Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most supporters of EVs really do not really care for the government forcing the issues of what you can buy - but they have no power to force anything any more than ICE supporters. No one here had any part of making these laws. The only thing most EV owners want is to quit spread lies and fake information - it only makes you look desperate. Many driving EVs are conservatives and dive them for reasons other than the environment.
BTW - there is no change being shoved down your throat - you can buy an ICE vehicle in most of the country for probably the next 20-30 or so years (Biden's Exec action is BS). Even so, you can drive an ICE vehicle as long as you want - they are not going away in our lifetimes. Even in CA, you can continue to buy a hybrid after the "ban" - they allow many hybrids under the 100% EV mandate.
The problem with what you say is that there are California Air Research Board (CARB) standards. Those require zero sales of ICE's in 2035, and 50% sales or lower starting in 2020. Most "blue" states have the CARB standards. Effectively that will be forced EV conversion.
So you are literally right but practically wrong. Most of the movement to abolish ICE's is to reduce mobility. This was tried by attempting to aggravate the gasoline "shortages" from March 1973 to July 1974 and in spring-summer 1979. What was done was to slam on renewed "Phase II" price controls in March 1973 in the face of a tightening market, and impose a "Rube Goldberg" allocation system based on prior year's sales. Much of the rhetoric was "we can't go on living this say." At the same time, speed limits were lowered, and that provision made permanent when supplies were abundant in 1975. The aim was to eliminate the "automobile culture" popularized by The Beach Boys and Jan and Dean. There was much nashing of teeth when Reagan eliminated price controls and prices quickly collapsed, in real, i.e. inflation-adjusted terms to mid-1960's levels.
Returning to the topic of this thread, there would be popular revolt if the real agenda of the BEV proposed mandates were publicized. They need to tell us "this is good for you" and "you're going to like it." Telling us that "hitting the open road" will become out of the question is not what they are going to do, even if it's the truth.
The problem with what you say is that there are California Air Research Board (CARB) standards. Those require zero sales of ICE's in 2035, and 50% sales or lower starting in 2020. Most "blue" states have the CARB standards. Effectively that will be forced EV conversion.
So you are literally right but practically wrong. Most of the movement to abolish ICE's is to reduce mobility. This was tried by attempting to aggravate the gasoline "shortages" from March 1973 to July 1974 and in spring-summer 1979. What was done was to slam on renewed "Phase II" price controls in March 1973 in the face of a tightening market, and impose a "Rube Goldberg" allocation system based on prior year's sales. Much of the rhetoric was "we can't go on living this say." At the same time, speed limits were lowered, and that provision made permanent when supplies were abundant in 1975. The aim was to eliminate the "automobile culture" popularized by The Beach Boys and Jan and Dean. There was much nashing of teeth when Reagan eliminated price controls and prices quickly collapsed, in real, i.e. inflation-adjusted terms to mid-1960's levels.
Returning to the topic of this thread, there would be popular revolt if the real agenda of the BEV proposed mandates were publicized. They need to tell us "this is good for you" and "you're going to like it." Telling us that "hitting the open road" will become out of the question is not what they are going to do, even if it's the truth.
Again not looking at the reality - the CARB "ban" allows battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles. It is 2030 that has a goal of 50%, not 2020. Since it allows the sales of hybrids, vehicles with ICE will continue to be able to be bought even after 2035 in CA. But most states are not CARB so can continue to buy regular ICE most places. And again - no one here is forcing anything or really defending these regs. There is no forcing function that says you must buy an EV - I am not "practically" wrong because individually you can do what you want. No one says you have to buy an EV now or anytime in the future - you can drive your current or future ICE forever - that is your choice.
CARB is self inflicted injury - no state has to follow CARB regs - the legislatures of those states are choosing to follow the regs but they do not have to follow the % sales goals CA set. Your beef is with them not anyone here.
