4 ms·

California moves toward banning new cars running only on gas by 2035

20 points by gamblor956 4y ago

Bostonian 4y ago
"The expected embrace of the policy by the state’s Air Resources Board during a meeting scheduled for Thursday comes after Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) set a target in 2020 for cleaning up California’s auto fleet." Such a momentous decision ought to be voted on by the state legislature, not by appointed regulators.
- danny_codes 4y ago
  What's momentous about this? It's an obvious, uncontentious time line. In 2045, when direct emissions into the atmosphere inside of cities is a thing of the past, people will look back in disbelief that we let things get so bad.
  - linksnapzz 4y ago
    It's momentous when one considers that critical grid infrastructure that failed in CA in 2015 was often built before US entry into WWI. CA doesn't build electrical infrastructure as fast as they plan to expand its use....
elmerfud 4y ago
They've played this game before. Which car manufacturer are they trying to bankrupt now I wonder.
- powerhour 4y ago
  Which car companies aren't ready for this yet? The writing has been on the wall for some time now.
- grapescheesee 4y ago
  Well if they do go bankrupt, I am sure we can bail them out and buy a large stake at a discounted price per share. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury/u-s-government-says-it-lost-11-2-billion-on-gm-bailout-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury/u-s-gov...
warning26 4y ago
2035 is surprisingly soon! My guess is that it'll get pushed back, but in the interim seems like it could make the the EV landscape more interesting.
- brnt 4y ago
  Doesn't this mirror the EU? It makes sense to align for car manufacturers sake.
pornel 4y ago
I hope they will also somehow ensure people actually charge the cars. Otherwise they’re still 100% gas-powered cars, but with a ballast.
- qbrass 4y ago
  It's going to be a bunch of shitty 48v hybrids. Car companies have already started rolling them out since Europe is requiring the same thing.
  - lttlrck 4y ago
    Why are they shitty?
    - tuatoru 4y ago
      48V is "very low voltage" and consequently very high current for a given power output. (Power is the product of voltage and current.) Loss (waste) of the energy that was stored in the batteries is proportional to the square of the current. Higher currents also require thicker wires so that the wires don't melt, making the vehicle heavier and more expensive. Non-shitty (bidet-cleaned?) EVs use higher voltages so they can have lower currents and therefore have less waste and light-weight wires. Currently around 480V, with 800V - 960V starting to be rolled out.
- powerhour 4y ago
  Hopefully electricity will remain cheap enough to encourage charging.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Only 20% of new vehicles in 2035 are allowed to be plug-in hybrids, so the vast majority would not even have gas as an option.
tomohawk 4y ago
If EVs were so great, they wouldn't have to force their use or ban what people really want to buy. This is more coastal elites sticking it to everyone else.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  What if consumers don't factor in externalities when they choose what to buy that negatively affect the public interest?
  - tomohawk 4y ago
    What if politicians aren't super geniuses and don't factor in what people actually need? What if politicians are bought off by corporations, and what the corps are selling isn't really to the benefit of everyone? What if politicians choose the wrong tech?
    - danny_codes 4y ago
      I mean EVs are the wrong tech. The right tech is walking. And possibly biking. Trains and busses fill in longer trips. However, GM already screwed us over on the car thing, so I'll take EVs over getting emissions dumped directly into my face by a dodge challenger.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      My argument showed why your argument that "capitalism would achieve this outcome if it were good" is not true in the general case without any specifics. Your argument here suggests "politicians may not make good decisions or even purposefully make bad ones" which is true, but is completely irrelevant to what I said. Your original premise is still wrong. Now you're basically reduced to saying you personally don't like EVs. Which is fine.
- stirfish 4y ago
  If [asbestos-free insulation/unleaded gasoline/flame-retardant bedding] is so great, they wouldn't have to force its use or ban what people really want to buy. This is more coastal elites sticking it to everyone else.
goatcode 4y ago
Challenges as I understand them: 1. Rare minerals and their amounts needed to support wide-scale adoption of EVs 2. Similarly, massively increased electricity needs to maintain EVs' usability. I wonder whether they're going to lay out a bulletproof plan to have these, and any other, fundamental issues 100% solved before enacting changes that absolutely require them to be solved. FTA: "Whether the state’s goals can be reached, he added, depends on many factors, including “inflation, charging and fuel infrastructure, supply chains, labor, critical mineral availability and pricing, and the ongoing semiconductor shortage.”" "...Yet California doesn’t want to wait." So that tells me "probably not." Therefore, the eventual legislation will focus on reducing (or, for average people, potentially eliminating altogether) personal vehicle availability, I'd imagine.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  Challenges, yes; insuperable obstacles, no. 1. Electromagnets are well understood and can replace the permanent magnets in motors. Iron and phosphorus are common; lithium iron phosphate chemistries can replace the nickel-cobalt chemistries currently used, more cheaply and more robustly. 2. PV panels now have a capital cost of about $1 per watt and imminent technologies will drive that close to single-digit cents per watt, with corresponding declines in labor requirements and deployment timetables of days rather than weeks. Stationary storage costs are also plummeting. So we should experience deflation in EV prices and running costs rather than inflation. Roads, on the other hand... 3. The big challenge is deploying chargers in sufficient numbers. If it takes 90 seconds to charge a car with gasoline and an hour to charge an EV, we need 40 times as many chargers as there are gas pumps, modulo any charging done at home and population growth/changes in vehicle usage. Meeting this last challenge would seem to require sweeping aside NIMBY objections to on-street charging. The implications of neutering NIMBY veto power could be far-reaching.
  - pornel 4y ago
    It's not helpful to view EV charging as a 1:1 equivalent to pumping gas. EVs need different types of chargers depending on circumstances. For road trips people need 300kW DC fast chargers, and these are major infrastructure. OTOH for daily top-ups of commuter cars it's sufficient to have an 11kW AC charger at home or at work. Electrically these chargers are pretty basic, and no more difficult to install than an electric stove or a dryer. Definitely easier to roll out than gas pumps. They're already mandatory for new houses and garages in many countries. In terms of time for charging, it's better to compare to the time cars spend is parked, because EVs are designed to be left charging unattended.

