|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 29, 2022 1:54:12 GMT
What about what about what about. With that kind of attitude it’s amazing we still aren’t living in caves and grunting at each other. As to CA’s one nuclear plant I heard Newsom wants to extend the life of it for I don’t know how long. A nuclear plant in earthquake country has never seemed to be a good idea. But then I’m not a fan of nuclear plants. Look at that one in Ukraine that has a lot people nervous and with good reason. I mean it’s not like it can be destroyed without creating catastrophic repercussions in a large territory. it's not what abouts, these are genuine issues that need to be addressed. And since the cave dwellers there have been genuine issues that have been addressed that took humans out of the caves and gave them the ability to send men and women into space.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Aug 29, 2022 2:00:33 GMT
What about what about what about. With that kind of attitude it’s amazing we still aren’t living in caves and grunting at each other. As to CA’s one nuclear plant I heard Newsom wants to extend the life of it for I don’t know how long. A nuclear plant in earthquake country has never seemed to be a good idea. But then I’m not a fan of nuclear plants. Look at that one in Ukraine that has a lot people nervous and with good reason. I mean it’s not like it can be destroyed without creating catastrophic repercussions in a large territory. I work in the EV industry and your comments are very lofty and leave a lot to be desired on specifics. Even if you can have rest stops with fast charge stations when there are 20 people waiting ahead of you you have no choice but to park for hours. That isn’t sustainable. My cousin has a Mach E and wanted to take a road trip from PA to SC. He mapped out every stop and all but one of the stops had no working chargers. The infrastructure isn’t even close. They should focus on commercial trucks and then move to smaller trucks like landscaping and construction vehicles before forcing on the masses. The biggest problem I have with this is that CA is picking a technology and putting their eggs in that basket. There are other options to meet CARB and mileage requirements. Legislate what the focus should be and let the free market encourage solutions. Don’t drive one technology to make or break the market. You can see what is happening with prices even in the last week. There is no way in hell a 16yo should be getting a 70k car. And a “typical” family with two kids certainly can’t afford 280k worth of cars. When these cars and trucks are in accidents the batteries are almost always totaled. What do you think insurance will be for a 16yo male in that instance? What happens if one catches on fire at home? You can’t put them out- it is a mess. Getting rid of the escorts, fiestas, metros, etc. is going to be a real problem. This will become a market for elitists. The people who work minimum wage jobs won’t be able to afford the increase and will get to a point where they won’t have transportation. In places like Europe at least there is public transit to accommodate in some cases but in the US there isn’t. There is a reason so many people drive cars for 8-10+ years today. When the prices over double what do you expect them to do? I am all for fighting climate change and moving away from fossil fuels or I wouldn’t do what I do but this a foolhardy way to go about it.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Aug 29, 2022 2:02:30 GMT
I have a Nissan Leaf. I do not need a charging station as it can plug into a normal outlet for slow charge and a 220 (think dryer) for faster charging. I also have solar panels and batteries so not using much electricity from the grid to charge my car. I love my Leaf, but there are issues. 1) I live in a rural area. There are no charging stations within 20-30 miles of me. If I need a fast charge, it is quite a drive 2) living rurally means that I don't hit my brakes a lot. That means that the 260 mile charge doesn't last that long because I am not recharging as I drive. 3) driving in wind or uphill uses the charge much faster. 4) even in bigger cities it can be difficult to find a charger and it is often a crapshoot if it is working I have no idea how someone charges you if you rub out if a charge before you get to a charger EV cars aren't the only solution. Let's get more on the road, but I still think we are farther from being 100% there than 12 years. I don't like the all or nothing scenarios and they are easy to be argued against. As of 2035 no NEW gas powered cars will be sold in CA. thanks for caps locking the word new. I am definitely too stupid to understand things i read. of course, and again, please continue to stay on your high horse where only you understand things. Living where I do there are not a lot of chargers. While the car says I can go 260 miles on a full charge, I really can't in some instances. Because of the lack of chargers, wind can play am issue as to whether I take the Leaf or a gas powered car. If all I had was an EV then some drives would not be doable or would be sketchy as to whether I'd make it to a charger or not and as long as the charger was functioning, I could wait an hour while it charges before going further. I thought about going up to Estes Park the other day and was going to take the EV, but I'm not 100% sure it would make it.
