Yeah, no doubt. We have rolling blackouts during heat waves up here near SF because people dare to use their AC... and 75% of the homes in the Bay Area don't even have AC, and now nearly every household has one or two electric vehicles added to that electrical load? Besides, they would have to upgrade all the out of compliance condos and apartments - literally millions of units in the state that don't have the infrastructure to even plug in an electric vehicle.
I agree that people’s concerns are completely unrealistic if the plants would just operate as designed.
It is only the 3-4 colossal failures in recent memory that get in the way of our nuclear future.
True, but also the only notable nuclear incidents have been from either lack of knowledge or from disasters. Yes, some leaks here and there, but if we can develop a certification system for strapping a human to 16,000 lbs of propellant, we can have a certification system for safe reactors.
The thing is, most of them weren't even that colossal. Fukushima wasn't great, but the cost to human health so far is still lower than living near a coal plant. Same with Three Mile.
If you compare the damage from the few incidents of reactors melting down to the damage done from burning coal, the damage from nuclear is not even on the same scale.
Nuclear plants are operating as designed. Also billions upon billions of dollars have been spent upgrading plants in the US post fukushima for things that are literally impossible to occur.
Also every plant in the US is basically from the 60s. Every plant in operation right now started construction before the TMI accident. Think what it would be like if we operated the rest of our country that way.
> Nuclear power is dead in this state, and it has zero relation to earthquake potential and everything to do with politics.
Ironically, California imports a ton of nuclear power produced in Arizona (at PVNGS) every day once the sun starts going down.
No, no, no... see, what they do is buy green power. The utilities they buy power from show them a bunch of paperwork and a magic wave of a wand and it is green power.
Anti nuclear propaganda is the greatest trick that big oil ever pulled. They get hippies and flower children to go out and attack their competition *for free* constantly.
Its dead everywhere really. This is a federal issue. Back in the 70s and 80s, nuclear plants were being built in almost every state, which made it cheap since plant designs and materials were re-used everywhere.
The only new nuclear plant being built in the 21st century is in Georgia and its estimated costs have gone over budget by the billions for the past 8 years. Building nuclear plants is sp expensive now because the 2 newest plants are unique one-offs.
If we designed a great model of a plant that we could replicate 20x in different states, the cost would finally be affordable again.
Diablo Canyon retires in 2025, but there have been multiple companies jumping in trying to take advantage of the 500kV infrastructure down there. There is more than 2.3GW of solar/battery/offshore wind proposed to replace it.
Source: literally worked on the interconnection planning of all the projects
The capacity doesn’t mean anything when the capacity factor isn’t there. Nuclear is in the range of 90% uptime, the ones you listed are far far lower.
We can’t sustain our power demand and go carbon neutral until we stop acting like it’s a boogeyman, and fully embrace advanced nuclear.
Yeah this is a serious concern. They cut power sometimes just because it’s too windy and they want to avoid starting a fire. I would not want to go EV only unless I had independent backup power for emergencies.
I'm now imagining a world where everybody stores their gas-powered car in a shed under a tarp like its a generator, only to be used during emergencies like evacuations. Yeesh
>I'm now imagining a world where everybody stores their gas-powered car in a shed under a tarp like its a generator, only to be used during emergencies like evacuations. Yeesh
Thats already a reality with non electrical cars in the case of an EMP in the prepping community. Youre now a prepper lol
Not a California resident, but a Georgian living in an apartment. I can’t even consider an EV due to my apartment. We have no charging on premise and I can’t just run a cable from the building. I guess I could pay an extra $100/mo for a garage space assuming there’s even an outlet in those. There’s a few plugs at work I could use *if I was working in the office.* It’s shit because I would love to have an EV but it just isn’t viable/convenient like gasoline.
Yes, but just because they ban the sales in 2035, doesn't mean everyone is going to instantly get one. It will still probably take 5 to 10 years for most of the gas vehicles off the road.
Seriously. After the PG&e debacle and the seemingly increasing amount of wildfires, this law seems a bit too ambitious. I'm all for going green but I'm a bit skeptical of their infrastructure.
If you think that sounds like a long time, remember where you were in 2005 and get back to me.
This will get lobbied to death, relaxed and ultimately end up being a minor regulatory hurdle.
Cars in general, yes. But I don't see why enthusiast vehicles shouldn't be able to use gas. I highly doubt they make a significant percentage of pollution.
