CA to Ban Sale of Gas Cars in 2035

[NoVaGT]

I guess we had better tell Ford, GM, Toyota, Mazda, Daimler aka Mercedes-AMG, Renault, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Jag, Volvo, and VW that their billions and billions worth of investments into EVs and battery tech/factories was a dumb idea. Should probably just fire some of the most intelligent engineers in the world too.

Grid load balancing, variable pricing, charging time incentives, cobalt being removed entirely, Nevada lithium mine and overall improved environment prosecutes, etc there are so many solutions that most just aren’t informed on.

Plenty of exciting things on the horizon but some people are just really against change.

Hybrids are one thing. And done to meet EPA MPG fleet requirements. The number of actual EVs produced is almost 0, other than Tesla. And Teslas are toys, nothing more.

There is nothing that can make this work. And just attempting it, is legalizing an energy monopoly.

People aren't against change. They're against corrupt, political hair-brained ideas that have no basis in reality, and can never work. Especially when they fuck the tax-payers.

Wake up son. Stop believing in government. It's nothing but a cancerous lie.

Sponsored

 

[NoVaGT]

We're decades away from this being viable, not 15 years. I'm not against change, I'm against politicians trying to force change.

Let's look at some charts, kids love charts (source EPA 2014-2018):

I can only imagine that the gap between us an China has grown. Yes, they've been making efforts to reduce emissions, but the effect has been to mitigate the effects of growth, not actually cause a downturn.

Now let's zoom into our 15%. Transportation constitutes 28% of our GHG emissions.

And now a closer look at the transportation sector:

Napkin math time!

Our 15% of global emissions multiplied by the 28% caused by the transportation sector multiplied by the 43% caused by passenger cars multiplied by California's 5.6% share of US car registrations equals:

0.1%

If California manages to eliminate all passengers ICE's in their state, the global effect on GHG's is almost nonexistent. This is a purely political move. A feather in the "I care about the environment" cap. If we actually want to enact serious climate change we don't just need to drive electric cars.

We need to change our lifestyles, our economy, our entire energy grid, the food we eat, the cheap disposable goods we buy, everything. Even if we do all of this, we're still fucked. I'm going to continue enjoying my low-volume V8 car, because I know it doesn't make any real difference.

Adding to this;

The above graphs represent the percentage of man-made green-house gasses. Never forget that the VAST majority of such gasses are naturally occurring, something those graphs don't show.

Vehicles represent something like 1/2 a percent of total greenhouse gasses.

 

[Deleted member 35786]

Adding to this;

The above graphs represent the percentage of man-made green-house gasses. Never forget that the VAST majority of such gasses are naturally occurring, something those graphs don't show.

Vehicles represent something like 1/2 a percent of total greenhouse gasses.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/gr...rgy sector, generation,12% of total emissions).

 

[Deleted member 35786]

The primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are:

• Transportation (28.2 percent of 2018 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90 percent of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes primarily gasoline and diesel.2
• Electricity production (26.9 percent of 2018 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 63 percent of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.3
• Industry (22.0 percent of 2018 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials.
• Commercial and Residential (12.3 percent of 2018 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste.
• Agriculture (9.9 percent of 2018 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.
• Land Use and Forestry (11.6 percent of 2018 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands are a net sink, i.e. they have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

[shogun32]

Apparently CA has comprehensive plans to solve their power grid issues over the next 15 years....

They had comprehensive WATER plans too about 50 years ago. Championed by Jerry Brown senior that the greenies fought tooth and nail so only one of the about dozen reservoirs were ever built. If there's one group that is guarenteed to destroy the earth it's the watermellons - green on the outside, communists on the inside.

 

[shogun32]

and economical method of recycling all the dead batteries?

I know right? Lithium is so damn cheap to mine and process there is no interest in recycling it. If there ever was an "appropriate" use of gov't force to "make it happen" it would be battery recycling... But no, we'll just ban IC instead.

 

[Arknsawchuck]

Ok, what have I learned from reading all this......1. U.S. is the root of all evil....2. The climate has never changed until man showed up with his crazy internal combustion engine. 3. California is leading the way to the future...4.There is zero pollution in the manufacturing or maintaining of EVs, solar panels, and wind power. That about sums it up in a nut shell.
NOW, here is what I'm going to do as long as I can get fuel...I'm going to burn as much of it as my wallet can stand and I'm going to do it in my Mustang every chance I get.

 

[Matti777]

.... It winds up being very expensive to do safely.

Maybe the cost of recycling should be built into the price. I think this is done in Sweden. I'm ok with that as it represents the true cost of the goods. Then of course the government will subsidize them so people actually buy them.

Up here we have a nice carbon tax too. We are such bad people driving to work and heating our homes.

ps I hope they are starting to plan the new power generation facilities already.