|
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,514
Nov 14, 2016 23:47:03 GMT
|
Post by pinklady on Aug 29, 2022 2:17:35 GMT
What about what about what about. With that kind of attitude it’s amazing we still aren’t living in caves and grunting at each other. Maybe just once get off your high horse. California is no where near prepared to sell 100% Electric or hydrogen cars. Hope we make progress but I’m skeptical. So you don’t give a shit about recycling the batteries and what that is going to do to the environment? By the way, what car do you drive?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 29, 2022 2:18:44 GMT
As of 2035 no NEW gas powered cars will be sold in CA. thanks for caps locking the word new. I am definitely too stupid to understand things i read. of course, and again, please continue to stay on your high horse where only you understand things. Living where I do there are not a lot of chargers. While the car says I can go 260 miles on a full charge, I really can't in some instances. Because of the lack of chargers, wind can play am issue as to whether I take the Leaf or a gas powered car. If all I had was an EV then some drives would not be doable or would be sketchy as to whether I'd make it to a charger or not and as long as the charger was functioning, I could wait an hour while it charges before going further. I thought about going up to Estes Park the other day and was going to take the EV, but I'm not 100% sure it would make it. And if I recall, we had a thread where we brought up the reality that delivery of electricity in rural areas is different than in urban areas. For one thing, co-ops may not have the funds necessary to upgrade an infrastructure to sustain massive EV adoption. For another, what makes people think that rural areas will be in parity with urban areas when it comes to funding and capital investment? (For farmers and ranchers who drive hundreds of miles, do EVs even make sense?) Yeah, Tesla, ChargePoint, EVGo, etc may be gung-ho about building charging stations in cities and maybe the suburbs. But in vast swathes of farmland and rural communities?
|
|
scrappinghappy
Pearl Clutcher
“I’m late, I’m late for a very important date. No time to say “Hello.” Goodbye. I’m late...."
Posts: 4,306
Jun 26, 2014 19:30:06 GMT
|
Post by scrappinghappy on Aug 29, 2022 3:07:04 GMT
It’s not just the range that’s an issue. It’s the negative impact on the battery’s lifespan. In a lithium battery, the ions are in a liquid electrolyte. That electrolyte gets thicker in cold temp and can freeze causing resistance. As resistance increases, the lithium builds up, and if the build-up continues due to the frequent cold, it damages the layer that separates the anode and cathode. When that happens, your battery is gone. Replacement costs can go from $3,000 to over $10,000 depending on your battery and EV model. That's one of the main reasons I haven't bought an EV. (In my current ICE vehicle, I myself changed the battery last year because it’s very easy to do and spent $189 for a Duralast.) my husband and i both have a Tesla, live north of Chicago, and he has owned his since they first came out about 6 years ago. No battery problems what so ever. We keep our cars/batteries plugged in when we aren’t driving and at least one car stays in freezing Illinois undriven while we travel in winter. We have solar panels which power both our home and cars and with net metering our monthly electricity bill is about $15 which is the electricity delivery fee. We have family near Detroit and in Montreal and while yes we have to charge more often and for longer than a gas fillup, we just plan for it and it is part of the time we plan for traveling. It takes us about 4 hours longer to get to Montreal than in a gas car. Battery technology is changing, range is improving, charging stations will soon be able to charge faster, everything is moving in the right direction. I am planning on selling my Tesla next year as we think we no longer need two cars and by the looks of things, the Tesla has held its value so well, i should be able to get quite a bit for it. If we find we need to replace it, we will definitely buy another ev
|
|
scrappinghappy
Pearl Clutcher
“I’m late, I’m late for a very important date. No time to say “Hello.” Goodbye. I’m late...."
Posts: 4,306
Jun 26, 2014 19:30:06 GMT
|
Post by scrappinghappy on Aug 29, 2022 3:17:51 GMT
Oh, and what i meant to say as well is that WAY more methane is produced as a by product of the beef industry. I believe we could meet more of our climate change goals if we did something about how much beef we consume. I have no idea how or what, but why just focus on cars and not our food too.