As I said, I really do not like these regs but I think most would choose EVs if they would really try them. There is so much bad info from those that have never even driven an EV. Many seem to think that EVs can not be a good replacement when they are more than adequate for at least 99% of normal use. We have 3 EVs, an ICE and an ICE hybrid - the EVs get over 95% of the use. It costs me about $0.06/mile in my EV (with over 500HP) vs about $0.20/mile in my smaller ICE vehicle (with 180 hp) or $0.15 in the hybrid in CA - in NV, the EV is about half as much per mile while gas is only a little cheaper.
Who are the elites you are referencing? It is the AOCs and other Green new deal advocates that are pushing this - hardly the "elites". These are the ones that seem to think that Global Warming is real and going to be reversed by reducing fossil fuel use.
It seems like the supporters of EV's are desperate to avoid giving consumers any choice in the matter. Did the government force people to drop using horses? Did the government force people to stop illuminating with whale oil? Those transitions were relatively effortless and free from compulsion or direct subsidy.
Why should this unwanted change be shoved down people's throats?
The government has subsidized fossil fuel for decades making driving a car cheaper for consumers. That may not be forcing, but it certainly has enticed consumers to buy a specific product (a car) instead of using alternate methods (mass transit).
If car makers decide that EV sales are to their benefit (more sales) then they’re going to make more. IMO once EV are equal in cost to ICE vehicles, equal in performance and charging stations are fast/readily available, then we’ll have widespread adoption. I doubt it’ll be by 2035, but I believe it will happen.
I also think there will still be a market for ICE vehicles and gasoline. Both are just going to be more expensive and harder to find.
Will California have electric fire trucks to fight the battery fires?
Years ago California passed draconian emission laws and then had to rescind them because the technology simply did not exist.
Politicians can't legislate technology, it has to be developed by engineers.
Though I'm 75 and won't live long enough to see as much of the future as I wish I could, I do expect BEVs will replace ICE powered vehicles. Someday. It's coming. Don't fight the future. Some fought automobiles when they were new, did silly stuff like make cars yield the right of way to horse drawn buggies; but that early nonsense was quickly swept away as more roads were built. Rail passenger travel peaked in 1927 which already foretold the tale that automobiles would reign supreme. They did. They do. They will. Relax. Only the power source is changing. No one has to take sides. It's all good.
There will be messiness as change progresses. The history of ICE vehicles was one of constant discovery, innovation, tinkering, improvement, and advancement. The 1960 Ford Falcon our family had is downright crude by today's standards. BEVs are now in that tumultuous teenage stage of finding ones-self and will follow the same erratic arc of fits and stops. The big action will be in battery materials as R&D efforts find ways to build batteries with ever fewer rare earth metals and more generally available substances ... sodium-ion batteries, solid state batteries, better cathodes, faster re-charging, who knows what cool stuff will come bopping out of the labs in the years ahead.
Take a seat. Buckle up. The future is gonna be quite the ride. Happy motoring!
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Again not looking at the reality - the CARB "ban" allows battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles. It is 2030 that has a goal of 50%, not 2020. Since it allows the sales of hybrids, vehicles with ICE will continue to be able to be bought even after 2035 in CA. But most states are not CARB so can continue to buy regular ICE most places. And again - no one here is forcing anything or really defending these regs. There is no forcing function that says you must buy an EV - I am not "practically" wrong because individually you can do what you want. No one says you have to buy an EV now or anytime in the future - you can drive your current or future ICE forever - that is your choice.
CARB is self inflicted injury - no state has to follow CARB regs - the legislatures of those states are choosing to follow the regs but they do not have to follow the % sales goals CA set. Your beef is with them not anyone here.
As I said, I really do not like these regs but I think most would choose EVs if they would really try them. There is so much bad info from those that have never even driven an EV. Many seem to think that EVs can not be a good replacement when they are more than adequate for at least 99% of normal use. We have 3 EVs, an ICE and an ICE hybrid - the EVs get over 95% of the use. It costs me about $0.06/mile in my EV (with over 500HP) vs about $0.20/mile in my smaller ICE vehicle (with 180 hp) or $0.15 in the hybrid in CA - in NV, the EV is about half as much per mile while gas is only a little cheaper.