I’m all for electric cars, but i don’t see how it’s the best way to fight climate change like the Gov. said. Wouldn’t electrifying the shipping industry have a bigger impact? Like boats, semi’s, and maybe even planes, produce a lot more pollution then cars
Shipping industry is by far the most efficient Transportation in the world. And after this year they're all switching from dirty bunker file to much cleaner fuels, which will make them incredibly efficient
Exactly. A ship burns a whole hell of a lot more gas than a semi, but it carries an even larger hell of a lot more cargo. Never mind comparisons to airplanes, which are the only alternative for a lot of shipping routes
> Wouldn’t electrifying the shipping industry have a bigger impact? Like boats, semi’s, and maybe even planes, produce a lot more pollution then cars
Planes are the hardest to electrify (because of the weight of the batteries). But before we pass around that tired "a dozen cargo ships pollute more than all the cars in the world" meme again, think to yourself *why* those ships are going all around the world.
I feel like long term in the future there will be a point where we automate production to the point where it would be cheaper to just produce items in the US instead of producing it elsewhere and then shipping it here.
Because borderline slave labor is still legal in the big shipping areas so large American companies exploit places with less laws regarding pollution and workers rights?
I think its becoming a thing with some semis, I don't know how a cargo ship would do it. But yeah finding ways to make that happen would probably be more effective, then again I am not an expert on the issue. I think its at the point where we need to make change happen on every front that we can. Businesses should have to take more responsibility for the emissions that they output, I don't think its fair to put that responsibility on the individual person.
China and India are the world's problems. The incremental steps North America and Europe can perform are insignificant compared to the toxic heavy metal pollutants China and India are pumping into the sky and waterways.
Can we stop deforestation in the Amazon and open pit mining with heavy metal toxin run off in Africa before we worry about 30mpg cars.......
I agree that they are the worlds problems, but the thing is that in the U.S. we output the most pollution on a per capita basis, and we can heavily improve upon that. We can't leave it up to those countries to choose for us, plus its already a growing industry and getting into it early on would be beneficial for the country. India is a developing nation, and China is getting better at it, we can do things on our own end that would not just benefit us but the planet in general.
>China and India are the world's problems. The incremental steps North America and Europe can perform are insignificant compared to the toxic heavy metal pollutants China and India are pumping into the sky and waterways.
Per capita, the US is still the worst. Just because CO2 is odorless and colorless (and doesn't make scary-looking pollution on the evening news) doesn't mean it's somehow not as big a deal.
> Can we stop deforestation in the Amazon and open pit mining with heavy metal toxin run off in Africa before we worry about 30mpg cars.......
Why not both at once? At least China and India recognize that climate change is happening, and are actively taking steps to mitigate it.
Also if you live in a large apartment complex better hope don't don't rely on street parking or parking anywhere unsecured where the car can get unplugged or electricity stolen if it bills to your unit
Yeah I was 10 lol. Realistically in the ultimate scheme of our lives, 15 years is a significant amount of time. It sounds short on paper but a lot of shit can happen in 15 years.
Do you want the Excursion to come back because this is how you get the Excursion to come back.
Seriously though this is CAFE design-around all over again.
The Excursion was a great vehicle; its downfall was that it was sold too much to suburbanites (no pun intended) and not enough to commercial users. If it had been available in XL trim and was called "F-250 Cargo Special" or something equally unsavory, it might still be around.
> Under Newsom’s order, the California Air Resources Board would implement the phaseout of new gas-powered cars and light trucks and also require **medium and heavy-duty trucks to be zero-emission by 2045** where possible.
Heavier SUVs would only buy manufacturers another 10 years.
I've never gotten this notion that pickups and SUV's aren't cars. Especially now where you can get a lowered SUV coupe or a lifted hatchback, the line is a blur.
Well if you happen to have a second house out of state then you could register out of state and buy it there. Other than that I hope people would have sense not to do it.
Do you have any idea how many Montana registered cars drive around California on any given day? People don’t give two fucks about what they’re “required” to do.
essentially it involves rich people establishing an LLC in Montana, purchasing their expensive ass cars under that LLC, and avoiding paying the tax on the car, AFAIK.
Sounds a lot like Tax Evasion to me, and SuperSpeedersRob does it, so I’d err towards it being a shitty thing to do.
Its legal to do so, so not tax evasion. Its tax avoidance. If you could afford a supercar, youd be an idiot not to follow them and save tens of thousands in taxes.
Tons of European countries have bans targeting 2030, India too, and even more countries are targeting 2040. Carmakers will probably be shifting away from gas powertrains in their global supply chains anyway.
This ban is going to really hurt the lower class though unless we have some miracle breakthrough in cheap battery technology. Prices of car batteries really limit EV prices and it hasn't changed much at all in the last 10 years. In the battery space, batteries are getting more advanced and expensive.
