3 ms·

The irony here is that this policy is very likely (almost certain) to increase GHG emissions. People that would have filled up at closer gas station now have to

The irony here is that this policy is very likely (almost certain) to increase GHG emissions. People that would have filled up at closer gas station now have to travel further. I wish these kinds of policies had an associated study to test whether they could theoretically be effective, and then a posterior study to compare the theoretical outcome to the actual outcome. Based on California's ~ 40% natural gas energy generation, the policy is likely to be counter productive even if every consumer decided to buy an electric vehicle.

browningstreet 3y ago
Do people ever have to really travel for a gas station? I would expect decision to just get more opportunistic where you’re under half a tank and you stop at a station along your route.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- roflchoppa 3y ago
  Lmao hell yeah dude I fill up in the hood it’s way cheaper than filling up in Palo Alto.
  - Melting_Harps 3y ago
    > Lmao hell yeah dude I fill up in the hood it’s way cheaper than filling up in Palo Alto. So... East Palo Alto? Gas got to $7/gl in LA recently (again) and I was wondering if there was any difference; when i lived in Sunnyvale I had the misfortune of driving a V8 and while I never ventured too far I always wondered if I went to Los Gatos or E. Palo Alto if it was cheaper. I wised up and just got both a Costco and Sam's club membership so I just bought it that way and saved money that way. As for doing this in order to comabt climate change... please, if they reversed the policy on solar then I'd take them serious; this seems like yet another attempt for incumbents to benefit.
    - roflchoppa 3y ago
      Hayward! Across the street from Costco! Cheap gas near Sunnyvale? Probably Safeway in Campbell. What solar policy? The NEM changes? It seems like you have to get a battery pack to make it worth it.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Even if everyone filled up this way, the policy would still be counter productive. Since gas stations are less common, instead of being able to fill up when you are at e.g. 1/4 of a tank, you fill up when you are at 1/2 a tank. You spend more energy visiting gas stations (idling, decelerating) and use more energy carrying more fuel.
- zolbrek 3y ago
  Yeah, I live in Germany close to the Polish and I know several people who drive to Poland once or twice every two weeks to tank up, fill a container or two, and maybe throw cigarettes and alcohol into the mix for good measure. One guy even takes his camper van with a fridge so he can stock up on meat too. The prices are that much cheaper that it's worth it for many people.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > Do people ever have to really travel for a gas station? I don't know anyone who has a gas station in his back yard. I need to travel at least 1 km to get gas.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
> Based on California's ~ 40% natural gas energy generation, the policy is likely to be counter productive even if every consumer decided to buy an electric vehicle. Those studies (lots of them) got done. And it appears you haven't read them, or even vaguely absorbed their results into your worldview so calling for more studies seems hypocritical. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/driving-cleaner https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/driving-cleaner
- brutusborn 3y ago
  You misunderstand my comment. To be useful for policy, the studies need to assess the _actual policy_. The reference you provided merely shows that new EVs are on average producing less GHG than new ICE cars. This is a separate question to whether this policy (banning new gas stations) will reduce GHG. For example, you would also need to include opportunity costs of the policy in question (e.g. less energy is used to run an existing ICE vehicle than to manufacture new EVs) and estimates for the downsides (how much extra driving this will cause). Not to mention the chance that this policy does not affect EV adoption, and thus wastes resources better used building renewables (or any other good policy). The report also has the downside that the data and code are not open access. Couple that with the fact that it comes from a political organization and I doubt the reliability of their analysis for policy. It's too easy to tweak assumptions to fit your preconceptions, and their assumptions are not published. For example they mention some values as assuming 95% renewable penetration. They fail to mention how much additional GHG will need to be emitted to build and run grid scale storage which is required at such high % of renewables. There are huge differences in estimates of this cost from different institutions, so it is critical to know which values they used. The fact that they do not present these estimates as a range or confidence interval is a red flag that their analysis is biased. I have read a lot of papers like this, your assumption that I haven't is unfair. I like EVs but I dislike the reflexive assumption from proponents that they are good in all circumstances and any policy supporting them is good policy.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    So you've read all the papers, which have an overwhelming agreement, then you ignored their conclusions? That is in many ways worse than not reading them. You apparently know that the research all agrees that switching to EVs in California has massive benefits and yet you are still repeating the opposite to argue against things you've taken a dislike to. It's the EPA's myth #1 on EVs: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth1 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myt... Not some radical new claim that you can undermine by complaining that a single source hasn't open sourced their basic maths.

