New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Wally86

I've lived in plenty of places in europe and asia and every takes trains to go any kind of long distances. Heck, even some short distance trips were easier by train than car. It's just a different style of living on the other side of the earth.

You sure love rebuttals and not changing your mind

I change my mind super fast in the face of compelling evidence. I have no wish to hold onto false beliefs.

Like I said, there is a huge gap between the US (2%) and Norway (54%) that can not be explained by the differences in our driving patterns, which are similar for the vast majority of Americans. As Soundman98 mentions, it is because of incentives that Norwegians are buying electric cars, but if electric cars were truly prohibitive for their needs then there would be huge public dissent, and people would buy ICE or used cars.

We can say the same thing about California. Why does California have half of the registered EVs in the country, but they only have around 10% of the population? Do Californias commute less than the rest of the country? The difference between California and the state with the most miles driven, is 20 miles a day, which is less than 10% of the charge of the smallest batteries in cars like the Model 3, Leaf or Bolt. Do Californians not go on road trips as much as people from other states? Well, it helps that California hasn't blocked Tesla from selling cars in their state. In fact, the Tesla Model 3 is the top selling car in the state, ahead of the Corolla, Camry, Accord and Civic, and part of that is from incentives, but also because EVs are embraced in the state, which is probably also the case in Norway.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...sh-in-question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_...rship_disputes

https://www.bts.gov/statistical-prod...le-trips-state

https://electrek.co/2020/05/29/tesla...ar-california/

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Like I said, there is a huge gap between the US (2%) and Norway (54%) that can not be explained by the differences in our driving patterns...

I think it would be interesting to see how percentage of EV owners only own an EV, particularly in California. It may be high, I don't know.

Also, for clarity, I do think the bigger difference in Norway and the US is the incentives and the build out of infrastructure. We could debate whether incentives should be paid by the government but I'm afraid that would step into politics so lets not go there.

As I implied earlier, I recognize the Mustang EV is out of the barn, and it's going to happen. My only point is its not going to happen as quickly in the US as it will in Norway (2025). And yes, it is partially due to our driving habits.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Like I said, there is a huge gap between the US (2%) and Norway (54%) that can not be explained by the differences in our driving patterns, which are similar for the vast majority of Americans.

I think a lot of it comes down to perception vs. reality. The reality might be that the daily drives of most Americans could generally be met by the range of EV's. But the perception of many people may be different. Many people just don't want to be constrained by the range limitations or exhorbitant charge times of EVs, regardless of how often they might actually face them.

I admittedly fall into this camp. Things are certainly different during the pandemic, when I rarely drive at all and when I do, an EV would certainly suffice for the occasional 2 mile drive to do curbside pickup of food. But I'm definitely not going to spend the non-trivial money for a BEV as an additional car for that sporadic use (besides, the 30 miles a month I now drive, about a gallon, isn't putting out enough pollution to measure in the grand scheme of things).

Pre-pandemic (and hopefully, if we live through it, post pandemic) we would make drives exceeding the range of most BEVs about once a week. It's also the paucity of charging stations, and charge times, that hold me back.

One of my friends in the neighborhood bought a Nissan Leaf a couple of years ago (at the behest/brow-beating/nagging of his wife). Pre-pandemic, they took the car on a day trip of 150 miles each way. What would have been a total 7 hour day in a gas engine car (3 hours each way + 1 hour for the business they had to attend to) turned into a 22 hour long nightmare worthy of a book or major motion picture.

In the dead of a New England winter, they discovered first-hand, and the hard way, that the advertised range of the Leaf did not match the real world. Their voyage from hell required a total of 7 (seven) stops for recharging, with the multiple complicating factors of reduced range in cold weather, broken chargers, slower than anticipated charging, charging stations that wouldn't accept their credit cards etc., lines at charging stations, being cut off after an hour at several charging stations, and other problems. They made it there and back, but needing 22 hours to make a trip that would have reliably taken 7 hours in an IC car isn't viable (he since sold the Leaf and bought a Toyota Yaris).

The network of charging stations might be adequate in California, but it certainly is limited in most of the rest of the country.

Compared with Europe, public and mass transit are also much less developed here. When I used to live in Portland Oregon, the city planners and elected leaders were vehemently anti-car, and espoused strategies to make driving more difficult in Portland (reducing available parking spaces, etc.) to 'force' people to take mass transit. Yet, their own data (at the time) showed that less than 20% of the jobs in Portland could be reached by their employees using mass transit. What were the other 80% supposed to do? Bicycling is not for everyone, especially when long distances are involved, and in the perpetually rainy climate of the Pacific Northwest.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

I think a lot of it comes down to perception vs. reality. The reality might be that the daily drives of most Americans could generally be met by the range of EV's. But the perception of many people may be different. Many people just don't want to be constrained by the range limitations or exhorbitant charge times of EVs, regardless of how often they might actually face them.

I admittedly fall into this camp. .