20 points by gamblor956 4y ago

"The expected embrace of the policy by the state’s Air Resources Board during a meeting scheduled for Thursday comes after Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) set a target in 2020 for cleaning up California’s auto fleet." Such a momentous decision ought to be voted on by the state legislature, not by appointed regulators.

danny_codes 4y ago
What's momentous about this? It's an obvious, uncontentious time line. In 2045, when direct emissions into the atmosphere inside of cities is a thing of the past, people will look back in disbelief that we let things get so bad.
- linksnapzz 4y ago
  It's momentous when one considers that critical grid infrastructure that failed in CA in 2015 was often built before US entry into WWI. CA doesn't build electrical infrastructure as fast as they plan to expand its use....

elmerfud 4y ago

They've played this game before. Which car manufacturer are they trying to bankrupt now I wonder.

powerhour 4y ago
Which car companies aren't ready for this yet? The writing has been on the wall for some time now.
grapescheesee 4y ago
Well if they do go bankrupt, I am sure we can bail them out and buy a large stake at a discounted price per share. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury/u-s-government-says-it-lost-11-2-billion-on-gm-bailout-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury/u-s-gov...

warning26 4y ago

2035 is surprisingly soon! My guess is that it'll get pushed back, but in the interim seems like it could make the the EV landscape more interesting.

brnt 4y ago
Doesn't this mirror the EU? It makes sense to align for car manufacturers sake.

pornel 4y ago

I hope they will also somehow ensure people actually charge the cars. Otherwise they’re still 100% gas-powered cars, but with a ballast.

