8 ms·

The fight to ban gas-powered cars in the 1960s

37 points by robtherobber 2y ago

jmclnx 2y ago
>Petris altered it to simply ban all cars with internal combustion engines by 1975. Never heard of him, but too bad Petris did not succeed. We would be in a far different place now. >the Supreme Court may well be preparing to eliminate California’s authority to set tougher auto emissions standards than the federal government No surprise here, we all know over half the US Supreme Court only cares how much they can extort from the very rich. Doing this will probably head the world into somekind of mild mad max world.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  We would be in a different place, but not necessarily a better one.
MisterTea 2y ago
> In fact, just a couple decades before his birth, both electric and steam-powered vehicles — which were cleaner and more powerful, respectively, than early gas-powered cars ... While I agree that electrics are clean steam vehicles still use combustion and were not as efficient as a piston ICE. Plus the driver had to play boiler operator and ensure there was a steady fuel supply and feed water. Kinda stopped reading after that matter-of-fact hyperbole and just skimmed the rest. There are some neat videos of vintage British coal fired steam trucks which are really neat (they sounds like mini road steam locomotives) but the emissions make a burning tire seem clean.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Electricity was cleaner than gasoline, and steam was more powerful than the gasoline at the time. The article did not claim either was both.
  - jessriedel 2y ago
    Land yachts and nuclear trains are cleaner and more powerful, respectively, than cars.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Sure, but in the next sentence it asserts that either electric or steam couldve replace ICE in vehicles, which is true only if you ignore air pollution (and fuel efficiency) in the steam scenario.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      ICE is a better tech for vehicle motors because IC compresses air by a factor of about 10 before combustion, which is much more efficient than combustion at atmospheric pressure as is done in a steam boiler.
- meindnoch 2y ago
  I don't know, Jay Leno's Doble looks pretty clean to me: https://youtu.be/rUg_ukBwsyo https://youtu.be/rUg_ukBwsyo
  - genter 2y ago
    Ironic you would post that, since Jay Leno was also badly burned by his gasoline-fueled steam car.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      As a reasult of a fuel leak, IIRC, nothing particularly specific to the fact that the car uses steam for its engine. The advantage of the Doble design however is that it doesn't have a high-pressure boiler per se, it has a steam generator. This would help address "the occasional propensity of early steam cars to explode" that the article mentions.
  - MisterTea 2y ago
    Whats the efficiency? No matter how clean it looks it's still burning fuel and releasing pollutants.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Steam turbines can certainly be much more efficient than internal combustion engines, though there’s a scale factor; I’m not sure that a car-sized one would be.
- card_zero 2y ago
  Here's a photo from 1902 of some people riding on little steam cars to play a polo match: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_polo#/media/File:Dedham_Polo_Club_auto_polo_in_1902.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_polo#/media/File:Dedham_P... Not sure what point I'm making but they look unexpectedly nimble.
some_random 2y ago
I'm sorry but I reject the premise of this article completely, we're having trouble displacing ICE with electric now the idea that lead acid powered vehicles could have displaced ICE in 1960s is absurd.
- lm28469 2y ago
  We basically postponed the r&d of one for 60 years and funded the other with infinite petro dollars. It really isn't that absurd. > we're having trouble displacing ICE with electric now Yeah, now, after 60 years of designing every single aspect of our modern lives around gas and gas cars, how surprising indeed ...
  - some_random 2y ago
    What great innovations would have been made 60 years ago to the lead acid battery powered car that would have put them on par with contemporary ICE, to say nothing of surpassing it?
    - Schiendelman 2y ago
      The various players in the ICE and oil industries had a common practice of buying out battery technology developers or their patents to keep advancement off the market. Lithium ion batteries were first developed in the 1970s, and could have come to market much earlier if not for those practices.
    - beedeebeedee 2y ago
      You're missing the point. We rebuilt the built environment based around internal combustion cars capabilities. Everything became single use zoning, so you need to drive from your house to the store, school, work, etc. None of that needed to be done (and has had severe impacts on our society across the board). If we had been limited to early 1900s electric vehicles, we could have stayed with more traditional mixed use city planning. Folks could still use cars to go where they needed, but even more importantly, they could walk! And for longer distances, take a train. Not only would we have been better off pollution wise, we would have been better off physically, mentally, and morally (not had to support middle eastern authoritarians).