 

[ZX3ST]

CA electricity isn't created by coal fired power plants. Most of the power produced in CA is fairly "clean" - hydro, solar, wind, renewable fuel, etc. Those are not without environmental impacts, however, but certainly not as dirty as coal power which is more common in the midwest or eastern US.

I don't normally like to get involved in these threads, but this is not wholly true.

It is true that the energy CA generates within the state is mostly "green", but it does not tell the whole story. Since CA is not self-sufficient (from an overall energy consumption perspective) they must buy from other regions to make up the difference.

From the CA Energy Commission:

This seems really awesome on the surface. But we need to factor in overall consumption as well.

If I'm reading the data correctly (which is terribly presented BTW) then "Non-Renewables and Unspecified Totals" make up 68.3% of CA's total energy bill, which they basically say is energy bought on the open market. Data on the contents of this slice-of-pie is difficult to pin down, so I can't offer any comments on that detail.

This is why statistics are so dangerous when they are irresponsibly presented to the public. It's easy to pump up your numbers to make yourself look good when 2/3 of the big picture is obscured by your neighbors taking up the slack.

I'm not saying renewables are bad. Far from it. But their total impact to the industry is commonly misrepresented and could collectively otherwise be referred to as a "fart in the wind".

 

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

I don't normally like to get involved in these threads, but this is not wholly true.

It is true that the energy CA generates within the state is mostly "green", but it does not tell the whole story. Since CA is not self-sufficient (from an overall energy consumption perspective) they must buy from other regions to make up the difference.

From the CA Energy Commission:

This seems really awesome on the surface. But we need to factor in overall consumption as well.

If I'm reading the data correctly (which is terribly presented BTW) then "Non-Renewables and Unspecified Totals" make up 68.3% of CA's total energy bill, which they basically say is energy bought on the open market. Data on the contents of this slice-of-pie is difficult to pin down, so I can't offer any comments on that detail.

This is why statistics are so dangerous when they are irresponsibly presented to the public. It's easy to pump up your numbers to make yourself look good when 2/3 of the big picture is obscured by your neighbors taking up the slack.

I'm not saying renewables are bad. Far from it. But their total impact to the industry is commonly misrepresented and could collectively otherwise be referred to as a "fart in the wind".

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any heading called "Non-Renewables and Unspecified Totals" in the table you presented so I have no idea where you got the 68.3% value from. That said, it doesn't really matter. I wasn't referring to only renewable energy when discussing clean energy, I was referring to "clean" vs. "dirty" power. Coal power = dirty. CA doesn't have any coal power. This was the point of my post: In places with clean power production, EVs have shown to have less negative environmental impact in their lifetime compared to ICEs. In places dominated by coal power, EVs are dirtier than ICEs in their lifetime due to getting their energy from coal power. So it's not a one size fits all situation. Someone can't make either claim as an overall truth, i.e. "EVs are dirtier than ICEs in their lifetime" or "EVs are cleaner than ICEs in their lifetime". Neither of those claims is necessarily accurate from a macro scale. It is specific to the local area. Now, if entire countries have no coal power, than it's likely that EVs are cleaner.

But I would caution that just because a big Gov't says something, doesn't make it true. Europe pushes diesels hard, but the fact is the ONLY thing diesels have over gasoline engines are slightly lower CO2 emissions (due to slightly better gas mileage). Almost everything else emissions wise with a diesel is worse than gasoline engines - causing more localized pollution than clean, modern ULEV or PZEV gasoline engines.

 

[ZX3ST]

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any heading called "Non-Renewables and Unspecified Totals" in the table you presented so I have no idea where you got the 68.3% value from. That said, it doesn't really matter. I wasn't referring to only renewable energy when discussing clean energy, I was referring to "clean" vs. "dirty" power. Coal power = dirty. CA doesn't have any coal power. This was the point of my post: In places with clean power production, EVs have shown to have less negative environmental impact in their lifetime compared to ICEs. In places dominated by coal power, EVs are dirtier that ICEs in their lifetime due to getting their energy from coal power. So it's not a one size fits all. Someone can't make the claim as an overall truth, i.e. "EVs are dirtier in their lifetime" or "EVs are cleaner than ICEs in their lifetime". Neither of those claims is accurate from a macro scale. It is specific to the local area.

I found it on https://www.energy.ca.gov/. I've since closed that browser tab but I can look for it again if you like.

And I'm saying it DOES matter.

For a state who's so proud of their renewable/clean energy initiative, you can bet your ass that if that 68.3% had any appreciable amount of "green" to add to the bottom line, they'd be wringing it out and parading it around in their cute pie charts.

Someone over there knows exactly what's in that black box, and chooses not to report in more detail for whatever reason. For the reasons above, and combined with the cynic in me, I'm assuming it paints a picture they don't want on display.

And I partly disagree on the EV primary advantages in "dirty" vs "clean". I believe the biggest positive impacts of EVs are the EFFICIENCY. IE less overall energy used to get the same job done.