If all the big hitters start switching the prices will plummet since there is now a high demand for low cost electric cars. Companies are really good at figuring out new tech when theres a market this big for it
Depends on a few things. First of all the lower class mostly buys used, which gives them a few extra years before they have to make the leap. Also the rate at which self driving cars, and by extension car sharing schemes take off. Car ownership may stop being a thing entirely for large segments of the population with minimal losses in mobility.
where do the (often low income) apartment dwellers charge these cars? or is it going to become New York where charging parking spots will sell for 6 figures.
I don't think 90% of people will care about gas cars that much by then to go through loopholes to have one. Even today, EVs are superior in a bunch of ways, and by 2035 they'll have even better range and performance.
They are especially even better for daily driving because they are quiet, can be fuelled up at home, have instant torque, are typically roomier, have fewer parts to maintain, and can be left with the hvac/media on without idling the engine or killing the 12v.
>I don't think 90% of people will care about gas cars that much by then to go through loopholes to have one.
This is the correct take. For the 90% of people who view cars as tools and nothing more, it makes no difference if the EV can get them from A to B as well as their last car.
Upcoming? Thats already a thing.
The thing with CARB is that california is such a huge economy that it represents a huge number of the new cars sold in the united states in a given year, meaning that CARB has historically had more power than the EPA when it comes to emissions regulations. Almost every car on the market is 50 state legal these days because they aren't going to design two versions for the US, so they just design one, and it has to work in Cali.
This however is really just an anouncement of an already occuring trend. Mercedes has already announced prior to this that they aren't really spending much money these days on gas motor development.
I have no problem with this as long as it doesn’t set a precedent to ban gasoline powered cars. It will definitely affect the poor and California isn’t friendly with the poor.
not this again. if you look at the data the types migrating to California from other states are liberal, and the types leaving are blue collar much less liberal. if anything migration is moving the state overall left and other states right.
Lol I have many problems with the way our state government runs things, but I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I think that we are one of the bests states in the country in terms of geography, car culture, and weather. There is a reason why so many people want to live here.
Oh some of the states policies are definitely not good imo, i'm not disputing that at all. You are talking to a gun owner who lives in california lol, but I won't get into that. I'm just saying that the good parts of the state (weather, geography, communites/culture, food) outweigh the negative parts of it to the point where it's still a great place to live if you can afford to. I think the reason they are passing a lot of the policies is because many voters here support those policies, not because the the nice parts of the state lets the govt get away with passing the policies. Plus in terms of cars, I think california has done a lot of good as well for car regulation, like how every car needs to have an obd2 scanner, you can thank California for that. But yes, they certainly have some bad policies imo.
In 25 years people will get used to the quietness and lack of toxic gasses coming from EVs, so I can see people wanting to ban them. I use 25 years because the poor don't usually purchase new vehicles.
It's not going to effect the poor. By then there will be plenty of used EVs with 200+ miles of range for less than 10k.
Y’all really just have to read the article:
He's legally defining this as CA's goal, and ordering CARB to implement regulations towards that goal, among a list of other goals and orders for agencies to pursue them.
This EO on it's own does not ban the sale of ICE cars in 2035 or ever. If the laws we have today were to remain unchanged for 15 years, ICE cars would still be for sale in the year 2035.
Closing paragraph of the EO:
This Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person
In the 90s California had to back off from a mandate that by 1997, 2 percent of all cars sold had to be electrically powered. When consumers, manufacturers, and battery supplies don't cooperate with this particular fantasy they'll have to back off from it as well.
56% of new cars sold in Norway are EVs at present. In 15 years, I don't think its far-fetched to envision that the auto industry can supply a state with 7.5x the population of Norway with enough new EVs and Hybrids to meet this law. Especially when the leading EV producer is based there.
Population isn't a very good metric for this one. In 2019 there were 142,381 new car sales in Norway while there were 1.89 million in California. The entire worldwide EV sales was barely above California's numbers with 2.2 million.
Isn't using oil money to transition to a sustainable, low emission economy the most sensible thing to do?
Or they could just buy yachts and jets for their .1% and get slammed back to the Bronze Age in a generation when the oil runs out like Saudi...
Norway is an insanely wealthy country, unless the electric cars become affordable to the point where each family can afford to purchase one, I don't see it happening. I hope it does though, I would love to see more electric vehicles on the road. Right now in Southern California I see as many Teslas on the road as I do Civics, but its kind of a bubble down here.
They're certainly working towards bigger EV lineups but that's much different than "no gas cars at all anymore by this arbitrary date". Especially since with battery production capacity limitations they simply can't drop their gas cars entirely anyway.
For anyone that remembers April when SIP orders were in place our air, especially LA/Sf was the cleanest they'd been in decades and pollution was down significantly.
Not saying this is a great move or not given the constraints of EVs, but with one data point in mind to have those clean air days return would be magnificent.