|
|
|
Post by chaosisapony on Aug 29, 2022 3:26:56 GMT
I'm all for reducing fossil fuel dependence. But let's talk about the reality of electric cars. They're not a panacea or a real solution. The batteries are not recyclable or renewable. They have a finite shelf life, and then become more toxic waste we will never get rid of. The mining of lithium is also problematic, and lithium is also a finite resource. Not to mention the high cost of electric vehicles and the awful state of public transportation in CA. This sums up how I feel. In theory, it's all cool. But in reality I think we're just trading air pollution for ground pollution. Those batteries are not good and the way they are created is not good. California's grid can't even handle the energy demands it already has. I think a future where we all drive electric cars and everything works perfectly is a bit of a pipe dream. Plus, lots of us live in the country and when our power goes off for days at a time because the wind is blowing I'll be charging my electric car with my old gasoline powered generator, and that makes sense how??? We need a major overhauling of our utilities and infrastructure to pull this off and I do not see it happening.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 29, 2022 5:46:29 GMT
What about what about what about. With that kind of attitude it’s amazing we still aren’t living in caves and grunting at each other. As to CA’s one nuclear plant I heard Newsom wants to extend the life of it for I don’t know how long. A nuclear plant in earthquake country has never seemed to be a good idea. But then I’m not a fan of nuclear plants. Look at that one in Ukraine that has a lot people nervous and with good reason. I mean it’s not like it can be destroyed without creating catastrophic repercussions in a large territory. I work in the EV industry and your comments are very lofty and leave a lot to be desired on specifics. Even if you can have rest stops with fast charge stations when there are 20 people waiting ahead of you you have no choice but to park for hours. That isn’t sustainable. My cousin has a Mach E and wanted to take a road trip from PA to SC. He mapped out every stop and all but one of the stops had no working chargers. The infrastructure isn’t even close. They should focus on commercial trucks and then move to smaller trucks like landscaping and construction vehicles before forcing on the masses. The biggest problem I have with this is that CA is picking a technology and putting their eggs in that basket. There are other options to meet CARB and mileage requirements. Legislate what the focus should be and let the free market encourage solutions. Don’t drive one technology to make or break the market. You can see what is happening with prices even in the last week. There is no way in hell a 16yo should be getting a 70k car. And a “typical” family with two kids certainly can’t afford 280k worth of cars. When these cars and trucks are in accidents the batteries are almost always totaled. What do you think insurance will be for a 16yo male in that instance? What happens if one catches on fire at home? You can’t put them out- it is a mess. Getting rid of the escorts, fiestas, metros, etc. is going to be a real problem. This will become a market for elitists. The people who work minimum wage jobs won’t be able to afford the increase and will get to a point where they won’t have transportation. In places like Europe at least there is public transit to accommodate in some cases but in the US there isn’t. There is a reason so many people drive cars for 8-10+ years today. When the prices over double what do you expect them to do? I am all for fighting climate change and moving away from fossil fuels or I wouldn’t do what I do but this a foolhardy way to go about it. You all in your argument against CA’s plan keep missing the basic facts that this does not happen for 12 years and when it does it’s just phasing EVs in. On January 1 2035 the vast majority of vehicles in the state will continue to be gas engine vehicles. My guess there will be a run on buying new gas powered vehicles in 2033 & 2034 and people have at least 10 years to plan for it. Or they can go to another state and buy a new car and bring it back to CA. You may work in the EV industry but there is no way you can predict what they will cost in 2035. Not even the manufacturers can at this point. In CA the biggest polluters are fossil fuels because in this state we love our cars. Here in the Bay Area they have “spare the air days”. They can happen anytime during the year. When a “spare the air day” is called people are told not to use gas powered equipment like leaf blowers or if it’s in the winter not to use their fireplaces. In fact it’s my understanding new homes won’t be built with fireplaces anymore. And I think they are also banning gas powered leaf blowers. All the while ignoring the real problem. Exhaust from all the cars. At first they worked it out with mass transit that on “spare the air days” people could ride mass transit for free hoping to get people out of their cars on these days. They gave it up because the Board that calls these days was paying the transit companies for monies they lost and not that many people actually got out of their car on these days and so they were mostly paying the fare of the people who normally rode mass transit to get to work in the first place. If one wants to get serious about the pollution in this state then they need to get serious about the biggest source of pollution and that are cars that run on fossil fuel. At some point they need to go. Gavin Newsom is starting the process in 2035. At this point no one knows how long it will take to rid this state of cars that run on fossil fuel but it is a start. And it seems that when it comes to charging stations and battery performance there are those who feel nothing will change in the next 12 years. If there is one thing I’ve learned over years that regardless of the situation this country finds itself in technology will continue to evolve. It did during the Great Recession and it did during the pandemic. The Biden Administration is promising more charging stations will be built and Secretary Pete is out backing this stuff up by handing out checks for new projects. I would be very surprised if with all this money being spent from the CA surplus, money for charging stations wasn’t also being allocated. In the meantime the state has to put up with the affects of climate change of more frequent wildfires that burn hotter and a drought that has been going on for years. Did you know that parts of the Central Valley are actually sinking? The reason is because of all the ground water the farmers have been taking out of the ground over the last several years because their other sources of water were limited or literally drying up during this multi year drought the state is in. And since there hasn’t been that much rain to replace the ground water parts of the valley are actually are sinking. And I guess sinking enough that it may be affecting some types of infrastructure if I remember correctly. So I say let’s just sit back and see how it all unfolds. A lot could happen in the next 12 years.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 29, 2022 19:26:02 GMT
You all in your argument against CA’s plan keep missing the basic facts that this does not happen for 12 years and when it does it’s just phasing EVs in. The phase-in begins in 2026, not 2035.