qbrass 4y ago
It's going to be a bunch of shitty 48v hybrids. Car companies have already started rolling them out since Europe is requiring the same thing.
- lttlrck 4y ago
  Why are they shitty?
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    48V is "very low voltage" and consequently very high current for a given power output. (Power is the product of voltage and current.) Loss (waste) of the energy that was stored in the batteries is proportional to the square of the current. Higher currents also require thicker wires so that the wires don't melt, making the vehicle heavier and more expensive. Non-shitty (bidet-cleaned?) EVs use higher voltages so they can have lower currents and therefore have less waste and light-weight wires. Currently around 480V, with 800V - 960V starting to be rolled out.
powerhour 4y ago
Hopefully electricity will remain cheap enough to encourage charging.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Only 20% of new vehicles in 2035 are allowed to be plug-in hybrids, so the vast majority would not even have gas as an option.

tomohawk 4y ago

If EVs were so great, they wouldn't have to force their use or ban what people really want to buy. This is more coastal elites sticking it to everyone else.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
What if consumers don't factor in externalities when they choose what to buy that negatively affect the public interest?
- tomohawk 4y ago
  What if politicians aren't super geniuses and don't factor in what people actually need? What if politicians are bought off by corporations, and what the corps are selling isn't really to the benefit of everyone? What if politicians choose the wrong tech?
  - danny_codes 4y ago
    I mean EVs are the wrong tech. The right tech is walking. And possibly biking. Trains and busses fill in longer trips. However, GM already screwed us over on the car thing, so I'll take EVs over getting emissions dumped directly into my face by a dodge challenger.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    My argument showed why your argument that "capitalism would achieve this outcome if it were good" is not true in the general case without any specifics. Your argument here suggests "politicians may not make good decisions or even purposefully make bad ones" which is true, but is completely irrelevant to what I said. Your original premise is still wrong. Now you're basically reduced to saying you personally don't like EVs. Which is fine.
stirfish 4y ago
If [asbestos-free insulation/unleaded gasoline/flame-retardant bedding] is so great, they wouldn't have to force its use or ban what people really want to buy. This is more coastal elites sticking it to everyone else.

goatcode 4y ago

Challenges as I understand them: 1. Rare minerals and their amounts needed to support wide-scale adoption of EVs 2. Similarly, massively increased electricity needs to maintain EVs' usability. I wonder whether they're going to lay out a bulletproof plan to have these, and any other, fundamental issues 100% solved before enacting changes that absolutely require them to be solved. FTA: "Whether the state’s goals can be reached, he added, depends on many factors, including “inflation, charging and fuel infrastructure, supply chains, labor, critical mineral availability and pricing, and the ongoing semiconductor shortage.”" "...Yet California doesn’t want to wait." So that tells me "probably not." Therefore, the eventual legislation will focus on reducing (or, for average people, potentially eliminating altogether) personal vehicle availability, I'd imagine.

tuatoru 4y ago
Challenges, yes; insuperable obstacles, no. 1. Electromagnets are well understood and can replace the permanent magnets in motors. Iron and phosphorus are common; lithium iron phosphate chemistries can replace the nickel-cobalt chemistries currently used, more cheaply and more robustly. 2. PV panels now have a capital cost of about $1 per watt and imminent technologies will drive that close to single-digit cents per watt, with corresponding declines in labor requirements and deployment timetables of days rather than weeks. Stationary storage costs are also plummeting. So we should experience deflation in EV prices and running costs rather than inflation. Roads, on the other hand... 3. The big challenge is deploying chargers in sufficient numbers. If it takes 90 seconds to charge a car with gasoline and an hour to charge an EV, we need 40 times as many chargers as there are gas pumps, modulo any charging done at home and population growth/changes in vehicle usage. Meeting this last challenge would seem to require sweeping aside NIMBY objections to on-street charging. The implications of neutering NIMBY veto power could be far-reaching.
- pornel 4y ago
  It's not helpful to view EV charging as a 1:1 equivalent to pumping gas. EVs need different types of chargers depending on circumstances. For road trips people need 300kW DC fast chargers, and these are major infrastructure. OTOH for daily top-ups of commuter cars it's sufficient to have an 11kW AC charger at home or at work. Electrically these chargers are pretty basic, and no more difficult to install than an electric stove or a dryer. Definitely easier to roll out than gas pumps. They're already mandatory for new houses and garages in many countries. In terms of time for charging, it's better to compare to the time cars spend is parked, because EVs are designed to be left charging unattended.