1970-01-01 2y ago
The fight to ban leaded fuel was much more important, and ultimately successful. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/1031429212/the-world-has-finally-stopped-using-leaded-gasoline-algeria-used-the-last-stockp https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/1031429212/the-world-has-fina...
marcus0x62 2y ago
The picture of the guy holding a “smog free locomotion” sign and a cigarette is priceless.
CalRobert 2y ago
Note that even the bill’s creator only wanted to limit the number of cars per person in the first place, but grew bolder after the initial failure. “”” … his intention to introduce a bill that would limit each California family to just one gas-powered car beginning in 1975. “[The] internal combustion engine is pouring out poison,” Petris … “””
486sx33 2y ago
(Direct fuel injection) Gas powered cars now are emitting more particulates , which arguably are worse for people than the smog of the 60s because they penetrate deep into the lungs and can even enter the bloodstream (I am paraphrasing) . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720308123 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32109813/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32109813/ IMHO gasoline Particulate filters (GPF) for gas vehicles should be mandatory the way they are for diesels (DPF).
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  > Gas powered cars now are emitting more particulates We mostly solved that for diesels with particulate filters, I assume the same could be done for gas engines?
- ASalazarMX 2y ago
  > which arguably are worse for people than the smog of the 60s If the 60s had the number of cars we have today, I seriously doubt carburetors would be healthier than fuel injection.
- e44858 2y ago
  > "with significant emissions occurring in the first 3 min of operation" I'm guessing that's because once the catalytic converter heats up it burns most of the carbon particulates.
enragedcacti 2y ago
> Late in the summer of 2022, a California state agency announced a ban on the sale of new cars containing internal combustion engines. I'm continually amazed at how many journalists just refuse to do basic due diligence on this regulation. To quote the 2nd paragraph of his source for this claim (his own publication btw): > The new rule will “ensure that consumers can successfully replace their traditional combustion vehicles with new or used [zero-emission vehicles] and plug-in hybrids that meet their transportation needs,” she added. Top-to-bottom and left-to-right no one seems to care that "California to ban all gas-powered cars" and "California to ban all cars exclusively powered by gas" are wildly different statements with wildly different outcomes. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cars-and-light-trucks-are-going-zero-frequently-asked-questions https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cars-and-light-tr...
- melling 2y ago
  “Advanced Clean Cars II requirement that 35% of new vehicle sales be zero-emission in 2026” Is California close to meeting this goal?
  - georgeburdell 2y ago
    25.7% zero emissions vehicles in Q2 [1]. Needs about 20% growth each of the next 2 years to meet that target. At least in my corner of the Bay Area, the only people buying new gas-only vehicles are the ones who can’t afford the extra hybrid cost upfront. EVs are popular with the older folks who can use smaller vehicles. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/08/06/california-just-notched-one-of-its-best-quarters-ever-for-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales/#:~:text=SACRAMENTO%2520%E2%80%94%2520In%2520the%2520second%2520quarter,second%2520highest%2520ever%2520market%2520share https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/08/06/california-just-notched-on....
  - enragedcacti 2y ago
    Q2 2024 they were at 25.7% which is an increase but a much slower increase than previous years. The EV market is in a slump everywhere in the US so how long that lasts is probably the determining factor. I'm not sure what they punishment is if automakers miss, trying to figure that out now. edit: If they are going to miss, they can: 1) sell ZEVs or PHEVs at a 25% discount to "Clean Mobility" grant recipient organizations for a bonus score of 0.5 and 0.4 vehicles respectively. 2) trade in banked ZEV sales from 2020-2022 3) trade sales with other mfgs up to 2030 4) just shift allotment of EVs to California as the restriction only applies to vehicles destined for California (and other states that opt in). Worst case for mfgs is that people who really want an ICE car can buy from them in an adjacent state. 5) lots of other credit math that seemed complicated and niche The max penalty if none of that is possible is $5000 per noncompliant vehicle sold over the limit. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/accii/2acciifro1962.4.pdf https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022...