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Aug 29, 2022 20:16:12 GMT
You all in your argument against CA’s plan keep missing the basic facts that this does not happen for 12 years and when it does it’s just phasing EVs in. The phase-in begins in 2026, not 2035. Yes, I think 35% by 2026, 70% by 2030, and then 2035. I don't know how that will work though. When Toyota ships cars to California, say it ships 100,000, I guess 35,000 of those have to be EV? And what happens if they don't sell all 35%? Does Toyota take away some of the new ICE cars from the California market so the balance stays 35/65?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Aug 29, 2022 20:27:33 GMT
The phase-in begins in 2026, not 2035. Yes, I think 35% by 2026, 70% by 2030, and then 2035. I don't know how that will work though. When Toyota ships cars to California, say it ships 100,000, I guess 35,000 of those have to be EV? And what happens if they don't sell all 35%? Does Toyota take away some of the new ICE cars from the California market so the balance stays 35/65? I would imagine they’d have to (although I don't know what they'll do if they can't sell all of the portion of EVs in their inventory). According to the L.A. Times, if carmakers do not meet the mandated % for each phase beginning in 2026, they’ll be fined $20,000 for EACH non-complying vehicle.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,151
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Aug 29, 2022 20:36:45 GMT
The phase-in begins in 2026, not 2035. Yes, I think 35% by 2026, 70% by 2030, and then 2035. I don't know how that will work though. When Toyota ships cars to California, say it ships 100,000, I guess 35,000 of those have to be EV? And what happens if they don't sell all 35%? Does Toyota take away some of the new ICE cars from the California market so the balance stays 35/65? Dealerships are franchises, once that car hits their lot it’s their problem of how to get rid of it. That’s why you see prices drop when the new model year comes out. If a price drop doesn’t move them then they go to auction. They do not get sent back to the manufacturer.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Aug 29, 2022 20:54:08 GMT
No one is trying to predict what the technology or market will look like in 2035. We're saying that right now, with the phase in starting in 2026, there are a lot of problems that need to be addressed - environmental concerns around mining lithium, cold temperatures, shortage of charging stations especially in rural areas, how to charge vehicles outside of a garage or parked on a street, battery life and replacement cost, cost of the vehicles, what to do with old batteries etc. Yes, the technology will evolve and hopefully resolve some of those issues. For now, it's not practical for everyone to own or drive an EV. Again, most if not all of us, know the problems associated with fossil fuels and don't need to be lectured on them.
And I may have missed your answer, but onelasttime, what kind of car do you drive?
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,151
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Aug 29, 2022 21:01:57 GMT
No one is trying to predict what the technology or market will look like in 2035. We're saying that right now, with the phase in starting in 2026, there are a lot of problems that need to be addressed - environmental concerns around mining lithium, cold temperatures, shortage of charging stations especially in rural areas, how to charge vehicles outside of a garage or parked on a street, battery life and replacement cost, cost of the vehicles, what to do with old batteries etc. Yes, the technology will evolve and hopefully resolve some of those issues. For now, it's not practical for everyone to own or drive an EV. Again, most if not all of us, know the problems associated with fossil fuels and don't need to be lectured on them. And I may have missed your answer, but onelasttime, what kind of car do you drive? You didn’t miss her answer, she ignored the question.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 29, 2022 21:10:07 GMT
So is the final aim that everybody will have to buy an electric car eventually? What do they do about helicopters, airplanes, firetrucks, police cars, cruise ships, farm tractors, and other farm equipment, semi trucks that deliver goods across state lines,. That’s great, you drive from Tahoe to Los Angeles and only have to charge once and it only cost you two extra hours. What about everybody else that’s going that same route that has to charge on that same charging station. When everybody has electric cars everybody’s going to need to recharge them. How many charging stations do you think you can put on a city street or rural highway when you have as many cars and people in California as you already have.
