California to ban sale of new gas-powered cars starting in 2035

[Sarin]

Wonderful. Imagine how much cleaner will the environment be with every used car dealer bringing cars all across US to Cali because they sell better there, and old gasoline cars being run way past their service life.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Eventually the NEW electric cars will be USED electric cars......Oh, wait, used electric cars would have the potential of having a crap battery...cheaper to replace an engine in a gas car than a battery in an electric car!

 

[Snerk]

Eventually the NEW electric cars will be USED electric cars......Oh, wait, used electric cars would have the potential of having a crap battery...cheaper to replace an engine in a gas car than a battery in an electric car!

Luckily battery technology has come a long way. New batteries now have longer projected lifetimes than the rest of the car.

 

[JPetroski]

Can an electric car tow 5,000 to 8,000 pounds (and stop it safely), at a range of at least 200 miles? Also, can a full recharge be accomplished in less than 5 minutes?

I assume the answer to all of these is currently "no," but is it even remotely possible to achieve these goals?

 

[amadeus]

I think you could stop an electric car safely at a range of 200 miles.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Luckily battery technology has come a long way. New batteries now have longer projected lifetimes than the rest of the car.

My wife's gas car is 12 years old, less than 100,000 miles on it, it's possible it could last another 10 years. With an electric car, the battery could go out at any time, but maybe by 2035, batteries will be warranteed for 20 years.

 

[uppi]

I think the intent is good, but I worry about its feasibility in implementation and the costs that will ultimately be passed on to people on low incomes. If no new combustion engine cars can be sold in CA, what’s that going to do to the price of existing used vehicles? It’s going to push them up, and the socioeconomic classes most vulnerable to wild price fluctuations in something as necessary as a mode of personal transportation are going to be bearing the heaviest burdens.

What would be the alternative? You could introduce high taxes on gas so that an electric vehicle becomes more economical, but that would hurt people with lower incomes even more.

 

[amadeus]

What would be the alternative? You could introduce high taxes on gas so that an electric vehicle becomes more economical, but that would hurt people with lower incomes even more.

The alternative to...?

I'm not advocating it as policy, but I guess you could have a progressive tax on vehicle registrations based on their gas mileage? I'm not clear what all the objectives are with regard to your question. Sorry, I tried to answer the best I could.

 

[Farm Boy]

Our cars usually go about 30 years before the frame starts giving out from road salt. I presume if we lived warmer they'd last longer.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And investors hammered him for it!

They didn't hammer Tesla for announcing a fake future price, they hammered Tesla because:

September 2020
Total value of car companies:

Tesla $361 billion!

Ford $26 billion
GM $41 billion
Fiat-Chrysler $19 billion

Is insane on the face of it.

The California Supreme Court later overturned Newsom's order and voided the ensuing 8,000+ marriages.

I don't think they voided the marriages, just stopped him from doing more.

Oh yeah I know, I just used those because I happen to know how that emissions intensity calc works out since we do have mostly black coal and mostly brown coal grid areas here.

California is, for the record, part of a very large wide area grid region stretching to British Columbia, Alberta, and New Mexico. So to an extent the power in CA is an average of all that due to trade within the region, but there must be some separation because you can find different emissions intensities for different parts of it.



CA's emissions intensity for footprint calculations is relatively low, above places in North America and internationally that are mostly hydro or nuclear driven, but below most others. Its in-state generation is about half gas, 10% nuclear and the rest renewables, but then it also imports about a third of its power from the rest of the WECC.

I just read an article on efforts to interconnect the western and eastern grids in the US and the potential huge savings in emissions that would have enabled. The US government funded a comprehensive study showing how it could be done and what the benefits of it would be and then the Trump administration shelved the study on the outside chance it would hurt coal plants and also because even talking about emissions is verboten.

They'll need to build a lot of charging stations quickly. Frankly I think waiting until 2035 is like saying all people must be aboard the Titanic's lifeboats by the time the stern is pointed to the sky, but better late than never.

Yes but no.

I think it would be a major mistake to first focus on building out a network of Level 3 fast chargers in the style of gas stations and thereby keeping people accustomed to charging cars in a similar way they tank up with gasoline. Instead they should be supporting the installation of Level 1 (basic wall outlet) and Level 2 (closer to an outlet for a washing machine) chargers in apartment buildings. The vast majority of daily trips in the US are under 20 miles and you don't need anything but a wall outlet to top off the car for that kind of commute. Adding some L1/L2 chargers to work and commercial spaces will help, but if every apartment building got outlets then the charging infrastructure would basically be there. And everyone with a private garage (i.e. homeowners) already has charging infrastructure.

People think EV's need a vast new infrastructure when the reality is that most of the infrastructure is already there, it just needs some improvement at the margins.

L3 chargers will be useful for long haul trips, but as batteries approach 500 miles per charge and beyond, they become less essential. We're already approaching the point where EV's can go further on a charge than ICE cars can go on a tank of gas but this gets lost in the noise surrounding range anxiety.

My wife's gas car is 12 years old, less than 100,000 miles on it, it's possible it could last another 10 years. With an electric car, the battery could go out at any time, but maybe by 2035, batteries will be warranteed for 20 years.

Outside of the first generation of Nissan Leafs, I don't think any of the EV manufacturers have had issues as they approach 10 year lifetimes and will likely exceed that by some healthy margin. EV manufacturers have put a lot of effort into making sure the cars regulate the batteries health much more finely than you or I do with say our cell phone batteries, which dramatically increases their life compared to consumer electronics. They also build in a ton of margin into the batteries to begin with, such that most cars have pretty large reserves that the driver never sees in order to maintain their stated range as they age.