37 points by robtherobber 2y ago

>Petris altered it to simply ban all cars with internal combustion engines by 1975. Never heard of him, but too bad Petris did not succeed. We would be in a far different place now. >the Supreme Court may well be preparing to eliminate California’s authority to set tougher auto emissions standards than the federal government No surprise here, we all know over half the US Supreme Court only cares how much they can extort from the very rich. Doing this will probably head the world into somekind of mild mad max world.

robertlagrant 2y ago
We would be in a different place, but not necessarily a better one.

MisterTea 2y ago

> In fact, just a couple decades before his birth, both electric and steam-powered vehicles — which were cleaner and more powerful, respectively, than early gas-powered cars ... While I agree that electrics are clean steam vehicles still use combustion and were not as efficient as a piston ICE. Plus the driver had to play boiler operator and ensure there was a steady fuel supply and feed water. Kinda stopped reading after that matter-of-fact hyperbole and just skimmed the rest. There are some neat videos of vintage British coal fired steam trucks which are really neat (they sounds like mini road steam locomotives) but the emissions make a burning tire seem clean.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
Electricity was cleaner than gasoline, and steam was more powerful than the gasoline at the time. The article did not claim either was both.
- jessriedel 2y ago
  Land yachts and nuclear trains are cleaner and more powerful, respectively, than cars.
- hollerith 2y ago
  Sure, but in the next sentence it asserts that either electric or steam couldve replace ICE in vehicles, which is true only if you ignore air pollution (and fuel efficiency) in the steam scenario.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    ICE is a better tech for vehicle motors because IC compresses air by a factor of about 10 before combustion, which is much more efficient than combustion at atmospheric pressure as is done in a steam boiler.
meindnoch 2y ago
I don't know, Jay Leno's Doble looks pretty clean to me: https://youtu.be/rUg_ukBwsyo https://youtu.be/rUg_ukBwsyo
- genter 2y ago
  Ironic you would post that, since Jay Leno was also badly burned by his gasoline-fueled steam car.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    As a reasult of a fuel leak, IIRC, nothing particularly specific to the fact that the car uses steam for its engine. The advantage of the Doble design however is that it doesn't have a high-pressure boiler per se, it has a steam generator. This would help address "the occasional propensity of early steam cars to explode" that the article mentions.
- MisterTea 2y ago
  Whats the efficiency? No matter how clean it looks it's still burning fuel and releasing pollutants.
rsynnott 2y ago
Steam turbines can certainly be much more efficient than internal combustion engines, though there’s a scale factor; I’m not sure that a car-sized one would be.
card_zero 2y ago
Here's a photo from 1902 of some people riding on little steam cars to play a polo match: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_polo#/media/File:Dedham_Polo_Club_auto_polo_in_1902.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_polo#/media/File:Dedham_P... Not sure what point I'm making but they look unexpectedly nimble.

some_random 2y ago

I'm sorry but I reject the premise of this article completely, we're having trouble displacing ICE with electric now the idea that lead acid powered vehicles could have displaced ICE in 1960s is absurd.

lm28469 2y ago
We basically postponed the r&d of one for 60 years and funded the other with infinite petro dollars. It really isn't that absurd. > we're having trouble displacing ICE with electric now Yeah, now, after 60 years of designing every single aspect of our modern lives around gas and gas cars, how surprising indeed ...
- some_random 2y ago
  What great innovations would have been made 60 years ago to the lead acid battery powered car that would have put them on par with contemporary ICE, to say nothing of surpassing it?
  - Schiendelman 2y ago
    The various players in the ICE and oil industries had a common practice of buying out battery technology developers or their patents to keep advancement off the market. Lithium ion batteries were first developed in the 1970s, and could have come to market much earlier if not for those practices.
  - beedeebeedee 2y ago
    You're missing the point. We rebuilt the built environment based around internal combustion cars capabilities. Everything became single use zoning, so you need to drive from your house to the store, school, work, etc. None of that needed to be done (and has had severe impacts on our society across the board). If we had been limited to early 1900s electric vehicles, we could have stayed with more traditional mixed use city planning. Folks could still use cars to go where they needed, but even more importantly, they could walk! And for longer distances, take a train. Not only would we have been better off pollution wise, we would have been better off physically, mentally, and morally (not had to support middle eastern authoritarians).