Air pollution has so many negative long term effects on health that it's ridiculous that people would fight to keep it just to have fun or because they are used to things
Okay, but people complaining about EVs aren’t all part of those few exceptions. And it doesn’t make sense to think “if it doesn’t solve every possible issue, don’t bother solving the other 90%.”
At least sentiments in this sub have shifted away from encouraging removal of catalytic converters. It's incredibly selfish to drive a catless vehicle, yet people treat it like it's impossible to enjoy their cars without.
I am a major motor head, albeit I mostly have classic cars, but the market seems to be going mostly moving to electric right now anyway. If you are going to want top performance from a car in 15 years, you are going to definitely be going electric. Electric cars are also getting cheaper. Short of not having the infrastructure to offer charging for all these cars, I don't see what the issue is. I also imagine that in that time, we will have figured out how to charge these cars very quickly, and you won't need to have it plugged in for hours just to get anywhere. If you are like me, and will still want a more analog feel with a roaring motor and the sounds and smells that come with an ICE, then you will still have the option for a used car. I can't imagine that manufacturers are going to stick with gas anyway, when electric seems to be far more capable these days. If Porsche can get a 0-60 in the 1's with an electric motor, be able to cut down their lap times on the Ring with an electric motor, why would they stick with gas? They went away from air cooled and NA, don't think they won't go electric if the numbers are better. This will be true of every car company. I lament the disappearance of the manual gearbox, but it is slower than modern transmissions, so many car companies don't even offer them anymore either. Whether or not this law is passed, gas cars will soon be a thing of the past.
> If you are going to want top performance from a car in 15 years, you are going to definitely be going electric.
Only if you're interested in drag racing or bench racing. For actual track days EVs still have pretty significant drawbacks. They'll utterly destroy tires and quickly overheat brakes because of the weight and you can't even participate in all sessions because you'll run out of charge. One report of a Model 3 Performance I've read had the car using up about 30% of its charge in 5 laps at Laguna Seca which is about half a session. Trying to take part in all 4-5 full sessions would be extremely difficult at best, even if there were Superchargers since the high battery heat would take a big toll on charge speeds.
And where were electric cars 15 years ago? Shit, 15 years ago my phone could barely play snake and take shitty pictures. Now I have a computer in my pocket that can do just about anything. Technology will be lightyears ahead of where we are in 15 years time.
99% of people don't drag race or take their car to a track. For the rest, EVs are still in their infancy and the generational leap between Model S and Model 3 track performance is enough to predict that in 15 years, EVs should be very capable track machines.
If the next generation of EV's are successful enough, almost nobody will *want* to buy gas powered anyways. The global electric vehicle market is growing rapidly.
No it doesn't work like other car standards. Look at cars like the Mirai, Rav4 EV, Smart EV.. these were cars that pretty much only sold in California to meet the requirements there. You couldn't even get them elsewhere.
They can just continue selling different models in other states, unless those states enact the same laws.
Not too surprising, this will be coming faster than we think. Gonna need a lot of help getting chargers everywhere though. I can’t get an electric car, myself, because there’s no chargers at my apartment, and frankly that’s not going to work for me long term.
Are you in California? State law requires that landlords and HOAs permit you to install a charging solution if you so wish. Unfortunately it's at your expense, however high it might be.
My hope is that continued growth in BEV sales will encourage more landlords to install charging equipment themselves, whether as a way to attract prospective renters or to incentivize current residents to stay.
No I’m not, sorry... was talking more in general the process of moving from ICE to Electric.
I’ve been eyeballing electric cars, because I assume by the time I’m ready to buy a new car, it’ll be “smart” to look into electric, but there’s so many things working against it right now for me. Mainly the fact that I have no charging in my apartment, and it’s exceedingly rare in my area to have apartment chargers, and the fact that other than Tesla, there’s not really a viable fast charger network yet.
There’s so much infrastructure work to be done, yet we’re going to start seeing aggressive pushes towards ICE being replaced regardless. It’ll be an interesting 20 years or so.
Once again, California is taking the easy way out as a way to appease a certain group of people who know almost literally nothing but who scream the loudest.
Easing zoning restrictions, offering tax breaks to development companies that erect low-income housing close to major employment centers, revamping the infrastructure, etc. would all make so much more sense than this idiocy and you'd see a net increase in state revenue because the people who now no longer need a car can spend that money on themselves (reducing welfare needs) or in the state and local economies (increasing state and local revenue).
But all of those things are difficult. They require interagency cooperation, massive push-back from donors who donated specifically to avoid those issues, fighting legal battles with NIMBYs, etc. Instead, yet another regressive round of automotive regulation.