Electric car sounds good in theory, but what about every other service vehicle. So the police car runs out of juice. Can’t go help people. The ambulance runs out of juice and the fire truck runs out of juice you can’t help people. How do you life flight people in a Helicopter? Are they going to make electric airplanes and electric helicopters and electric jets? I can see road rage with people fighting over charging stations.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 29, 2022 21:21:00 GMT
Oh, and what i meant to say as well is that WAY more methane is produced as a by product of the beef industry. I believe we could meet more of our climate change goals if we did something about how much beef we consume. I have no idea how or what, but why just focus on cars and not our food too. I for one have no intention of eating plant based meats, milk, cheese and butter. Those things are full of chemicals, additives and seed oils. Cows are the most sustainable farm animal for regenerative farming. They eat the grass, they provide milk to make butter cheese yogurt, etc and their poop fertilizes the ground that they eat off of, so it’s a pretty nice tight circle there of regeneration.
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Aug 29, 2022 21:28:17 GMT
So is the final aim that everybody will have to buy an electric car eventually? What do they do about helicopters, airplanes, firetrucks, police cars, cruise ships, farm tractors, and other farm equipment, semi trucks that deliver goods across state lines,. That’s great, you drive from Tahoe to Los Angeles and only have to charge once and it only cost you two extra hours. What about everybody else that’s going that same route that has to charge on that same charging station. When everybody has electric cars everybody’s going to need to recharge them. How many charging stations do you think you can put on a city street or rural highway when you have as many cars and people in California as you already have. Electric car sounds good in theory, but what about every other service vehicle. So the police car runs out of juice. Can’t go help people. The ambulance runs out of juice and the fire truck runs out of juice you can’t help people. How do you life flight people in a Helicopter? Are they going to make electric airplanes and electric helicopters and electric jets? I can see road rage with people fighting over charging stations. In 2035, the law is only for new vehicles (cars and trucks) sold in California. Vehicles sold in other states can still be gas powered. California will still have gas stations and will still sell gas. The law has nothing to do with helicopters, airplanes, and cruise ships! There are already electric ambulances (and airplanes) out there. I am sure the police, fire, and ambulance services have their own fueling stations. They will not be competing for the same pumps that cars use, which they don't do now for regular gas. I've never seen a fire truck or police car fill up at a corner gas station. www.afar.com/magazine/electric-planes-are-coming-sooner-than-you-thinkwww.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-planes-take-off/
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Aug 29, 2022 21:35:04 GMT
Oh, and what i meant to say as well is that WAY more methane is produced as a by product of the beef industry. I believe we could meet more of our climate change goals if we did something about how much beef we consume. I have no idea how or what, but why just focus on cars and not our food too. I for one have no intention of eating plant based meats, milk, cheese and butter. Those things are full of chemicals, additives and seed oils. Cows are the most sustainable farm animal for regenerative farming. They eat the grass, they provide milk to make butter cheese yogurt, etc and their poop fertilizes the ground that they eat off of, so it’s a pretty nice tight circle there of regeneration. Cattle are the least sustainable farm animal. They require the most land, water, food and time to get to your plate. Well raised chickens are one of the best, they require less food, they grow and reproduce quickly. One pound of beef takes 2500 gallons of water, eggs 477 gallons of water, and cheese nearly 900 gallons.
Raising livestock for human consumption generates nearly 15% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, which is greater than all the transportation emissions combined. It also uses nearly 70% of agricultural land which leads to being the major contributor to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution. www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomfortable-we-need-talk-about-it-animal-agriculture-industry-and-zero-wastewww.bonappetit.com/story/most-sustainable-meat
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Aug 29, 2022 21:39:47 GMT
Ok, got it about phasing in. But it would appear here in CA anyway, more are already buying zero-emission vehicles. What is not clear is if someone in CA purchased a new gas powered car out of state, brought it into the state and if they could then register it. From Cal Matters… link“Automakers will have to gradually electrify their fleet of new vehicles, beginning with 35% of 2026 models sold, increasing to 68% in 2030 and 100% for 2035 models. As of this year, about 16% of all new car sales in California are zero-emission vehicles, twice the share in 2020.The millions of existing gas-powered cars already on the roads and used car sales are unaffected by the mandate, which only sets a zero-emission standard for new models.”
