5 ms·

Do we really want a ban on all gas powered cars? There are no situations where a gas car is preferable or necessary? There are simpler and less constraining wa

by ipnon 5y ago

Do we really want a ban on all gas powered cars? There are no situations where a gas car is preferable or necessary? There are simpler and less constraining ways to accomplish the real goal of this legislation, which is curbing carbon emissions. A simple, emissions-priced carbon tax on gasoline would make EVs preferable to those with no strong feelings on how they get around. My only claim is that a 99% ban is preferable to a 100% ban, because there most exist some circumstance where the internal combustion automobile is better. Expect this law to be walked back slightly in the future for this reason.

spankalee 5y ago
A carbon tax was a good idea 30 years ago. Now we need more direct regulation.
CraigJPerry 5y ago
Could we not just reuse an existing gas car for these cases? It seems preferable to repair those than build new ones if we’re talking about environmental impact.
- pwinnski 5y ago
  It's reduce, reuse, recycle, in that order, so inasmuch as this results in reduction of car sales, or extending the life of existing (gas-powered) cars, that's still a win in many ways.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Loopholes create perverse incentives. You can see this in things like regulations on certain vehicle sizes. "But what about trucks" turns into "pickups and SUVs grow to monstrous proportions". If it turns out that in 15 years there is some grievous need for gas cars then, as you say, the legislation can be walked back. But that isn't a reason to not make it bold to start with.
misiti3780 5y ago
My hot take: The range of electric cars degrades considerably at low temperatures in my experience (75% of range sometimes). There is no scenario where gas trucks cars will not be utilized in Canada and the northern united states until this type of technological issue is resolved. Not to mention, the number of chargers would have to increase exponentially to support all of the electric cars coming online. There are simply places in North America where electric cars will never probably work.
- ajross 5y ago
  > Not to mention, the number of chargers would have to increase exponentially to support all of the electric cars coming online. 1. Infuriating misuse of "exponentially". Charging needs scale linearly with the number of cars! 2. Come on, they're outlets. Car chargers are just a different kind of grid outlet, and they cost no more than connecting a new building. This is cheap, not expensive.
  - misiti3780 5y ago
    Ok -- I agree exponentially was the wrong adjective, but I think linearly is wrong too, because the number of EVs being produced now (mostly because of TSLA) is not keeping pace with the chargers. You notice this because lines at TSLA chargers are common on the east coast. The competing charging networks in the US suck, and if TSLA opens up their network to non-TSLAs, this will just get worse. I have no clue what it takes to construct the chargers (maybe someone here can chime in), but it isn't just "outlets" -- it presumably requires a larger-than-average power source to charge 8+ cars simultaneously at 250Kw
- mistrial9 5y ago
  uhh, a quick check says "thirty percent less range at below 0 temps" .. secondly, nothing said "will never work"
  - misiti3780 5y ago
    Just to be clear, I meant you get 75% of the range (25% degradation) in the winter, sorry for the confusion.
ajross 5y ago
> There are no situations where a gas car is preferable or necessary? For a passenger car? No, not really. And it's getting better and better as more fast charging services come online. Electrical infrastructure is extremely cheap relative to other costs like roadbuilding, there simply aren't any places you can go with roads but not efficient grid connectivity, all that's needed is building the right kind of outlets.
- bumby 5y ago
  Do you mean specifically for the NY market or that fossil fuel power doesn't make sense in general? I know there are some places out West where people may need to drive very long distances, even for groceries. They literally pack coolers full of ice to transport food back. We can maybe say they need to plan better on their trips, or they shouldn't live in the middle of nowhere, but I don't think that negates the fact there are some cases where gas is a better option (until electric ranges/refueling options are comparable in terms of time and availability) >Electrical infrastructure is extremely cheap relative to other costs like roadbuilding I think I disagree here, especially if you look at lead times. Some transformers literally cannot be manufactured within the US. Others were put in place using infrastructure like rail that no longer exists in that area. These are big risks that really drive up infrastructure cost.
  - ajross 5y ago
    > I know there are some places out West where people may need to drive very long distances, even for groceries. None that don't have power along the way, or at least vanishingly few. Every little town or crossroads you see with a building? Every traffic light? Every railroad crossing with an alarm? That's power. The point wasn't that the EV charging infrastructure exists TODAY to support this, it was that it would be trivial to do within the timeframe required. > I think I disagree here, especially if you look at lead times. The lead time in question is fourteen years! And if you don't believe it just look it up. Stringing a cable is 2+ orders of magnitude cheaper than building a road (much, much more so in areas where you need to blast tunnels or grade mountainsides). The only reason this even looks like an argument is because you presumably feel like "all the roads are already built", but they aren't.
wlesieutre 5y ago
If you look at the actual text of the bill, it already includes several "where feasible" caveats which will presumably be carved into more specific exceptions a decade from now if there are places where we can't transition to electric. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a4302 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a4302
bryanlarsen 5y ago
A carbon tax (along with rebate & tariff to make it fair) is much more fair and effective than a gas car ban, because it impacts old vehicles as well a new ones. It can be brought in gradually. A complete ban is not a great idea because there's always somebody somewhere who need a new gas vehicle for some essential reason or another. There might be 5 of these people in the whole state but they'll dominate news stories as the date gets closer. There are lots of effective ways to ban things without going for the full ban -- ICE vehicles are environmental disasters, put limits or even better, fees on some of those things. Like particulates, or CO2. The European fleet CO2 limit is a great example of such an approach. And don't assume that a carbon tax is a complete non-starter. Here in Canada we have a Federal election in a few days. The 5 mainstream parties all include a carbon tax as part of their platform. Sure, the right wing party's carbon tax is ineffectively small and counter-productively structured, but it's symbolically there. The narrative has shifted from massive opposition to a feeling that any party without a carbon tax in their platform are climate change deniers.

by ipnon 5y ago

spankalee 5y ago

A carbon tax was a good idea 30 years ago. Now we need more direct regulation.