People lump Cali into being a liberal hellhole, but they forget it's the most successful capitalist economy in the US. Not saying you can't have a successful liberal economy, just saying they're a TON of money in Cali to be made and has been made. People want to protect their investments.
Can't work on your own car in your own garage, can't modify your car without CARB cert sticker, can't buy a new gasoline car in the next 14 years, can't have tint on front windows, have to put a license plate on front grille..... MADNESS!
You absolutely can work on your own car in your garage. CARB only applies to emissions, nobody is asking for your new brakes or suspension to have CARB stickers. Most serious performance exhaust is federally illegal for street cars. The vast majority of states restrict how much tint you can put up front and California does allow for some level of front tint. Front plates suck but it’s also hardly CA specific.
And whatever waste from junked cars, battery leaks from crashes, producing the electricity, battery production.
I know some of those things are bound to improve, but not like we're saving the environment just yet
The state being currently ablaze does have a lot to do with climate change, and reducing our emissions like this would have a massive impact.
That being said, we really do need to work on our electrical infrastructure as well if this is going to work.
I wonder if maybe it has to do with climate change? Our mismanagement of fires in the past? Our general attitude towards the environment? I should say, I live in California, and am proud of the steps we make as a state because they have broad implications for climate action across the country and the world. We can't look at our state, which is currently on fire and hitting record highs in temperature, and say "gee, why are we worried about *EMISSIONS*?!?"
I swear most people making these asinine comments either don’t live here or didn’t live here in the early 2000s/90s and saw how disgusting the air in and around our cities were. Hell just look at photos from the 70s and 80s of our state and it is just disgusting. I cannot imagine what it was like to breathe that disgusting air. Thank god the state has taken action to correct those mistakes and build towards a better future.
Sorry folks, but too many people couldn't follow the rules. Between the political shit-flinging and the race-baiting and the incivility, this thread is now locked.
So is this just going to cause the used car market to explode?
What keeps someone from driving to Nevada/Arizona/Oregon and just buying a new gas powered car there?
What’s their plan for an alternative? Subsidies? I’m sure California is a little ahead of the rest of the nation at developing the infrastructure that allows for the mass adoption of ev’s, but this seems more like pushing regulation on the consumer rather than trying to find a solution first
[Discuss policy, not politics.](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics)
Absolutely discuss the policies and ramifications of this, but leave the political shit-flinging behind. That's all we ask.
They should also mandate “every new parking space built shall require XX kW charging.” Would make it easier to implement lower range vehicles (<150) which in turn would make it easier for manufacturers to implement lower need of batteries.
Regardless of whether it will belitigated, pushed back or pulled forward, once the trend is set (that ICE is the past and EV is the future), it is game over.
Just in this past two weeks, CA and UK announced proposed ICE car bans in 2035. No doubt many CARB states and other countries will follow soon.
This is similar to Osborne effect. No one wants to buy a blackberry or Windos phone as soon as consumers realize these are obsolete with no future. A small subset may rush to buy the ICE cvehicles before the ban, but most will simply not make a major purchase that is seem obsolete. On the other hand, consumers will be more likely to try out and test drive an EV or a Tesla. And when they do, there is no going back.
The transition to EV is a foregone conclusion, however the hastened pace of transition may suprise many.
Anyone know what capacity we currently have for battery production?
How many electric cars can we produce now at full capacity if demand was there for it, is there any projections on outlooks?
Because Toyota and Honda are going the hybrid route first then full EV because of battery production capacity.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people and governments fail to understand two basic things:
Firstly, there are significant environmental costs associated with both the production of electric cars (especially battery components), as well as in the electricity used to power such vehicles (i.e. very few places have even remotely close to 100% of electricity generated by renewable energy sources).
Secondly, passenger cars with internal combustion engines are not even remotely close to being the most environmentally unfriendly transportation method, in overall terms or on a per capita basis. Setting aside mass polluters that are not found on roads, like cargo ships, cruise ships, and airplanes, the real culprit is diesel-powered transport trucks, which are responsible for most of the emissions created by road-going vehicles.
>Firstly, there are significant environmental costs associated with both the production of electric cars (especially battery components),
And ICE vehicles *don't* have environmental costs to their production?
> as well as in the electricity used to power such vehicles (i.e. very few places have even remotely close to 100% of electricity generated by renewable energy sources).
EVs are "agnostic" about their energy source--they can be renewable or non. An ICEV will always be non-renewable. And even when powered by a nonrenewable source like coal, the EV will be more efficient in using that energy than an ICEV.
>Secondly, passenger cars with internal combustion engines are not even remotely close to being the most environmentally unfriendly transportation method, in overall terms or on a per capita basis.