Also from the article… ” Concerns about affordability, durability” For many families, electric cars are an attractive option, but barriers keep them out of reach. New electric cars range in price from $25,000 to $180,000. Price markups at dealerships due to car shortages and high demand have also inflated the cost of some electric cars by more than $10,000, sometimes as high as $15,000. Air board officials project that the cost of an electric car will be equal to a gas car’s price as early as 2030 as supplies surge to meet the mandate. Despite the higher upfront cost, the air board’s analysis projects that drivers will end up saving much more in maintenance and operation expenses. Charging at home costs about half as much as gas for the same number of miles driven. Drivers in California already pay some of the highest gas prices in the country. At today’s hearing, air board members, environmental justice advocates and members of the public echoed concerns they raised during a June hearing about the proposal — challenges with high vehicle costs, lack of charging infrastructure and consumer reluctance. The state’s subsidy programs, designed to help low and middle-income residents who purchase electric cars, have repeatedly suffered from inconsistent and inadequate funding. Meanwhile, auto groups said the industry is already dealing with global supply chain disruptions, battery shortages, and other constraints. Air board staff member Anna Wong, who is part of the agency’s sustainable transportation and communities division, acknowledged that the plan has a “stringent but achievable path.” Many of the changes they proposed in the revised policy include provisions to help manufacturers cut costs for consumers, she said. Under the mandate, electric cars must have a range of at least 150 miles on a single charge. Batteries will need to be more durable and carry a manufacturer’s warranty. At least 80% of the original range must be maintained over 10 years, starting in 2030, a year earlier than initially proposed. To ease the strain on automakers, the staff reduced the range requirement to 75% for the first eight years that a new car is on the road, extending it by an additional three years. Automakers will be allowed to use a credit system that allows them to meet a lower percentage of sales if they offer cheaper cars at dealerships and participate in state subsidy programs. To ensure enforcement, state officials could penalize manufacturers that don’t meet their yearly percentages with hefty fines of $20,000 for every car they fail to produce in a given year, according to air board staff. Automakers that fail to meet those requirements would need to get credits from another manufacturer that already met their targets. Air board staff also assured the public that they could amend the regulation at any point to address lingering equity and compliance issues“ & Can the power grid cope? Critics say the state needs more charging stations as electric car sales surge. California has about 80,000 stations in public places, falling short of the nearly 1.2 million public chargers needed by 2030 to meet the demand of the 7.5 million passenger electric cars anticipated to be on California roads. Another question remains: Will there be enough electricity? Experts say California needs a more reliable power grid, sourced from climate-friendly renewables like solar and wind. California’s electricity consumption is expected to surge by as much as 68% by 2045. But the power grid — marred by outages and increasingly extreme weather — needs massive investments to attain the clean-energy future outlined in California’s five-year climate roadmap, called a scoping plan. Newsom in recent months has been pushing the idea of keeping the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open, introducing draft legislation earlier this month that would continue operations past its scheduled 2025 closure date. It’s part of a wider effort to maintain the reliability of the state’s increasingly strained power grid and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels as California makes progress on transitioning to renewables. But the contentious proposal, which would give owner Pacific Gas & Electric $1.4 billion, has widespread opposition. A new draft bill is being circulated within the Legislature and instead proposes using that money for renewable infrastructure. California already has the largest zero-emission car market in the country, with more than 1.13 million plug-in vehicles registered across the state. Nationally there are about 2.64 million. That means California accounts for 43% of the nation’s plug-in cars. The board’s move today “is the most important action it has taken in 30 years,” said board member Daniel Sperling, who also is director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. California often sets tougher climate change policies that the federal government then follows. There are also at least 16 states that currently follow the state’s strict auto emission standards that are expected to adopt these regulations. These states, along with California, represent about 40% of the country’s new car sales, according to the board.” “Healthier air”Air board staff project that the new rule will reduce passenger vehicle emissions by more than 50% by 2040. That results in 395 million fewer metric tons of greenhouse gases — the equivalent of emissions from burning 915 million barrels of gasoline. Until CA tackled the emissions from cars the state was never going to come anywhere close to hitting any goal they had about reducing pollution in the air. When I say this state loves their cars I’m not kidding.The rule is considered essential to reducing smog and soot pollution, which violates health standards in much of the state, and to meeting California’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Battling California’s severe air pollution for longer than half a century, the air board has long believed in the promise of an electric vehicle future, initially implementing a zero-emission mandate in 1990, requiring that 2% of new car sales between 1998 and 2000 be emissions-free, increasing to 5% in 2001 and 2002. The board reversed its decision six years later after automakers expressed concerns that the technology and battery lifespan were not advanced enough to comply.