browningstreet 3y ago

Do people ever have to really travel for a gas station? I would expect decision to just get more opportunistic where you’re under half a tank and you stop at a station along your route.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
roflchoppa 3y ago
Lmao hell yeah dude I fill up in the hood it’s way cheaper than filling up in Palo Alto.
- Melting_Harps 3y ago
  > Lmao hell yeah dude I fill up in the hood it’s way cheaper than filling up in Palo Alto. So... East Palo Alto? Gas got to $7/gl in LA recently (again) and I was wondering if there was any difference; when i lived in Sunnyvale I had the misfortune of driving a V8 and while I never ventured too far I always wondered if I went to Los Gatos or E. Palo Alto if it was cheaper. I wised up and just got both a Costco and Sam's club membership so I just bought it that way and saved money that way. As for doing this in order to comabt climate change... please, if they reversed the policy on solar then I'd take them serious; this seems like yet another attempt for incumbents to benefit.
  - roflchoppa 3y ago
    Hayward! Across the street from Costco! Cheap gas near Sunnyvale? Probably Safeway in Campbell. What solar policy? The NEM changes? It seems like you have to get a battery pack to make it worth it.
brutusborn 3y ago
Even if everyone filled up this way, the policy would still be counter productive. Since gas stations are less common, instead of being able to fill up when you are at e.g. 1/4 of a tank, you fill up when you are at 1/2 a tank. You spend more energy visiting gas stations (idling, decelerating) and use more energy carrying more fuel.
zolbrek 3y ago
Yeah, I live in Germany close to the Polish and I know several people who drive to Poland once or twice every two weeks to tank up, fill a container or two, and maybe throw cigarettes and alcohol into the mix for good measure. One guy even takes his camper van with a fridge so he can stock up on meat too. The prices are that much cheaper that it's worth it for many people.
hulitu 3y ago
> Do people ever have to really travel for a gas station? I don't know anyone who has a gas station in his back yard. I need to travel at least 1 km to get gas.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

> Based on California's ~ 40% natural gas energy generation, the policy is likely to be counter productive even if every consumer decided to buy an electric vehicle. Those studies (lots of them) got done. And it appears you haven't read them, or even vaguely absorbed their results into your worldview so calling for more studies seems hypocritical. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/driving-cleaner https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/driving-cleaner

brutusborn 3y ago
You misunderstand my comment. To be useful for policy, the studies need to assess the _actual policy_. The reference you provided merely shows that new EVs are on average producing less GHG than new ICE cars. This is a separate question to whether this policy (banning new gas stations) will reduce GHG. For example, you would also need to include opportunity costs of the policy in question (e.g. less energy is used to run an existing ICE vehicle than to manufacture new EVs) and estimates for the downsides (how much extra driving this will cause). Not to mention the chance that this policy does not affect EV adoption, and thus wastes resources better used building renewables (or any other good policy). The report also has the downside that the data and code are not open access. Couple that with the fact that it comes from a political organization and I doubt the reliability of their analysis for policy. It's too easy to tweak assumptions to fit your preconceptions, and their assumptions are not published. For example they mention some values as assuming 95% renewable penetration. They fail to mention how much additional GHG will need to be emitted to build and run grid scale storage which is required at such high % of renewables. There are huge differences in estimates of this cost from different institutions, so it is critical to know which values they used. The fact that they do not present these estimates as a range or confidence interval is a red flag that their analysis is biased. I have read a lot of papers like this, your assumption that I haven't is unfair. I like EVs but I dislike the reflexive assumption from proponents that they are good in all circumstances and any policy supporting them is good policy.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  So you've read all the papers, which have an overwhelming agreement, then you ignored their conclusions? That is in many ways worse than not reading them. You apparently know that the research all agrees that switching to EVs in California has massive benefits and yet you are still repeating the opposite to argue against things you've taken a dislike to. It's the EPA's myth #1 on EVs: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth1 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myt... Not some radical new claim that you can undermine by complaining that a single source hasn't open sourced their basic maths.