Who are the elites you are referencing? It is the AOCs and other Green new deal advocates that are pushing this - hardly the "elites". These are the ones that seem to think that Global Warming is real and going to be reversed by reducing fossil fuel use.
I think EVs will be the thing of the future. In too many ways, they make too much sense. Much simpler vehicles, no transmissions, no fuel systems, no ignition systems, no emissions systems, just batteries and a motor. The things hurting them now are cost (though they are getting better) and limited DC fast chargers. Sure in major metro areas there are plenty, and if you're staying on the major highways, you can travel. But forget finding one in smaller towns "off the beaten path". The lack of charging infrastructure when traveling is why range is such a concern. From the cost standpoint-many of the more popular EVs are in the size class of an Equinox/Rav-4/CRV. While those cars can be had for <$30k, a Model Y long range, Ionic 5, EV6, or Mach E are $50k or above, with many far above (not counting taxpayer-provided welfare). But that's changing quickly-that ~$50k MYLR was $66k just about 6 months ago. When Tesla comes out with the "Model 2" (or whatever it ends up being called) for <$30k, that argument largely goes away. And charging stations are being expanded every week, so it's coming. So, while they don't meet everyone's needs now, I expect that in 10 years it will be a non-issue. Unless you are doing extensive, long distance heavy towing, I expect you'll be in an EV.
EVs are about where the auto industry was in the 1910-1920 period. There weren't gas stations on every corner, and cars were pricy for the average worker. The Model T (introduced in '08, but with price cuts over several years) drove that change, and drove the introduction of gas stations. Now, the MY is largely doing the same. The biggest threat to EV adoption is government involvement manipulation of the free market. We see too many decisions and too much construction of charging infrastructure being delayed waiting to see if there will be government handouts, and how they will be structured. The IRA was a big hit with the mandate for US sourcing and production to get taxpayer handouts. I don't disagree with the mandate-I do with the handouts.
We're not there quite yet, but I think it's inevitable. We do have a need to beef up our power generation and distribution capacity, and have waited decades too long to build more nuclear plants. Perhaps the best part of EVs-the US can be energy independent of countries hostile to America. And while there will be a huge demand for battery metals initially, that demand will drop dramatically as EVs take over and battery recycling becomes the norm. Unlike, say, oil, where demand continues to climb.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 07-21-2023 at 09:03 PM..
Again not looking at the reality - the CARB "ban" allows battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles. It is 2030 that has a goal of 50%, not 2020. Since it allows the sales of hybrids, vehicles with ICE will continue to be able to be bought even after 2035 in CA. But most states are not CARB so can continue to buy regular ICE most places. And again - no one here is forcing anything or really defending these regs. There is no forcing function that says you must buy an EV - I am not "practically" wrong because individually you can do what you want. No one says you have to buy an EV now or anytime in the future - you can drive your current or future ICE forever - that is your choice.
CARB is self inflicted injury - no state has to follow CARB regs - the legislatures of those states are choosing to follow the regs but they do not have to follow the % sales goals CA set. Your beef is with them not anyone here.
As I said, I really do not like these regs but I think most would choose EVs if they would really try them. There is so much bad info from those that have never even driven an EV. Many seem to think that EVs can not be a good replacement when they are more than adequate for at least 99% of normal use. We have 3 EVs, an ICE and an ICE hybrid - the EVs get over 95% of the use. It costs me about $0.06/mile in my EV (with over 500HP) vs about $0.20/mile in my smaller ICE vehicle (with 180 hp) or $0.15 in the hybrid in CA - in NV, the EV is about half as much per mile while gas is only a little cheaper.
Who are the elites you are referencing? It is the AOCs and other Green new deal advocates that are pushing this - hardly the "elites". These are the ones that seem to think that Global Warming is real and going to be reversed by reducing fossil fuel use.
You said the CARB "ban" allows battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles.