Based on the underlined bit I suspect if the technology or issues are not resolved as these due dates are hit the board will again reverse their decisions until they can be resolved. The important take away is CA is trying to do something. They are not ignoring climate change.“The mandate has led a very tortured life and it was basically weakened for almost 20 years and then in 2012, we started strengthening it again,” board member Sperling said. “So this represents an embrace of the original vision. It’s important for California, it’s important for the U.S. and it’s important for the world.” State officials said Newsom’s $10 billion investment in vehicle incentives, charging infrastructure and public outreach over the next six years will be a critical tool to ramping up sales and improving access and affordability. The proposal comes just a couple of weeks after Congress passed a sweeping climate bill, which pours billions into clean energy projects and renewables. The new law includes electric vehicle tax incentives that offer up to $7,500 in rebates for Americans who want to purchase a new zero-emission car or $4,000 for a used one. That rebate, in addition to the state’s multiple subsidy programs, are expected to help provide some financial relief for car buyers.”
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 29, 2022 21:43:01 GMT
So is the final aim that everybody will have to buy an electric car eventually? What do they do about helicopters, airplanes, firetrucks, police cars, cruise ships, farm tractors, and other farm equipment, semi trucks that deliver goods across state lines,. That’s great, you drive from Tahoe to Los Angeles and only have to charge once and it only cost you two extra hours. What about everybody else that’s going that same route that has to charge on that same charging station. When everybody has electric cars everybody’s going to need to recharge them. How many charging stations do you think you can put on a city street or rural highway when you have as many cars and people in California as you already have. Electric car sounds good in theory, but what about every other service vehicle. So the police car runs out of juice. Can’t go help people. The ambulance runs out of juice and the fire truck runs out of juice you can’t help people. How do you life flight people in a Helicopter? Are they going to make electric airplanes and electric helicopters and electric jets? I can see road rage with people fighting over charging stations. In 2035, the law is only for new vehicles (cars and trucks) sold in California. Vehicles sold in other states can still be gas powered. California will still have gas stations and will still sell gas. The law has nothing to do with helicopters, airplanes, and cruise ships! There are already electric ambulances (and airplanes) out there. I am sure the police, fire, and ambulance services have their own fueling stations. They will not be competing for the same pumps that cars use, which they don't do now for regular gas. I've never seen a fire truck or police car fill up at a corner gas station. So is the ultimate aim to stop fossil fuels or climate clean up? Is the ultimate goal to eventually phase out gas powered cars completely so that EVERYONE has an electric vehicle? What is the bottom line for this move? Because I’m pretty sure that airplanes, jets, cruise ships, construction vehicles, pollute the atmosphere more than gas powered cars. What about nascar? No more car races.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Aug 29, 2022 21:48:40 GMT
In 2035, the law is only for new vehicles (cars and trucks) sold in California. Vehicles sold in other states can still be gas powered. California will still have gas stations and will still sell gas. The law has nothing to do with helicopters, airplanes, and cruise ships! There are already electric ambulances (and airplanes) out there. I am sure the police, fire, and ambulance services have their own fueling stations. They will not be competing for the same pumps that cars use, which they don't do now for regular gas. I've never seen a fire truck or police car fill up at a corner gas station. So is the ultimate aim to stop fossil fuels or climate clean up? Is the ultimate goal to eventually phase out gas powered cars completely so that EVERYONE has an electric vehicle? What is the bottom line for this move? Because I’m pretty sure that airplanes, jets, cruise ships, construction vehicles, pollute the atmosphere more than gas powered cars. What about nascar? No more car races. The aim is to save the planet and it’s population. It’s really simple. Yes it is going to take some big adjustments but there is no alternative, really… none.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,151
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Aug 29, 2022 22:01:58 GMT
In 2035, the law is only for new vehicles (cars and trucks) sold in California. Vehicles sold in other states can still be gas powered. California will still have gas stations and will still sell gas. The law has nothing to do with helicopters, airplanes, and cruise ships! There are already electric ambulances (and airplanes) out there. I am sure the police, fire, and ambulance services have their own fueling stations. They will not be competing for the same pumps that cars use, which they don't do now for regular gas. I've never seen a fire truck or police car fill up at a corner gas station. So is the ultimate aim to stop fossil fuels or climate clean up? Is the ultimate goal to eventually phase out gas powered cars completely so that EVERYONE has an electric vehicle? What is the bottom line for this move? Because I’m pretty sure that airplanes, jets, cruise ships, construction vehicles, pollute the atmosphere more than gas powered cars. What about nascar? No more car races. NASCAR is already looking into electric racing. Look for the first race in 2023 in, you guessed it, CA. I’m already ticked that Chevy would even consider an electric Corvette, I’d rather see them discontinue first. If nascar goes all electric they can kiss their fans goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 29, 2022 22:10:47 GMT
So is the ultimate aim to stop fossil fuels or climate clean up? Is the ultimate goal to eventually phase out gas powered cars completely so that EVERYONE has an electric vehicle? What is the bottom line for this move? Because I’m pretty sure that airplanes, jets, cruise ships, construction vehicles, pollute the atmosphere more than gas powered cars. What about nascar? No more car races. The aim is to save the planet and it’s population. It’s really simple. Yes it is going to take some big adjustments but there is no alternative, really… none. My guess is that the elite, i.e, Politicians, movie stars and athletes are not going to get rid of their main mode of transportation which are airplanes, jets and helicopters. No matter how big the adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Aug 29, 2022 22:11:27 GMT
NASCAR is already looking into electric racing. Look for the first race in 2023 in, you guessed it, CA. I’m already ticked that Chevy would even consider an electric Corvette, I’d rather see them discontinue first. If nascar goes all electric they can kiss their fans goodbye. Just a genuinely curious question. How would electric race cars change the sport? And, aren't most of the races 500 miles long? How will they handle the battery issue, swap it out?