Back-of-napkin Tesla model 3 with roughly 75 kwh to 300mi. Same thing in a common ICE car at 25mpg (gas roughly 33kwh per gallon) comes out to roughly 400 kwh. 5x efficiency cannot be ignored, no matter anyone's feelings on the tech.

I think we also need to consider rate of total replacement. I have a friend who is a restore enthusiast. He likes to buy wrecked cars and put them back together. His experience trying to restore a Tesla (I can't remember for sure which one) was not positive. Tesla basically told him he's too stupid to fix it and go buy a new car. Really?!?

In any case I'd love for my life to slow down for a little while. I'd like to spend some time with a calculator and a sharp pencil to see exactly where this all lines up. My gut intuition is that EVs are an overall improvement, just not the level of improvement we've been led to believe.

 

[Robert3487]

So they are just banning the sale of new gas powered vehicles? We can still buy them elsewhere and ship them here maybe? I don't think they can outlaw all gas powered vehicles in just 14 years, that doesn't seem possible.

 

[ZX3ST]

The tech will improve and we will get where we want to be eventually (ICE has enjoyed a very long timeline to reach maturity). It just rubs me the wrong way with the heavy handedness of the mandates. To paraphrase a quote I once heard, demanding results does not guarantee them.

 

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

I found it on https://www.energy.ca.gov/. I've since closed that browser tab but I can look for it again if you like.

And I'm saying it DOES matter.

For a state who's so proud of their renewable/clean energy initiative, you can bet your ass that if that 68.3% had any appreciable amount of "green" to add to the bottom line, they'd be wringing it out and parading it around in their cute pie charts.

Someone over there knows exactly what's in that black box, and chooses not to report in more detail for whatever reason. For the reasons above, and combined with the cynic in me, I'm assuming it paints a picture they don't want on display.

And I partly disagree on the EV primary advantages in "dirty" vs "clean". I believe the biggest positive impacts of EVs are the EFFICIENCY. IE less overall energy used to get the same job done.

Back-of-napkin Tesla model 3 with roughly 75 kwh to 300mi. Same thing in a common ICE car at 25mpg (gas roughly 33kwh per gallon) comes out to roughly 400 kwh. 5x efficiency cannot be ignored, no matter anyone's feelings on the tech.

I think we also need to consider rate of total replacement. I have a friend who is a restore enthusiast. He likes to buy wrecked cars and put them back together. His experience trying to restore a Tesla (I can't remember for sure which one) was not positive. Tesla basically told him he's too stupid to fix it and go buy a new car. Really?!?

In any case I'd love for my life to slow down for a little while. I'd like to spend some time with a calculator and a sharp pencil to see exactly where this all lines up. My gut intuition is that EVs are an overall improvement, just not the level of improvement we've been led to believe.

You make good points, but mine really was a different argument. I'm not arguing renewable vs. non-renewable electricity production in CA. I'm talking about clean vs. dirty. The EV efficiency thing you mention IS big, no doubt.

 

[IceAge]

Well hell with it all just create COVID pandemics every other year and BAM huge decline in Carbon Foot Print. Think about this year since March the amount of emissions saved from the Major Airlines, commuting to office, traffic down huge, schools, colleges, office buildings, entertainment facilities, leisure and travel......etc. I am amazed there has not been a report on the global impact and especially the USA reduction of emissions. So there you go lol and or do the odd and even day of travel which would cut emissions by a 1/3 or more. And I used to sell fuel and oil back in the 80s and early 90s. No one and I mean no greenie and or politicians talk about the amount of motor fuel taxes collected on fuel. As an example the average tax in a gallon of fuel is 50 cents. In California it’s 82 cents. The gas Stations collect this since they pay For it in the purchase of fuel. You pay for it at the pump and most gas stations pump about 300k gallons so simple math at 50 cents a gallon that’s 150k in tax from one station given back to the state and fed for their government taxation. Now take a super pumper Store like a Costco gas station snd they sell like 1 million gallons which means 500k in tax collected for just one month and one station. Summing up the amount of money the USA gets from motor fuels is in the trillions of dollars per year to run this country’s government. Wow and I say wow so yeah make everything electric and yep where’s the tax money uh huh. I have nit even talked about the tankers fees bringing oil to port from the gulf and the off shore oil drilling fees and the pipeline fees and the trucking transport road tax fees and etc etc etc. This countries Government makes huge sums of monies from motor fuels and car sales and repairs and inspections and I could go on and on. So yeah smoke and mirrors politicians and it’s a power grab for China to be the battery go to like Saudi Arabia was to oil. And summing up we will evolve to new energy and it’s foolish to think everything has to be only one energy when we can have many forms of energy to transport goods and services as well as humans. And the hydrogen cell is the answer for the flying cars which that is possible and batteries in flying cars and airplanes is a huge challenge.

Sponsored