New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Mr.ac

Don't get me wrong I believe in climate change, but there is jack shit we can stop it. What I am for is zero/less pollution. The idea of banning big diesel haulers, that would quickly back fire when shipping cost triple to CA. Yes we can improve diesel, but you have to look outside the little box, cause the whole world runs on diesel. And it would still be running on diesel.

But that doesn't mean we have to rely on it.

I rather place my bet on hydrogen tech than ev's.
In my opinion musk is the greatest con man of the mondern century. Yes ev's are awesome. But if he truly wants the save the world money shouldn't mean much to him. But it does more than the saving the world. At lest what I see when he tries to sell his stuff.

Yes natural causes for forest fires is always there. The problem is what happen a few months ago when a fire broke out here at one of our lakes. The only accessible road was fenced off. And when the firefighters broke the gate to put out the fire that landowner sued the local fire department for trespassing.

He has said before that climate change is a part of it, but his original interest in electric cars was based on the realization that oil is finite and that running out of oil without a transition to electric would lead to a market collapse. Emissions was just a secondary part that has recently become a bigger issue. The cars will sell themselves the more people get in them and experience them.

Hydrogen will be a part of the equation, but we need more tech now to make hydrogen feasible. As it stands, it leads to more waste by introducing more intermediate processes. For instance, we generate hydrogen from natural gas, so it isn’t green right now. The only reason to go with hydrogen is for unique applications, but it isn’t necessary for the vast majority of passanger and basic commercial vehicles.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Drought, warm weather drying the land, long warm seasons, dry lightning, etc have all contributed to the problem. Obviously it isn’t just California because of what happened in Oregon and Washington. Climate change is real, but even if it wasn’t, it is crazy to dump millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year, nor is it wise to continue to burn oil—a finite resource.

so is lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, gold, platinum, and palladium... re-use is only going to kick the can so far if we are continually expanding the use cases for those materials.

[Tokay444]

With any luck the San Andreas will have let go completely by then and that entire communist shithole will have slipped into the abyss where it belongs.

[beltax90]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

With any luck the San Andreas will have let go completely by then and that entire communist shithole will have slipped into the abyss where it belongs.

jeeze, did you like visit and had one bad burrito? maybe try the fish taco next time.

[TommyW]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

They don’t stop at the border. They were in Mexico and Canada too, but those areas are both very different in terms of climate, geography, population density and/or vegetation than California’s West Coast, which is why not as much of Canada and Mexico was as effected, and similar to why other parts of America are not effected.

nothing to do with poor management and arson I’m sure

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

I often wonder if these timelines are realistic or just thrown out there because "CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!! WE MUST ACT NOW NOW NOW!!!"

theres just way too much pandering to the whiny activists who dont have any clue how to fix a problem realistically.

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!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The mandate would be for fifteen years from now, so there is some time to develop utilities too. I’m for nuclear, but hydro, wind n solar are already planned for a lower emissions future for California’s grid. All new homes have to have solar too.

Batteries should be much more efficiently made and recycled too.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dpfarr]

Originally Posted by TommyW

nothing to do with poor management and arson I’m sure

Did you do your undergrad in ecology and then grad school for a ppm? Or pp then ecology?

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by TommyW

Interesting how the fires stopped at the Canadian border when they have close to 10x the forests we do.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7286199/b...fire-map-2020/

Just because it's not reported doesn't mean it isn't on fire... don't forget Canada had some pretty bad ones in years past, the 2016 Fort McMurray one was one of the worst.

The Oregon fires last week was a crazy one, completely caused by Santa Ana-like wind conditions resulting from the extreme cold in Colorado last Monday. I drove from WA back to CA last week and passed the brunt of it, including Thursday night when I stayed in Portland, home of the world's worst air quality.

The long term problem isn't forests... it's what happens years down the road. The real fear is that forests will burn and not come back, replaced by grasslands...

[JesseG]

Raptor Jesus will save us



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by TommyW

nothing to do with poor management and arson I’m sure

Please name me more than 5 fires that started in California in August that was arson related. Or 4. Or 3.

I'll wait.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

so is lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, gold, platinum, and palladium... re-use is only going to kick the can so far if we are continually expanding the use cases for those materials.

Lithium is abundant. Watch the Telsa presentation for some insight into how they are tackling these things. Recycling will be big in the future.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by TommyW

nothing to do with poor management and arson I’m sure

What has changed? How has management dramatically changed in the last twenty years?

Why are arsonists only on the west coast?

[Irace86.2.0]

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.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think more people will be looking back at nuclear eventually. Ironically, going electric might be what drives people to reconsider nuclear. There are some promising reactors in progress in the world that might prove effective and safer too.

Solar is already a mandate for new homes. The cost of solar has come down that to replace a roof with a Tesla roof will likely be cheaper and/or more than make up for itself in home appreciation.

Wind, geothermal, hydro will all add to things. In 15 years, where will all those technologies be? By then, new cars will be electric, but it’ll be a 30 years from now before a majority of cars are electric. This isn’t a timeline that necessitates concern.