Thing is this isn't a perception, it is reality. It matters if an EV meets "most but not all" your needs if its the only vehicle available to purchase. That's why I remain a secret member of the "fuel cell team". With infrastructure, it meets 100% of the same needs as ICE, in the same convenient way. I know its wishful thinking and isn't going to happen but if fuel cell was where EV is today, I'd be all in.

That's the part the "EV or no V crowd" wants to overlook.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Thing is this isn't a perception, it is reality. It matters if an EV meets "most but not all" your needs if its the only vehicle available to purchase. That's why I remain a secret member of the "fuel cell team". With infrastructure, it meets 100% of the same needs as ICE, in the same convenient way. I know its wishful thinking and isn't going to happen but if fuel cell was where EV is today, I'd be all in.

That's the part the "EV or no V crowd" wants to overlook.

The simple, transitional solution is BEV hybrids that have only a small range extender. BMW i3 offers a small motorcycle engine as a range extender. Obviously the performance drops considerably if the demands of the conditions exceeds the engine's abilities to provide enough electricity, but this gets someone down the road to the next supercharger or to their destination. Gas could be taxed high, which, along with the poor performance, would incentivize people to charge up and not use the range extender.

Like I said, there is a lot of room for improvement. I would argue that everyone doesn't need to own a SUV/crossover or truck, but if we analyzed the average family, we would probably find multiple utility vehicles that are used for short commutes only. In fact, the luxury truck is trending. The size of vehicles keeps getting bigger and bigger, unnecessarily. Maybe we aren't ready for 54% new car sales being EVs like Norway, but we are certainly capable of moving further from the 2%.

According to a February study by Experian Automotive, which specializes in collecting and analyzing automotive data, Americans own an average of 2.28 vehicles per household, and more than 35 percent of households own three or more cars.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/n...27Ronecar.html

According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/...cowboy-costume

[Irace86.2.0]

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...rrival-in-2022

Nio will be releasing a 150 kWh solid state battery pack that fits in the same spot as their current 70 kWh and 100 kWh packs because it is that much more compact.

Nio also has performed over 500,000 battery swaps. @Dadhawk ...maybe that would fit your needs. Just as a reminder, while hydrogen would work in a society that had an abundance of extra energy like if we had more solar than needed or an excess of energy from fusion, it is much less efficient from source to road. As you can see from this graph, for every 100 kW of energy that we start with, we only get to use a small fraction of that with hydrogen, but get to use 3x that with EVs. The major advantage with hydrogen is refueling times, which is only currently an advantage, and the batteries are smaller, which means we would use less materials.

[Wally86]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I change my mind super fast in the face of compelling evidence. I have no wish to hold onto false beliefs.

Like I said, there is a huge gap between the US (2%) and Norway (54%) that can not be explained by the differences in our driving patterns, which are similar for the vast majority of Americans. As Soundman98 mentions, it is because of incentives that Norwegians are buying electric cars, but if electric cars were truly prohibitive for their needs then there would be huge public dissent, and people would buy ICE or used cars.

We can say the same thing about California. Why does California have half of the registered EVs in the country, but they only have around 10% of the population? Do Californias commute less than the rest of the country? The difference between California and the state with the most miles driven, is 20 miles a day, which is less than 10% of the charge of the smallest batteries in cars like the Model 3, Leaf or Bolt. Do Californians not go on road trips as much as people from other states? Well, it helps that California hasn't blocked Tesla from selling cars in their state. In fact, the Tesla Model 3 is the top selling car in the state, ahead of the Corolla, Camry, Accord and Civic, and part of that is from incentives, but also because EVs are embraced in the state, which is probably also the case in Norway.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...sh-in-question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_...rship_disputes

https://www.bts.gov/statistical-prod...le-trips-state

https://electrek.co/2020/05/29/tesla...ar-california/

I'd love to see your analysis of the tax incentives given by CA vs every other state and how that affects the actual purchase of electric cars there.

https://electrek.co/2020/11/17/calif...l-end-of-year/

Taking tax money to prop up vehicle sales is a great way to make sales but a horrible way (by the gov) to spend other people's money.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

aybe we aren't ready for 54% new car sales being EVs like Norway, but we are certainly capable of moving further from the 2%.

Agreed.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

@Dadhawk ...maybe that would fit your needs.

Actually, my needs will change drastically in the next 5 years, as I should be retired by then. At that point, I won't have the daily commute and travel will be more leisurely so I won't be concerned as much by charge times, which will improve by then.

So, in the end, I'll probably end up on Team EV within 5 years. Depending on which car I have to replace next (the FRS or the Suburban) and when, it may be before that.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Wally86

I'd love to see your analysis of the tax incentives given by CA vs every other state and how that affects the actual purchase of electric cars there.

https://electrek.co/2020/11/17/calif...l-end-of-year/

Taking tax money to prop up vehicle sales is a great way to make sales but a horrible way (by the gov) to spend other people's money.

I'm not denying those incentives exist, and they are a huge driving factor for adoption, which is why I think they should exist in all states to accelerate the rate of adoption until it is no longer necessary.