CraigJPerry 5y ago

Could we not just reuse an existing gas car for these cases? It seems preferable to repair those than build new ones if we’re talking about environmental impact.

pwinnski 5y ago
It's reduce, reuse, recycle, in that order, so inasmuch as this results in reduction of car sales, or extending the life of existing (gas-powered) cars, that's still a win in many ways.

UncleMeat 5y ago

Loopholes create perverse incentives. You can see this in things like regulations on certain vehicle sizes. "But what about trucks" turns into "pickups and SUVs grow to monstrous proportions". If it turns out that in 15 years there is some grievous need for gas cars then, as you say, the legislation can be walked back. But that isn't a reason to not make it bold to start with.

misiti3780 5y ago

My hot take: The range of electric cars degrades considerably at low temperatures in my experience (75% of range sometimes). There is no scenario where gas trucks cars will not be utilized in Canada and the northern united states until this type of technological issue is resolved. Not to mention, the number of chargers would have to increase exponentially to support all of the electric cars coming online. There are simply places in North America where electric cars will never probably work.

ajross 5y ago
> Not to mention, the number of chargers would have to increase exponentially to support all of the electric cars coming online. 1. Infuriating misuse of "exponentially". Charging needs scale linearly with the number of cars! 2. Come on, they're outlets. Car chargers are just a different kind of grid outlet, and they cost no more than connecting a new building. This is cheap, not expensive.
- misiti3780 5y ago
  Ok -- I agree exponentially was the wrong adjective, but I think linearly is wrong too, because the number of EVs being produced now (mostly because of TSLA) is not keeping pace with the chargers. You notice this because lines at TSLA chargers are common on the east coast. The competing charging networks in the US suck, and if TSLA opens up their network to non-TSLAs, this will just get worse. I have no clue what it takes to construct the chargers (maybe someone here can chime in), but it isn't just "outlets" -- it presumably requires a larger-than-average power source to charge 8+ cars simultaneously at 250Kw
mistrial9 5y ago
uhh, a quick check says "thirty percent less range at below 0 temps" .. secondly, nothing said "will never work"
- misiti3780 5y ago
  Just to be clear, I meant you get 75% of the range (25% degradation) in the winter, sorry for the confusion.

ajross 5y ago

> There are no situations where a gas car is preferable or necessary? For a passenger car? No, not really. And it's getting better and better as more fast charging services come online. Electrical infrastructure is extremely cheap relative to other costs like roadbuilding, there simply aren't any places you can go with roads but not efficient grid connectivity, all that's needed is building the right kind of outlets.

bumby 5y ago
Do you mean specifically for the NY market or that fossil fuel power doesn't make sense in general? I know there are some places out West where people may need to drive very long distances, even for groceries. They literally pack coolers full of ice to transport food back. We can maybe say they need to plan better on their trips, or they shouldn't live in the middle of nowhere, but I don't think that negates the fact there are some cases where gas is a better option (until electric ranges/refueling options are comparable in terms of time and availability) >Electrical infrastructure is extremely cheap relative to other costs like roadbuilding I think I disagree here, especially if you look at lead times. Some transformers literally cannot be manufactured within the US. Others were put in place using infrastructure like rail that no longer exists in that area. These are big risks that really drive up infrastructure cost.
- ajross 5y ago
  > I know there are some places out West where people may need to drive very long distances, even for groceries. None that don't have power along the way, or at least vanishingly few. Every little town or crossroads you see with a building? Every traffic light? Every railroad crossing with an alarm? That's power. The point wasn't that the EV charging infrastructure exists TODAY to support this, it was that it would be trivial to do within the timeframe required. > I think I disagree here, especially if you look at lead times. The lead time in question is fourteen years! And if you don't believe it just look it up. Stringing a cable is 2+ orders of magnitude cheaper than building a road (much, much more so in areas where you need to blast tunnels or grade mountainsides). The only reason this even looks like an argument is because you presumably feel like "all the roads are already built", but they aren't.

wlesieutre 5y ago

If you look at the actual text of the bill, it already includes several "where feasible" caveats which will presumably be carved into more specific exceptions a decade from now if there are places where we can't transition to electric. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a4302 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a4302

bryanlarsen 5y ago

A carbon tax (along with rebate & tariff to make it fair) is much more fair and effective than a gas car ban, because it impacts old vehicles as well a new ones. It can be brought in gradually. A complete ban is not a great idea because there's always somebody somewhere who need a new gas vehicle for some essential reason or another. There might be 5 of these people in the whole state but they'll dominate news stories as the date gets closer. There are lots of effective ways to ban things without going for the full ban -- ICE vehicles are environmental disasters, put limits or even better, fees on some of those things. Like particulates, or CO2. The European fleet CO2 limit is a great example of such an approach. And don't assume that a carbon tax is a complete non-starter. Here in Canada we have a Federal election in a few days. The 5 mainstream parties all include a carbon tax as part of their platform. Sure, the right wing party's carbon tax is ineffectively small and counter-productively structured, but it's symbolically there. The narrative has shifted from massive opposition to a feeling that any party without a carbon tax in their platform are climate change deniers.