New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by solidsnake11

And the dinosaurs would still be alive right....?

Before the industrial age I would assume there was no flooding, no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no droughts and every day was a perfect 71 degrees ferinheight.

Before climate change it was called global warming then it got colder and they had to change the name.

They changed the name from global warming to climate change because people who were ignorant to science didn’t know the difference between climate and weather, so if it was cold outside then they would suggest global warming was a hoax. Also, it makes more sense for lay people and special people to understand global warming as climate change because weather can be more extreme in a hot and cold way with global warming. Regardless of the verbiage, global warming is real and happening, and the rate of warming is accelerating beyond what is natural considering the state of the planet. Continuing to pollute the air with millions of tons of greenhouse gases is not sustainable on any timeline.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Someone already does (or rather did). The Chevy Spark EV was $25,000 before incentives with a tested range just shy of 100 miles.

There are i3s right now on Carvana for under $15,000 with minimal miles and Bolts starting around $17K. The Bolt is actually tempting to me because it has decent range.

Least expensive Tesla is a 2013 Model S with 100K miles at $31K. That's actually better than I thought at almost 50% depreciation. I figured they would hold their price better than that.

My coworker just bought a fully loaded, in like new condition, 2017 BMW 540i with 20k miles for $38k. Other luxury/premium brands take a bigger hit.

But in general, I agree. In many ways, we are already there. They will get better and be even more compelling soon.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Someone already does (or rather did). The Chevy Spark EV was $25,000 before incentives with a tested range just shy of 100 miles.

There are i3s right now on Carvana for under $15,000 with minimal miles and Bolts starting around $17K. The Bolt is actually tempting to me because it has decent range.

Least expensive Tesla is a 2013 Model S with 100K miles at $31K. That's actually better than I thought at almost 50% depreciation. I figured they would hold their price better than that.

But do you want a Chevy Spark EV, Chevy Bolt or a BMW i3?

[WildCard600]

I wonder what the smallest sized truck that will be exempted from this will be ? Battery powered trucks are not even close to being as practical as the cars are.

Rivan has their things, but when towing it cuts the range in half or a little more.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

But do you want a Chevy Spark EV, Chevy Bolt or a BMW i3?

If I was going to buy one of these, I'd get the Bolt mainly because of the range.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by solidsnake11

Funny when you name something with simple words but then nobody knows what it means.

What’s even funnier is when the world gets a lesson on the difference between climate and weather, yet they still don’t get it or choose to still spout falsehoods as if the explanation never existed.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by solidsnake11

What killed the dinosaurs? When the dinosaurs died did the planet? How exactly are we going to destroy a planet that is millions of years old?

I like how a product is so good they have to make people use it.

The planet is 4.5+ billion years old. Just saying.

Which dinosaurs? There have been five to seven mass extinctions. It would be a shame to cause our own. Saving our planet isn’t about saving the planet for the planet’s sake; it is about keeping it hospitable to human life. Yes, some would rather humans not exist so the planet and its other inhabitants can thrive, and there are the others who could care less what we do because they won’t be around for the end. Those in the middle understand that we are dependent on the health of the planet for our own survival, so it is best we do what we can to live in harmony with the planet.

There are many ways we could destroy it or cause a mass extinction. How permanent would the destruction last is a different question. Varying degrees of nuclear holocaust could last decades to thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Destruction of the ozone layer would lead to radiation exposure, DNA damage, death of most species, famine, etc. Run away greenhouse gases would lead to super heating of the planet like it did on Venus, so the planet would become inhospitable to all life except bacteria. There are others.

Bad argument. I can think of many things that are mandated, forced, required, has laws against, etc for which something or some outcome is better than what others would choose or do, especially initially. People don’t always choose what is good for them.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by solidsnake11

20 years of advancement and gm lost 60miles of range compared to their ev1.