Our cars usually go about 30 years before the frame starts giving out from road salt. I presume if we lived warmer they'd last longer.

And in those 30 years you've probably spent a pretty penny on repairs and part replacement or put in a lot of sweat equity. One of the neat advantages of EV's is that the amount of wear and tear (and component replacement) drops exponentially compared to an ICE car just due to the way they are.

 

[Farm Boy]

Almost none of it is the engine. It's a used vehicle for most of its life. If it rolls a significant engine repair, you price the timing belt fix against a new used vehicle that's maybe 20 in. Change the oil every 5, change the filters, rotate the tires. Almost all the repairs are alignment, brakes, things rusting through.

Did have a headgasket go once on my newest used. Got it into a dealer at 59,500 when drivetrain warranty ended from manufacturer at 60.

 

[Lexicus]

And in those 30 years you've probably spent a pretty penny on repairs and part replacement or put in a lot of sweat equity. One of the neat advantages of EV's is that the amount of wear and tear (and component replacement) drops exponentially compared to an ICE car just due to the way they are.

Is this because the engine doesn't constantly get gunked by petroleum combustion byproducts and also because it more efficiently transfers force to angular momentum? My friend (who loves cars) was telling me a while back that an advantage of electric engines is that you can put all the force they generate into actually turning the wheels - not the case with combustion engines.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Is this because the engine doesn't constantly get gunked by petroleum combustion byproducts and also because it more efficiently transfers force to angular momentum? My friend (who loves cars) was telling me a while back that an advantage of electric engines is that you can put all the force they generate into actually turning the wheels - not the case with combustion engines.

Combustion is rough on ICE's but most of the benefit from EV's is that electric motors are stupid simple. Your average combustion engine has hundreds of moving parts which all need to be precisely aligned and lubricated and properly timed. Your average electric motor is a spinning rod of metal inside a wire wrapping. That's a simplification, obviously, but there are just way less moving parts in an EV so there is less to break to begin with. Even the electronics in an EV are only marginally more complicated than your typical ICE car because these days all cars have complicated infotainment systems, radars, back-up cameras, cellular modems, etc etc. Also, to meet emissions standards the control electronics of an ICE have to be pretty sophisticated in their own right.

You also tend to have a simpler drive train in an EV because they can sometimes attach the motor directly to the wheels rather than use a drive shaft, and the use of regenerative breaking means you are not replacing brake pads as often. Also, no oil to change or gears to wear out.

EV's do have a major advantage when it comes to instantaneous power compared to ICE cars as well as they can develop their full torque as fast as you can mash the pedal rather than waiting for the engine cylinders and crankshaft to hit their operational speeds.

 

[uppi]

The alternative to...?

I'm not advocating it as policy, but I guess you could have a progressive tax on vehicle registrations based on their gas mileage? I'm not clear what all the objectives are with regard to your question. Sorry, I tried to answer the best I could.

The alternative to reduce emissions by personal vehicles.

You could have a tax based on the gas mileage, but it is hard to make it progressive as well, since old, cheap cars tend to have higher emissions. You could make some sort of tax based on the income of the owner, but then people might have their car owned by someone else (who pays less taxes) and then only lend their car from them. In the end, you would likely end up with a incredibly complicated system which only tax lawyers would understand (making it regressive again, as only the rich could afford those lawyers).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Switch to petrol instead.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I've seen some striking before and after pictures of many cities showing the dramatic reduction in smog due to the coronavirus taking so many cars off the road. Air quality alone seems like a good reason for this. Seems ambitious, but these kind of measures nation wide might also have the nice side effect of reducing oil consumption/dependence.

 

[innonimatu]

I thought 100% renewable power by 2045 was unrealistic, but this one takes the cake!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-banning-gasoline-cars-now-the-ev-race-begins

I too have been more skeptical of a relatively quick move to EV (as in a few decades rather than 50 years or more) than I am now. Still I think that embracing the use of smaller vehicles with limited autonomy but appropriate for your average daily traveling will be necessary. For most people the few occasions where more capacity is required will be better served by a rental market.

 

[Ajidica]

I've seen some striking before and after pictures of many cities showing the dramatic reduction in smog due to the coronavirus taking so many cars off the road. Air quality alone seems like a good reason for this. Seems ambitious, but these kind of measures nation wide might also have the nice side effect of reducing oil consumption/dependence.

Yeah, those EPA Documerica pictures are striking:

Clark Avenue and Clark Avenue bridge, looking east from West 13th Street, obscured by industrial smoke, in Cleveland, Ohio, in July of 1973.
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2...ges-of-america-in-crisis-in-the-1970s/100190/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/gallery-why-nixon-created-the-epa/67351/

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Wonderful. Imagine how much cleaner will the environment be with every used car dealer bringing cars all across US to Cali because they sell better there, and old gasoline cars being run way past their service life.

Can an electric car tow 5,000 to 8,000 pounds (and stop it safely), at a range of at least 200 miles? Also, can a full recharge be accomplished in less than 5 minutes?

I assume the answer to all of these is currently "no," but is it even remotely possible to achieve these goals?

Undecided whether these posts are an absolutely tragic display of ideology or completely hilarious.

Either way, while this might be a promising move, I personally hope we can entirely abandon the concept of a personal vehicle (at least one like a car) being the foremost mode of transportation. that really needs to happen. mobility needs to become more of a public good, and it also needs to become more efficient (which public transport already is, by a long shot).

 

[JPetroski]

Eh, my post reflects my vehicle needs. I currently have a vehicle that can tow 5,000 pounds, stop it safely, at a range of 200 miles (more, actually) before I need to refuel, and when I refuel, it takes about 5 minutes to gas up.

Can an electric vehicle do all of this? If not, I can't buy it.