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 29, 2022 22:27:17 GMT
I for one have no intention of eating plant based meats, milk, cheese and butter. Those things are full of chemicals, additives and seed oils. Cows are the most sustainable farm animal for regenerative farming. They eat the grass, they provide milk to make butter cheese yogurt, etc and their poop fertilizes the ground that they eat off of, so it’s a pretty nice tight circle there of regeneration. Cattle are the least sustainable farm animal. They require the most land, water, food and time to get to your plate. Well raised chickens are one of the best, they require less food, they grow and reproduce quickly. One pound of beef takes 2500 gallons of water, eggs 477 gallons of water, and cheese nearly 900 gallons.
Raising livestock for human consumption generates nearly 15% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, which is greater than all the transportation emissions combined. It also uses nearly 70% of agricultural land which leads to being the major contributor to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution. www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomfortable-we-need-talk-about-it-animal-agriculture-industry-and-zero-wastewww.bonappetit.com/story/most-sustainable-meat Cows provide milk which makes butter, cheese as well as the beef. They will never stop producing beef. Not to mention the base for a lot of baby formula.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Aug 29, 2022 22:28:53 GMT
i'm still processing how i feel about this. the governor says that competition and increased inventory of electric vehicles will bring the prices down but i don't know if it will go down enough for the "average" family can afford it even at competitive prices. also, they always talk about increasing the number of charging stations available but i don't think the supply of stations will meet the demand by then.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,151
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Aug 29, 2022 22:36:27 GMT
NASCAR is already looking into electric racing. Look for the first race in 2023 in, you guessed it, CA. I’m already ticked that Chevy would even consider an electric Corvette, I’d rather see them discontinue first. If nascar goes all electric they can kiss their fans goodbye. Just a genuinely curious question. How would electric race cars change the sport? And, aren't most of the races 500 miles long? How will they handle the battery issue, swap it out? Do you watch nascar races? Watching a bunch of cars driving around a track and not hearing the roar of the engines…….don’t even want to think about it. The battery issue is a good question. I would think they’d have to stop the race for however long it took to recharge those batteries. I can’t imagine they could just be swapped out.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on Aug 29, 2022 22:43:46 GMT
i'm still processing how i feel about this. the governor says that competition and increased inventory of electric vehicles will bring the prices down but i don't know if it will go down enough for the "average" family can afford it even at competitive prices. also, they always talk about increasing the number of charging stations available but i don't think the supply of stations will meet the demand by then. The rich and elitist politicians want you to think that “everyone” will/should be able to afford them. When poor people, most of whom can only afford a $2k-$5k priced car, the EV’s better come down in price to almost nothing.
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Aug 29, 2022 22:45:40 GMT
Cows provide milk which makes butter, cheese as well as the beef. They will never stop producing beef. Not to mention the base for a lot of baby formula. None of that changes the environmental impact of raising animals for human consumption. It’s environmentally expensive to do so. It takes many more resources to produce meat than it does to produce the equivalent nutrition in plant foods. One of the easiest ways is simply to eat less meat. You don’t have to become vegetarian, but you can treat meat more as a side dish than the main component of dinner or simply incorporate a few meals a week that don’t include meat. It’s something we are working on at our house.
|
|