Lost range? I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

The EV1 had 55-105 miles of range, depending on the battery, and the Spark EV has 85. The EV1 was only available for a lease of $300-575 depending on state rebates and such things, and they were losing money on each car because the real cost was much higher, and this was in the late 90’s. A $575 payment is around $930 today. By some estimates, the car should have been leased closer to a $70-100k value instead of a $34k value...in the late 90’s.

The EV1 was the Tesla Model S of its day with a Model S price tag. Who knows how much progress GM could have made if they had continued investing for another 20 years. The EV1 and the Spark are an example of performance inflation where what once was expensive is cheap. Part of that is made possible by what we call advancement.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by solidsnake11

20 years of advancement and gm lost 60miles of range compared to their ev1.

There is that. It's very unfortunate GM gave up on the program when they did. I'm not sure I'd have wanted to ride on top of that many lead-acid or NiCd batteries though, not to mention the long-term maintenance cost to either of those technologies.

The Spark EV was really more a "see we can do that do" response to Nissan and others building similar cars. The Bolt is really a much better successor to the EV1.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

The scientific data on climate change are overwhelming. We need to save our planet and do whatever we can to combat climate change. After all, this is the only planet we have, so not killing it - and ourselves in the process - seems like a really good idea. This year’s horrific forest fires on the west coast are yet another example of what we will have more of in the future if we don’t do something. But no matter how much some people wish it were true and how often they might say it, a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) is not on its face necessarily ‘environmentally friendly’. The hard facts are that it primarily depends on how the electricity is generated to charge the EV.

Electricity is not ‘free’. It doesn’t just come out of a wall socket on its own. Some other primary energy source must be used to generate the electricity. Most promotion of BEVs ignores this.

The fundamental problem is that right now, fossil fuels still provide about 63% of the electricity generated in the US, with nuclear an additional 19%. There are significant regional differences, but overall only about 11% of US electric power is generated from renewable sources:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

A BEV can make more sense in a place like Oregon that gets 70% of its electricity from ‘clean’ sources (hydro and wind), but not so much in Minnesota that is heavily dependent on coal and natural gas, or the country at large.

California gets about half its electricity from renewable sources, but also about half from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas. It might make sense for California to push for BEVs, since they would actually be half natural gas plus half renewable source powered (and hopefully more by the 2035 timeline), but that’s not necessarily the case for the rest of the country.

Globally, China currently gets 60% of its electricity from fossil fuel, mostly coal, which changes the BEV calculation there. Shockingly, Japan is building 22 new coal powered electric generating plants, which together will release about as much CO2 as all the cars sold in the US:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/c...fukushima.html

As a result, in aggregate BEVs essentially have a ‘long tailpipe’ to whatever form of primary energy was used to generate the electricity. A report in Scientific American estimated that a Nissan Leaf and Toyota Prius both produce on average about 200 grams of CO2 per mile (though it would be about 100 grams/mile CO2 in California, and 300 grams/mile CO2 in Minnesota):

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ssarily-clean/

There is also a fundamental problem with how BEVs are promoted and the resulting perception of their ‘environmental friendliness’. The way MPGe numbers used for BEVs are calculated assume 100% efficiency in converting fossil fuel to electricity. This violates the laws of thermodynamics. In actuality, only 30-40% of the energy contained in fossil fuels can be converted into electricity in any thermal process (though newer combined cycle natural gas power plants can reach 50%). That means about 2/3 of the energy is wasted (plus about 10% lost in transmission). This has been widely discussed and reported:

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/m...electric-cars/

https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/Chapter4.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenm.../#54dc4b4929de

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67645.pdf

With only about 30-35% of the energy contained in fossil fuel actually converted into usable electricity, this means that to put 85 kWh of electric charge into a BEV requires 269 kWh of fossil fuel or nuclear energy. Thus, a Nissan Leaf that is advertised with ’99 MPGe’ in an apples-to-apples comparison is actually getting the equivalent of 28-36 real world MPG. Not bad, but certainly significantly different than what the flawed MPGe number suggests, and objectively not much better than a modern ICE car.