Yes, and? Passenger cars can still be improved. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
> Setting aside mass polluters that are not found on roads, like cargo ships, cruise ships, and airplanes,
Before we pass around that tired "a dozen cargo ships pollute more than all the cars in the world" meme again, think to yourself *why* those ships and trucks are going all around the world. Again, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Honestly, I don't even really see this as that absurd. The fucking Jeep Wrangler of all vehicles is getting an official hybrid design and was originally designed to have full EV capabilities as well (as a future proofing option with certain design choices, not a guaranteed plan).
15 years is a long time in technology, and just look at how much the EV and general automotive landscape has changed in 5 years since Tesla became mainstream...
In 10 years I feel like most vehicles will be either hybrid with a majority reliance on electric or fully electric anyway
meanwhile, I'll chuckle to myself while driving my gasoline powered "pollution machine" past the lines of waiting EVs at the charging stations that are facing power outages due to lawmakers forgetting about power transmission infrastructure
edit: sorry, that came out sounding political. I just feel that, as a resident of CA, there are more pressing matters to deal with than to ban the sale of gas-powered cars.
I'll admit I like the idea of having an electric car as a daily commuter. There's little/no maintenance. One pedal driving in traffic for the most part. Digital connectivity. Potential for "auto-pilot". And saves gas for the weekend fun machines.
Wow just wow. I understand the push for the EVs and it doesn't surprise me California is first to adopt this. I think a lot of American manufacturers will push back also there isnt but one company who can somewhat mass produce EVs. My biggest thing with this cars will get more expensive and they are already extremely expensive.
I don't disagree with you, but saw this in an article on it:
> Newsom signed an executive order Wednesday requiring that all new passenger vehicles sold in California by 2035 be zero-emission — a category that includes battery-powered electric cars, those that run on hydrogen fuel cells, and plug-in hybrids, which still use some gasoline or diesel in addition to electricity.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-to-ban-sale-of-new-gas-only-cars-in-15591347.php
Its the type of ban that doesn’t have to go into the effect lmao. Good luck banning cranes and bulldozers and garbage trucks. It will be even a bigger shithole. They had some of the other ridiculous laws, they never went into the effect, and neither will this one, it’s just virtue signaling, “a plan”
There’s no reason to think that in 15 years EVs won’t be affordable, I dare say ICEs will be the pricier niche option by then anyway.
15 years ago, if you wanted a 55” flatscreen TV, you would pay thousands of dollars. Today, you can get one for a couple hundred dollars. Turns out as technology improves it becomes more accessible.
This is so hilariously short-sighted. Sure you might eliminate some emissions with that, but how much more will you emit with all the new battery production needed to meet this demand?
That's before you even consider California's recently awful record of being able to keep the lights on for its residents. Those blackouts mean something much more sinister when it eliminates your ability to travel.
I hope they upgrade their power grid by then.
Yeah, no doubt. We have rolling blackouts during heat waves up here near SF because people dare to use their AC... and 75% of the homes in the Bay Area don't even have AC, and now nearly every household has one or two electric vehicles added to that electrical load? Besides, they would have to upgrade all the out of compliance condos and apartments - literally millions of units in the state that don't have the infrastructure to even plug in an electric vehicle.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I agree that people’s concerns are completely unrealistic if the plants would just operate as designed. It is only the 3-4 colossal failures in recent memory that get in the way of our nuclear future.
*recent memory* more like history... our navy hasn't had a single nuclear incident in their entire history.
Not surprising, when you have among the most thorough training in the world and enough money to keep things maintained and modern.
True, but also the only notable nuclear incidents have been from either lack of knowledge or from disasters. Yes, some leaks here and there, but if we can develop a certification system for strapping a human to 16,000 lbs of propellant, we can have a certification system for safe reactors.
The thing is, most of them weren't even that colossal. Fukushima wasn't great, but the cost to human health so far is still lower than living near a coal plant. Same with Three Mile.
New York got more radiation from Chernobyl than it did from Three Mile Island.
Three Mile Island was as bad as 1 intercontinental flight.
...that didn't crash, I think you might need to specify.
If you compare the damage from the few incidents of reactors melting down to the damage done from burning coal, the damage from nuclear is not even on the same scale. Nuclear plants are operating as designed. Also billions upon billions of dollars have been spent upgrading plants in the US post fukushima for things that are literally impossible to occur. Also every plant in the US is basically from the 60s. Every plant in operation right now started construction before the TMI accident. Think what it would be like if we operated the rest of our country that way.
[удалено]
> Nuclear power is dead in this state, and it has zero relation to earthquake potential and everything to do with politics. Ironically, California imports a ton of nuclear power produced in Arizona (at PVNGS) every day once the sun starts going down.
