3 ms·

Also excludes mention of solar installations and possibility of vehicles supporting V2L to support the grid in emergency. Much of my take is, if you want an EV

Also excludes mention of solar installations and possibility of vehicles supporting V2L to support the grid in emergency. Much of my take is, if you want an EV then you should be ready for solar as well. EVs and solar are a great combination that can support the grid in emergency.

rufus_foreman 4y ago
>> if you want an EV then you should be ready for solar as well 45% of Californians are renters. They don't control whether or not solar is installed. Given your assertion and that fact, is making it illegal to purchase a car with an internal combustion engine a good idea or a bad one?
- zamfi 4y ago
  OP’s assertion is unnecessary. Whether you have solar or not, for most people it won’t be hard to avoid charging between 4-9pm. Many things are possible between now and 2035, and a mandate/subsidy for landlords to install chargers is one of those possibilities.
  - skhameneh 4y ago
    > OP’s assertion is unnecessary. That could be said about any opinion shared. Regardless of your opinion of my assertions, energy source and costs are a necessary factor in the economics of operating BEVs. If you can't source cost effective solar energy, it may not make economic sense (long term, as costs rise) to own a BEV for renters. Per mandates/subsidy, the subsidy already exists (may need adjustments), a mandate may be necessary.
    - zamfi 4y ago
      You seemed to be making the argument that without solar owning an EV may not make economic sense for the EV owner. I don't think that's related to the outcomes of the transition to an EV mandate for new sales, which is what the respondent was asking about. Sure, it's nice to have your own solar panels, but it's not a requirement for EV ownership, and I was pointing out that your assertion, whether true or false, was unnecessary for the EV transition to be a "good idea" in the parent poster's words. That said, regardless of how you power your vehicle, even in some of the most expensive power markets, overnight charging is cheaper than gas, both economically and environmentally.

rufus_foreman 4y ago

>> if you want an EV then you should be ready for solar as well 45% of Californians are renters. They don't control whether or not solar is installed. Given your assertion and that fact, is making it illegal to purchase a car with an internal combustion engine a good idea or a bad one?

zamfi 4y ago
OP’s assertion is unnecessary. Whether you have solar or not, for most people it won’t be hard to avoid charging between 4-9pm. Many things are possible between now and 2035, and a mandate/subsidy for landlords to install chargers is one of those possibilities.
- skhameneh 4y ago
  > OP’s assertion is unnecessary. That could be said about any opinion shared. Regardless of your opinion of my assertions, energy source and costs are a necessary factor in the economics of operating BEVs. If you can't source cost effective solar energy, it may not make economic sense (long term, as costs rise) to own a BEV for renters. Per mandates/subsidy, the subsidy already exists (may need adjustments), a mandate may be necessary.
  - zamfi 4y ago
    You seemed to be making the argument that without solar owning an EV may not make economic sense for the EV owner. I don't think that's related to the outcomes of the transition to an EV mandate for new sales, which is what the respondent was asking about. Sure, it's nice to have your own solar panels, but it's not a requirement for EV ownership, and I was pointing out that your assertion, whether true or false, was unnecessary for the EV transition to be a "good idea" in the parent poster's words. That said, regardless of how you power your vehicle, even in some of the most expensive power markets, overnight charging is cheaper than gas, both economically and environmentally.