When financial subsidies are taken into consideration, the picture gets murkier (though of course multi-millionaire Tesla buyers enjoyed getting unneeded discounts on their purchases):

https://www.politico.com/agenda/stor...ronment-000660

The calculation becomes even less favorable when taking into account the environmental impacts of lithium and rare Earth metal mining, battery disposal at end of life, etc.

Nuclear fission energy is also not the answer. Nuclear energy (being a thermal process) is also about 30% efficient in converting the heat released by the fission of uranium into electricity. Nuclear power generates 19% of the electricity in the US and does not directly generate carbon emissions. However, mining and processing of uranium requires massive amounts of energy, impacts water supplies, as well as the thorny problem of disposing of nuclear waste (spent fuel), so nuclear fission might not be the best option for increased electric power in the future (fusion is another story, but unfortunately we’re not there yet).

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702249v

Of course the situation would be completely different IF electricity were predominantly generated from renewable sources (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.). But at present, only 11% of electricity in the US comes from renewable sources. Hydro generates an additional 7% but has its own issues, including the environmental impacts of flooding regions when dams are built, questions about the future reliability of hydro power because of climate change, and the fact that it’s already fully developed in the US with little expansion ability.

Like most things in life, the solution is going to be complicated, and not simply buying more electric cars. At its core, a fundamental need is to change the US, and world, electric generating grid to renewable sources. That will take a lot of money. Just for the US it would cost $5 trillion:

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com...e-spending-go/

Especially in the new coronavirus reality, with the world likely heading into several years of economic recession if not outright depression, and the US having to deal with trillions of dollars already spent on ‘economic recovery’, it’s hard to see where and when the money could come from to convert to renewable sources.

So unfortunately, the bottom line is that with the CURRENT US electric energy grid, one would probably be better off simply burning fossil fuel directly rather than converting it into electricity to then power a BEV. As much as it might sting to some people the think about it, in many areas of the country, and world, a BEV essentially just has a ‘long tailpipe’ back to whatever power plant is generating the electricity – which more often than not is still fossil-fuel powered. It still comes back to having to change the US electric grid and how electricity is generated. Unfortunately, we are not going to save our planet one Nissan Leaf at a time. Until then, we’re just kidding ourselves with artificial and inaccurate ‘MPGe’ numbers that might make some people feel good, but don’t reflect reality.

If we really want to save the planet - and ourselves - we need to elect political leaders with the courage, wisdom, and willingness to make the massive financial investments needed to create an electric power grid fueled by renewables such as solar, wind, and tidal sources. With Trump’s actions of cutting corporate taxes and reducing government revenues, and the increasingly short-term thinking by private companies focused on instant profits, it’s hard to see where all the money will come from without some dramatic changes.

This BEV push might make sense for California, with half of their electricity coming from renewable sources and hopefully more by the 2035 mandate. But in general, wishful thinking about BEVs doesn’t change the facts that they don’t really make sense yet for the country or world as a whole as long as the electric grid is primarily generated by fossil and nuclear fuels.

I agree with most, but not all of that. Nonetheless, fantastic post.

Originally Posted by JesseG

The sky is always falling for some people, it gets really old. Without getting too political, it’s sad to see how mismanaged California is. They are in bad shape in so many ways, I don’t see how unrealistic environmental laws will help.
It’s also ironic that new cars are mostly very low emissions, it would make more sense to try and get older cars and trucks off the road first. The problem with that is how do you justify it when some people can’t afford a new car, much less a new electric car. Public transportation is great when it’s done well, but it’s not very realistic in some places. They have tried to expand the light rail system in my area and it’s a slow process.
I wouldn’t be surprised if California tried to eliminate new car sales and make it too expensive to keep an older car or truck by making it difficult to pass emissions. So you have a state with high taxes, high cost of living, and electric cars only. Sprinkle in the companies that are leaving your state. Sounds like a recipe for success!