Um, no. The CARB ban impacts all gasoline powered cars, which includes all hybrids, including plug in hybrids. Only cars will zero tailpipe emission vehicles may legally be sold in California after 2035. Hybrids and plug-in hybrids emit run on gasoline and emit tailpipe emissions. They will be banned.
California’s is the most aggressive regulation to establish a definitive mechanism to meet required zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales that ramp up year over year, culminating in 100% ZEV sales in 2035.
We're not there quite yet, but I think it's inevitable. We do have a need to beef up our power generation and distribution capacity, and have waited decades too long to build more nuclear plants. Perhaps the best part of EVs-the US can be energy independent of countries hostile to America. And while there will be a huge demand for battery metals initially, that demand will drop dramatically as EVs take over and battery recycling becomes the norm. Unlike, say, oil, where demand continues to climb.
I wish my views were as sunny as yours. I do not believe politicians are capable of getting out of the way, for one thing. For another thing, while urban areas may be doing well on building charging infrastructure then do not have the real estate for massive wind farms. Covering tall buildings with solar panels is rank fantasy since buildings are in each other's shadow much of the day.
Unlike EV's using solar generating to its potential will require massive investments in storage. Take, again, NYC as an example. For the first part of July we've had little but overcast. The next week is forecast to have nothing but daytime sunshine. I do not believe that even with government out of the way,then, we get a new "Model T." You mentioned nuclear. New York just got finished vandalizing its downstate nuclear capacity. You can count on a bunch of screamers from the Upper West Side to make short work of any nuclear proposals. Think Greta Thunberg.
I wish my views were as sunny as yours. I do not believe politicians are capable of getting out of the way, for one thing. For another thing, while urban areas may be doing well on building charging infrastructure then do not have the real estate for massive wind farms. Covering tall buildings with solar panels is rank fantasy since buildings are in each other's shadow much of the day.
Unlike EV's using solar generating to its potential will require massive investments in storage. Take, again, NYC as an example. For the first part of July we've had little but overcast. The next week is forecast to have nothing but daytime sunshine. I do not believe that even with government out of the way,then, we get a new "Model T." You mentioned nuclear. New York just got finished vandalizing its downstate nuclear capacity. You can count on a bunch of screamers from the Upper West Side to make short work of any nuclear proposals. Think Greta Thunberg.
Well, NY is run by morons (I was born in the state-a birth defect). Much of the rest of the country isn't run by Luddites. I agree with you on solar not being the solution. At best it's a supplement-but it's much to "non-dense" a power source requiring many square MILES of panels that at their peak can match the output of a nuclear plant, that covers a few acres. And of course for solar to work as "base load" power, for every watt-hout of solar energy produced, you need multiple watt-hours of storage. Storage costs more than peak generating capacity. Going forward, IMO nuclear is not an option, it's a necessity, especially in northern areas. I lived the last 30 years in N. Idaho-in December the sun doesn't come up until about 8 am, and it's dark by 4:30. Add to that frequent cloudy skies and the fact that the sun never rises that far means your solar output is minimal-and that's only on days when panels aren't covered in snow.
Concerning battery metals, the "high performance" batteries require cobalt and nickel. Both are available inexpensively and with near zero environmental impact. There are vast areas of the ocean floor covered with polymetallic modules consisting of a nearly pure mix of cobalt, nickel, copper and magnesium, all valuable metals. And unlike most land-based sources, as stated these are nearly pure, requiring only separation of those elements. Land-based mining produces a low-quality ore that takes massive amounts of refining and processing to concentrate those elements-producing large amounts of waste. Only issue is the bureaucrats. The UN created the International Seabed Authority 28 years ago to establish regulations of deep sea harvesting and license harvesting areas. In 28 years they have done...virtually nothing. Moving at the speed of government.
But battery technology is changing quickly. LFP batteries (lithium/iron/phosphate) are improving rapidly, have a longer life and only use readily available materials (lithium production being expanded rapidly). They don't currently have the energy density of nickel/cobalt cells, but are improving. And many different chemistries are being investigated.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 07-22-2023 at 05:43 AM..
Sorry about the comments regarding NY State-forgot which forum I was on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