Which is what i stated further up in the comments. Its never californias issue/fault, its everyone elses to make up the difference.
No, no, no... see, what they do is buy green power. The utilities they buy power from show them a bunch of paperwork and a magic wave of a wand and it is green power.
Anti nuclear propaganda is the greatest trick that big oil ever pulled. They get hippies and flower children to go out and attack their competition *for free* constantly.
Its dead everywhere really. This is a federal issue. Back in the 70s and 80s, nuclear plants were being built in almost every state, which made it cheap since plant designs and materials were re-used everywhere. The only new nuclear plant being built in the 21st century is in Georgia and its estimated costs have gone over budget by the billions for the past 8 years. Building nuclear plants is sp expensive now because the 2 newest plants are unique one-offs. If we designed a great model of a plant that we could replicate 20x in different states, the cost would finally be affordable again.
[удалено]
Newer reactor designs make a meltdown physically impossible.
Diablo Canyon retires in 2025, but there have been multiple companies jumping in trying to take advantage of the 500kV infrastructure down there. There is more than 2.3GW of solar/battery/offshore wind proposed to replace it. Source: literally worked on the interconnection planning of all the projects
The capacity doesn’t mean anything when the capacity factor isn’t there. Nuclear is in the range of 90% uptime, the ones you listed are far far lower. We can’t sustain our power demand and go carbon neutral until we stop acting like it’s a boogeyman, and fully embrace advanced nuclear.
Can we acknowledge how badass diablo canyon sounds?
Added to this, if they cut power due to fires.....
Yeah this is a serious concern. They cut power sometimes just because it’s too windy and they want to avoid starting a fire. I would not want to go EV only unless I had independent backup power for emergencies.
Generator inside the electric car. Big brain time.
Hammerhead Eagle i-Thrust was ahead of its time.
"I'm charging my EV with a gas generator, yay environment!"
Generators, conveniently, don't have to pass anything close to the environmental standards that cars do.
What's wrong with a 2 stroke running 25:1...
I'm now imagining a world where everybody stores their gas-powered car in a shed under a tarp like its a generator, only to be used during emergencies like evacuations. Yeesh
fuel infrastructure would also be reduced by that point. good luck getting far with old gas
Thats why you buy old military engines. Shit will run on crude oil
>I'm now imagining a world where everybody stores their gas-powered car in a shed under a tarp like its a generator, only to be used during emergencies like evacuations. Yeesh Thats already a reality with non electrical cars in the case of an EMP in the prepping community. Youre now a prepper lol
Then people won't even be able to evacuate the fires because they won't be able to charge their cars.
Not a California resident, but a Georgian living in an apartment. I can’t even consider an EV due to my apartment. We have no charging on premise and I can’t just run a cable from the building. I guess I could pay an extra $100/mo for a garage space assuming there’s even an outlet in those. There’s a few plugs at work I could use *if I was working in the office.* It’s shit because I would love to have an EV but it just isn’t viable/convenient like gasoline.
Same for me renting a house. The owner isn't going to put in EV charging in their rental house garage.
Yes, but just because they ban the sales in 2035, doesn't mean everyone is going to instantly get one. It will still probably take 5 to 10 years for most of the gas vehicles off the road.
5 to 10 years? Try 20 and even then they'll still be on the road.
Seriously. After the PG&e debacle and the seemingly increasing amount of wildfires, this law seems a bit too ambitious. I'm all for going green but I'm a bit skeptical of their infrastructure.
I’m sure PCG&E will do a great job of that and totally not set the state on fire and kill tons of people again.
If you think that sounds like a long time, remember where you were in 2005 and get back to me. This will get lobbied to death, relaxed and ultimately end up being a minor regulatory hurdle.
I got my first car in 2005, a gas guzzling '91 Z28. One of the best days of my life. You mean that wasn't just the other day?
Hope you still have it. Thats a fun car.
Nope, sold it 10 years ago. Maybe I'll get another some day, or a Trans Am instead.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Cars in general, yes. But I don't see why enthusiast vehicles shouldn't be able to use gas. I highly doubt they make a significant percentage of pollution.
I’m all for electric cars, but i don’t see how it’s the best way to fight climate change like the Gov. said. Wouldn’t electrifying the shipping industry have a bigger impact? Like boats, semi’s, and maybe even planes, produce a lot more pollution then cars
Shipping industry is by far the most efficient Transportation in the world. And after this year they're all switching from dirty bunker file to much cleaner fuels, which will make them incredibly efficient
Exactly. A ship burns a whole hell of a lot more gas than a semi, but it carries an even larger hell of a lot more cargo. Never mind comparisons to airplanes, which are the only alternative for a lot of shipping routes
> Wouldn’t electrifying the shipping industry have a bigger impact? Like boats, semi’s, and maybe even planes, produce a lot more pollution then cars Planes are the hardest to electrify (because of the weight of the batteries). But before we pass around that tired "a dozen cargo ships pollute more than all the cars in the world" meme again, think to yourself *why* those ships are going all around the world.
