideal for some car enthusiasts.

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...5&postcount=10

https://www.thedrive.com/news/why-ax...g-deal-for-evs

[Lantanafrs2]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/27/ford...er-losses.html

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/27/ford...er-losses.html

No real surprise there. A lot of capital layout to get this up and running. Of course, the longest pole in the tent remains the charging network for long distance travel, and renters.

The acceptance of the NACS (the Tesla plug) by the major OEMs helps, as well as the recent announcement of the coalition to create a charging network for both standards.

If this all comes to fruition I think it will be a different environment in two to three years.

[WolfpackS2k]

I knew that all EVs fell short of their published range, but this seems a little dishonest:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates...tteries-range/

[Irace86.2.0]

My experience in a rented Model 3 was that it fell short of its advertised range, but it did so for the same reason my K24 turbo BRZ consistently falls short of its published range; heavy right foot

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I knew that all EVs fell short of their published range, but this seems a little dishonest

Not actually true. Just like EPA ratings on ICE, the answer is "it depends". For example a LYRIQ just exceeded it's EPA published rating in a 70MPH real road test. Others have done that as well.

Mileage varies. MY FRS drives the same route for 99.5% of its driving miles, yet no single tank is ever the same as far as range. It can vary as much as 30 miles per tank above/below the average.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking potential range here (<MPG calculated> * <full tank>) not the amount I actually drove between fill-ups. And yes, I do track that.

[Lantanafrs2]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/28/ford...ns-on-evs.html

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/28/ford...ns-on-evs.html

I don't know how fast they can ramp up hybrid options. Typically these plans take years, so hopefully they are running them in parallel.

I've said it before: I see the masses moving to EVs, but there will likely be a place for larger battery (than what's conventional) PHEVs for many people for years to come until charging infrastructure builds.