4 ms·

Insanity. Shouldn’t we first prove that we can actually produce electric shipping trucks?

by rank0 3y ago

lesuorac 3y ago
Why? It's not like we proved we could put a man on the moon before committing to it. Although given that almost every train runs on an electric engine (diesel is a liquid battery on diesel train) I have no doubt that we can produce electric shipping trucks. Also, electric shipping trucks already exist [1] but all this is tangential to my point. [1]: https://www.peterbilt.com/electric-vehicles https://www.peterbilt.com/electric-vehicles
- rank0 3y ago
  Why? Because shipping trucks deliver food to the grocery stores. Our supply chains would collapse if we suddenly cannot produce trucks. I believe we’ll figure it out too. But banning the production of critical infrastructure without a working alternative is just plain dumb.
  - packetlost 3y ago
    Fortunately for California, there's other states besides California to make up for their dumb decisions. Still sucks though.
    - s5300 3y ago
      [dead]
    - eksx 3y ago
      I think the Yin and Yang in this case is very much needed. We need states to push forward while others are slower to adopt. This will allow us to test new things while also providing a fallback in case the plan doesn't work.
      - packetlost 3y ago
        That's, in principle, the purpose of the progressive/conservative dichotomy, no?
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    Critical infrastructure isn't banned. The law doesn't take effect until 2036 so claiming that your grocery store is going to be empty is just fear mongering. It's not like car companies were required to make high efficiency cars (i.e. >40mpg) and didn't and then the requirements were relaxed. Like the law will be changed if it becomes unmeetable.
    - rank0 3y ago
      Production of critical infrastructure WILL BE banned. Just because it’s in the future doesn’t mean it’s not a ban. I agree they’ll just repeal it if needed. What good does this law do then? So many people are relentlessly working on electric trucks for the financial incentive. The second order effects are unknown to me. California auto manufacturers are never gonna invest in improving ICE vehicles if they think it’s about to be illegal. We can see real life effects of policies like this during the recent oil shortage when demand far exceeded domestic refining capacity. Look at what happened to Germany and the EU because of their insane “environmentalist (but no nuclear)” policies. Legislators suck and should get out of the way of technological progress. /rant
dylan604 3y ago
"should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." Sometimes, you just have to put out a marker for people to strive to achieve. Having an undefined target date leaves a large likelihood that progress will be at a leisurely pace.
- rank0 3y ago
  Failing the moon landing wouldn’t kill our supply chains. It’s a silly comparison. How do you think we get all our food and raw materials around? With trucks!
  - dylan604 3y ago
    What are we going to do with all of the pre-existing trucks? If the EVs don't work, it's not like we have to reinvent anything. Let's see if we can have some more condescension delivered with those trucks too
    - rank0 3y ago
      That’s true! But by 2036 our trucking needs are probably larger. The older vehicles break down. We wouldn’t be able to fill in the gap without repealing the ban.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        and at that time, some amendment or some such will be taken up by the legislature to modify. i'm sure this legislation will have loop holes large enough to drive a truck through (as long as it's electric).
        rank0 3y ago
        I agree! I mean they’ll have to undo it if comes to that. I just think the financial incentives are already far more motivating. Everyone and their momma is trying to get rich by selling EVs. Legislators don’t really create anything…private industry is what drives us forward (e.g Tesla)
jayd16 3y ago
When you say prove, you mean prove at some kind of price point? Tesla has shipped some semis already. But also the logic is flawed. No alternative need be proven when something is banned. Things are banned for reasons other than there are easy alternatives.
- rank0 3y ago
  No not price point. I mean literally produce any meaningful number of fully functional EV shipping trucks. You should reevaluate your own logic. Banning critical infrastructure without a functioning alternative is observably a bad plan.
iancmceachern 3y ago
Like we did with the Moon landing? Wait, we did it this way

Insanity. Shouldn’t we first prove that we can actually produce electric shipping trucks?

by rank0 3y ago

Insanity. Shouldn’t we first prove that we can actually produce electric shipping trucks?

Why? It's not like we proved we could put a man on the moon before committing to it. Although given that almost every train runs on an electric engine (diesel is a liquid battery on diesel train) I have no doubt that we can produce electric shipping trucks. Also, electric shipping trucks already exist [1] but all this is tangential to my point. [1]: https://www.peterbilt.com/electric-vehicles https://www.peterbilt.com/electric-vehicles

rank0 3y ago
Why? Because shipping trucks deliver food to the grocery stores. Our supply chains would collapse if we suddenly cannot produce trucks. I believe we’ll figure it out too. But banning the production of critical infrastructure without a working alternative is just plain dumb.
- packetlost 3y ago
  Fortunately for California, there's other states besides California to make up for their dumb decisions. Still sucks though.
  - s5300 3y ago
    [dead]
  - eksx 3y ago
    I think the Yin and Yang in this case is very much needed. We need states to push forward while others are slower to adopt. This will allow us to test new things while also providing a fallback in case the plan doesn't work.
    - packetlost 3y ago
      That's, in principle, the purpose of the progressive/conservative dichotomy, no?
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Critical infrastructure isn't banned. The law doesn't take effect until 2036 so claiming that your grocery store is going to be empty is just fear mongering. It's not like car companies were required to make high efficiency cars (i.e. >40mpg) and didn't and then the requirements were relaxed. Like the law will be changed if it becomes unmeetable.
  - rank0 3y ago
    Production of critical infrastructure WILL BE banned. Just because it’s in the future doesn’t mean it’s not a ban. I agree they’ll just repeal it if needed. What good does this law do then? So many people are relentlessly working on electric trucks for the financial incentive. The second order effects are unknown to me. California auto manufacturers are never gonna invest in improving ICE vehicles if they think it’s about to be illegal. We can see real life effects of policies like this during the recent oil shortage when demand far exceeded domestic refining capacity. Look at what happened to Germany and the EU because of their insane “environmentalist (but no nuclear)” policies. Legislators suck and should get out of the way of technological progress. /rant

dylan604 3y ago

"should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." Sometimes, you just have to put out a marker for people to strive to achieve. Having an undefined target date leaves a large likelihood that progress will be at a leisurely pace.

rank0 3y ago
Failing the moon landing wouldn’t kill our supply chains. It’s a silly comparison. How do you think we get all our food and raw materials around? With trucks!
- dylan604 3y ago
  What are we going to do with all of the pre-existing trucks? If the EVs don't work, it's not like we have to reinvent anything. Let's see if we can have some more condescension delivered with those trucks too
  - rank0 3y ago
    That’s true! But by 2036 our trucking needs are probably larger. The older vehicles break down. We wouldn’t be able to fill in the gap without repealing the ban.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      and at that time, some amendment or some such will be taken up by the legislature to modify. i'm sure this legislation will have loop holes large enough to drive a truck through (as long as it's electric).
      - rank0 3y ago
        I agree! I mean they’ll have to undo it if comes to that. I just think the financial incentives are already far more motivating. Everyone and their momma is trying to get rich by selling EVs. Legislators don’t really create anything…private industry is what drives us forward (e.g Tesla)

jayd16 3y ago

When you say prove, you mean prove at some kind of price point? Tesla has shipped some semis already. But also the logic is flawed. No alternative need be proven when something is banned. Things are banned for reasons other than there are easy alternatives.

rank0 3y ago
No not price point. I mean literally produce any meaningful number of fully functional EV shipping trucks. You should reevaluate your own logic. Banning critical infrastructure without a functioning alternative is observably a bad plan.

iancmceachern 3y ago

Like we did with the Moon landing? Wait, we did it this way