In some ways, I actually agree that the tax incentives can be a horrible way to spend people's money, especially when those rebates go to well-off individuals to buy luxury cars. I think there should be an income cap on rebates, but then again, if the goal is to advance the adoption and development of EVs then this is just one of the affective ways of achieving that goal. The idea is that eventually the tax incentives reduce until they eventually go away entirely. Tesla, for instance, no longer qualifies for Federal incentives, unless I'm mistaken.

The tax incentives are there to increase sales, so manufactures will invest more in EV products because they will see there is demand for the product if costs are down, but the reason costs are high is often because the product is a niche product for a limited customer base with a high cost of manufacturing. We have seen with Tesla, and with the ever decreasing cost of batteries per kWh, that scale of industry will reduce costs to levels where incentives are no longer needed. Another reason for incentives is to encourage adoption in a limited EV market. Up until recently, there was very few compelling EV options, but then we had Telsa, the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt, yet still, we are only now barely getting more models and vehicle classes. We don't have an electric truck on the market. We don't have an affordable electric sports car. The lack of options necessitates some incentives to attract more buyers and encourage more development. Another reason is to encourage early adoption into unproven technology. EVs might be the best vehicle for the masses, but someone has to take the first leap of faith, so incentives are there to encourage adoption. Eventually there is enough word-of-mouth, there is enough saturation, etc that EVs go from a green, hippie thing to a norm, so incentives are no longer needed. States could invest in chargers. States could build up their infrastructure, but if the public doesn't expose themselves to a different option and manufactures are therefore never incentivized to give the public fair EV options, then all that investment goes to waste, so it has to happen in parallel.

My main point of bringing up California was to illustrate that EVs don't seem to be as functionally prohibitive there, yet Californians have similar commuting needs. If they were functionally prohibitive, incentives or not, people would not buy them. Also, if incentives were the only thing driving people to EVs in spite of the car being functionally restrictive then I would imagine used EVs would be cheap, which they typically are for several reasons including the tax inceptives reduced their price below MSRP and because fears of battery degradation. If sales necessitate tax incentives then EVs would have little demand from the used car market where there are little to no tax incentives, and yet, Teslas are always in high demand and with great resale value. In fact, the Model 3 has the best resale value, which is three times better than the industry average for ICEs, yet used car buyers don't get to benefit from tax credits. How can we explain this?

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-mode...reciate-study/

[beltax90]

Originally Posted by Wally86

I'd love to see your analysis of the tax incentives given by CA vs every other state and how that affects the actual purchase of electric cars there.

https://electrek.co/2020/11/17/calif...l-end-of-year/

Taking tax money to prop up vehicle sales is a great way to make sales but a horrible way (by the gov) to spend other people's money.

good point!

[Wally86]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

In fact, the Model 3 has the best resale value, which is three times better than the industry average for ICEs, yet used car buyers don't get to benefit from tax credits. How can we explain this?

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-mode...reciate-study/

This is super easy to explain.

You can only buy a tesla from tesla so they control the entire used market for teslas. (on top of the fact that they are obviously the best EV out there for a few reasons, fit and finish isn't one of them lol)

Yes, it's POSSIBLE to buy a tesla outside of the tesla used car pages but good luck getting support and features that have been paid for by the previous owner. This has been documented very well by Rich rebuilds.

It's one of my biggest pet peeves about tesla but it obviously works to make them look good.

Being a giant tesla fan, haven't watched some friends who own them (one friend who owns a fleet and has a rental company), I know the battery degradation is a moot fear. There are teslas with 400k+ miles on them still rolling around with plenty of battery life. The are some tricks to make them last longer too, like maxing out the battery "full" level at 80-90% instead of an actual 100%.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Wally86

Yes, it's POSSIBLE to buy a tesla outside of the tesla used car pages but good luck getting support and features that have been paid for by the previous owner. This has been documented very well by Rich rebuilds.

It's one of my biggest pet peeves about tesla but it obviously works to make them look good.

It's not only possible, I'd say its the most likely way that a used Tesla gets sold. Carvana alone lists over 170 of them right now, and there's a used car lot I drive by every day that has a Tesla Model 3 Long Range in its inventory of about 70 used cars.

Not quite sure I understand your last statement. How does providing inadequate service when a car is "not bought from us" or other actions make them look good?

[Wally86]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

It's not only possible, I'd say its the most likely way that a used Tesla gets sold. Carvana alone lists over 170 of them right now, and there's a used car lot I drive by every day that has a Tesla Model 3 Long Range in its inventory of about 70 used cars.

Not quite sure I understand your last statement. How does providing inadequate service when a car is "not bought from us" or other actions make them look good?

Keeping the value up by keeping all of the features/pricing in house is how it makes them look good.

From the perspective of people who want to buy a car and not have to purchase extra features or only go to the dealer to work on them, it's not good.


EDIT: And doing a quick search between carvana and tesla's used page... carvana used prices are down a surprising amount versus tesla. Where the market would actual value the cars, I suppose.