1970-01-01 2y ago

The fight to ban leaded fuel was much more important, and ultimately successful. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/1031429212/the-world-has-finally-stopped-using-leaded-gasoline-algeria-used-the-last-stockp https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/1031429212/the-world-has-fina...

marcus0x62 2y ago

The picture of the guy holding a “smog free locomotion” sign and a cigarette is priceless.

CalRobert 2y ago

Note that even the bill’s creator only wanted to limit the number of cars per person in the first place, but grew bolder after the initial failure. “”” … his intention to introduce a bill that would limit each California family to just one gas-powered car beginning in 1975. “[The] internal combustion engine is pouring out poison,” Petris … “””

486sx33 2y ago

(Direct fuel injection) Gas powered cars now are emitting more particulates , which arguably are worse for people than the smog of the 60s because they penetrate deep into the lungs and can even enter the bloodstream (I am paraphrasing) . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720308123 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32109813/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32109813/ IMHO gasoline Particulate filters (GPF) for gas vehicles should be mandatory the way they are for diesels (DPF).

SoftTalker 2y ago
> Gas powered cars now are emitting more particulates We mostly solved that for diesels with particulate filters, I assume the same could be done for gas engines?
ASalazarMX 2y ago
> which arguably are worse for people than the smog of the 60s If the 60s had the number of cars we have today, I seriously doubt carburetors would be healthier than fuel injection.
e44858 2y ago
> "with significant emissions occurring in the first 3 min of operation" I'm guessing that's because once the catalytic converter heats up it burns most of the carbon particulates.

enragedcacti 2y ago

> Late in the summer of 2022, a California state agency announced a ban on the sale of new cars containing internal combustion engines. I'm continually amazed at how many journalists just refuse to do basic due diligence on this regulation. To quote the 2nd paragraph of his source for this claim (his own publication btw): > The new rule will “ensure that consumers can successfully replace their traditional combustion vehicles with new or used [zero-emission vehicles] and plug-in hybrids that meet their transportation needs,” she added. Top-to-bottom and left-to-right no one seems to care that "California to ban all gas-powered cars" and "California to ban all cars exclusively powered by gas" are wildly different statements with wildly different outcomes. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cars-and-light-trucks-are-going-zero-frequently-asked-questions https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cars-and-light-tr...

melling 2y ago
“Advanced Clean Cars II requirement that 35% of new vehicle sales be zero-emission in 2026” Is California close to meeting this goal?
- georgeburdell 2y ago
  25.7% zero emissions vehicles in Q2 [1]. Needs about 20% growth each of the next 2 years to meet that target. At least in my corner of the Bay Area, the only people buying new gas-only vehicles are the ones who can’t afford the extra hybrid cost upfront. EVs are popular with the older folks who can use smaller vehicles. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/08/06/california-just-notched-one-of-its-best-quarters-ever-for-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales/#:~:text=SACRAMENTO%2520%E2%80%94%2520In%2520the%2520second%2520quarter,second%2520highest%2520ever%2520market%2520share https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/08/06/california-just-notched-on....
- enragedcacti 2y ago
  Q2 2024 they were at 25.7% which is an increase but a much slower increase than previous years. The EV market is in a slump everywhere in the US so how long that lasts is probably the determining factor. I'm not sure what they punishment is if automakers miss, trying to figure that out now. edit: If they are going to miss, they can: 1) sell ZEVs or PHEVs at a 25% discount to "Clean Mobility" grant recipient organizations for a bonus score of 0.5 and 0.4 vehicles respectively. 2) trade in banked ZEV sales from 2020-2022 3) trade sales with other mfgs up to 2030 4) just shift allotment of EVs to California as the restriction only applies to vehicles destined for California (and other states that opt in). Worst case for mfgs is that people who really want an ICE car can buy from them in an adjacent state. 5) lots of other credit math that seemed complicated and niche The max penalty if none of that is possible is $5000 per noncompliant vehicle sold over the limit. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/accii/2acciifro1962.4.pdf https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022...