To me that sounds like a recipe for transforming into a socialist European country (to be clear that's a bad thing). Also, the best way to force people to adopt an agenda that people don't like is to strike an alarmist stance.

Originally Posted by JesseG

I don’t think you realize how many wind turbines and solar panels would be needed to power a state as big as California. Nuclear is an option but the Left doesn’t seem to like that option either. Not to mention the catastrophic failures they can have. Ask Japan how that has gone.
There isn’t an easy solution to any of this, it will take a combination of many things and people working together. Eventually the only living things left in California will be Silicon Valley billionaires, “celebrities”, homeless people, and rats. Nobody should look at that state as an example of what to do. Texas has its own power grid that is very reliable for the most part. I work in that field and I’ve seen how other states fail miserably with their power grids. Larger numbers of EV’s will push most of those systems to a breaking point.
I’ve said it before, but hybrids like the Prius make the most sense as a next step towards zero emissions. That should be the priority, not all electric all the things immediately.

People like to casually forget that these wind mills have a short lifespan, and are usually abandoned afterwards. Looks great for the environment too!

Originally Posted by ZDan

I'm not trying to be argumentative! Just pointing out that natural cycles are *sllooooooow*, while human input over the past century plus have been FAST.

Not always slow. Far from it. Younger dryas period is proof of that. So are frozen solid ancient animals and fauna in Siberia that had no reason to be living there in such a climate (i.e. they were frozen alive).

Humanity likes to act like it's all important, that the world revolves around us, and that things we see in our lifetimes are unprecedented. They are not.

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by solidsnake11

What killed the dinosaurs? When the dinosaurs died did the planet? How exactly are we going to destroy a planet that is millions of years old?

I like how a product is so good they have to make people use it.

Technically the planet is 4.5 billion years old

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

There is that. It's very unfortunate GM gave up on the program when they did. I'm not sure I'd have wanted to ride on top of that many lead-acid or NiCd batteries though, not to mention the long-term maintenance cost to either of those technologies.

The Spark EV was really more a "see we can do that do" response to Nissan and others building similar cars. The Bolt is really a much better successor to the EV1.

Well GM is notoriously good and cancelling products right after they figure out how to make them good.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

People like to casually forget that these wind mills have a short lifespan, and are usually abandoned afterwards. Looks great for the environment too!

All tech has some downsides. There have been simulations that show large deployment of solar arrays in the desert could cause the deserts to cool, and reduce the little rain they do get by 20%. This is due to the reduction of heat absorption by the Earth.

On the flip side of that (and ignoring the cost of deployment) solar is much better than existing Hydro. I've seen estimates that all the power generated in Florida by hydro could be generated using a solar array the size of Central Park (100 acres). The dammed acreage to generate the power is is 26,520 ha (65,500 acres)

I guess the goal is figuring out which has the lesser downsides.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

All tech has some downsides.

I guess the goal is figuring out which has the lesser downsides.

You're absolutely right. There's no free lunch, with anything. Any form of power generation will have consequences. It's a question of what trade-offs we are willing to make.

The real issue is not power generation. The fundamental, thorny, unpleasant topic that few people like to talk about is people. Over-population is the underlying cause of most of the problems facing the world today. Yes, there's plenty of room to pack in more people if you want to stack them up like cordwood and live Hong-Kong style (I personally don't). But there's a limit to both natural resources, and to the planet's capacity to absorb our wastes and the impact of our being here.

Most processes can be made more efficient and less wasteful. But hoping for 'science' or 'technology' to solve all our problems is wishful thinking. There is a finite amount of fresh water, breathable air, arable soil, and other limited resources that 'science' cannot create more of. Likewise, the planet has a limited capacity to absorb the heat and other waste products people produce. Global warming is but one sign that we are out-stripping the planet's capacity to accommodate so many people.

One way or another, human population will ultimately be adjusted. It's up to us whether we do it rationally and in a planned way, or we let nature take it's course and adjust our population for us.