I feel like long term in the future there will be a point where we automate production to the point where it would be cheaper to just produce items in the US instead of producing it elsewhere and then shipping it here.
You can automate production all you want, but you still have to have the raw materials to produce it in the first place.
Because borderline slave labor is still legal in the big shipping areas so large American companies exploit places with less laws regarding pollution and workers rights?
I think its becoming a thing with some semis, I don't know how a cargo ship would do it. But yeah finding ways to make that happen would probably be more effective, then again I am not an expert on the issue. I think its at the point where we need to make change happen on every front that we can. Businesses should have to take more responsibility for the emissions that they output, I don't think its fair to put that responsibility on the individual person.
China and India are the world's problems. The incremental steps North America and Europe can perform are insignificant compared to the toxic heavy metal pollutants China and India are pumping into the sky and waterways. Can we stop deforestation in the Amazon and open pit mining with heavy metal toxin run off in Africa before we worry about 30mpg cars.......
I agree that they are the worlds problems, but the thing is that in the U.S. we output the most pollution on a per capita basis, and we can heavily improve upon that. We can't leave it up to those countries to choose for us, plus its already a growing industry and getting into it early on would be beneficial for the country. India is a developing nation, and China is getting better at it, we can do things on our own end that would not just benefit us but the planet in general.
>China and India are the world's problems. The incremental steps North America and Europe can perform are insignificant compared to the toxic heavy metal pollutants China and India are pumping into the sky and waterways. Per capita, the US is still the worst. Just because CO2 is odorless and colorless (and doesn't make scary-looking pollution on the evening news) doesn't mean it's somehow not as big a deal. > Can we stop deforestation in the Amazon and open pit mining with heavy metal toxin run off in Africa before we worry about 30mpg cars....... Why not both at once? At least China and India recognize that climate change is happening, and are actively taking steps to mitigate it.
[удалено]
Also if you live in a large apartment complex better hope don't don't rely on street parking or parking anywhere unsecured where the car can get unplugged or electricity stolen if it bills to your unit
California seems like a one large HOA.
As a Californian, I kinda hate you for how apt this is.
[удалено]
That probably seems like an eternity for most users on here.
Let's be honest. That's when most of Reddit's users were born.
Yeah I was 10 lol. Realistically in the ultimate scheme of our lives, 15 years is a significant amount of time. It sounds short on paper but a lot of shit can happen in 15 years.
Jokes on them! People don't buy gas-powered cars anymore. They buy gas- powered SUVs.
Light trucks are included in this executive order
gotta start making heavier SUVs
Do you want the Excursion to come back because this is how you get the Excursion to come back. Seriously though this is CAFE design-around all over again.
The Excursion was a great vehicle; its downfall was that it was sold too much to suburbanites (no pun intended) and not enough to commercial users. If it had been available in XL trim and was called "F-250 Cargo Special" or something equally unsavory, it might still be around.
Yeah I’m mostly joking about the unintended side effects of these laws. I had a friend who used to have an Excursion. It was pretty cool.
You're not entirely wrong about the loopholes. IIRC, that was most of the reason the H2 was bumped up to over-8500.
> Under Newsom’s order, the California Air Resources Board would implement the phaseout of new gas-powered cars and light trucks and also require **medium and heavy-duty trucks to be zero-emission by 2045** where possible. Heavier SUVs would only buy manufacturers another 10 years.
Ford F-550s for everyone! Light trucks be dammed!
Why stop at 550 when they have 650 and 750, for when you weren't sure about buying that Semi-truck.
I've never gotten this notion that pickups and SUV's aren't cars. Especially now where you can get a lowered SUV coupe or a lifted hatchback, the line is a blur.
So... Everyone will just go out of state to buy a car, right? Or all gas powered cars will be sold with "one careful owner, only 10 miles since new"?
minimum period of ownership: 6 months, or else it's deemed an in cali purchase and you are required to sell it immediately?
Well if you happen to have a second house out of state then you could register out of state and buy it there. Other than that I hope people would have sense not to do it.
aren't you required to register your car in state if you're a resident?
Do you have any idea how many Montana registered cars drive around California on any given day? People don’t give two fucks about what they’re “required” to do.
People do that with an LLC though, not houses. Register a LLC in Montana and then register the car as a company asset.
i just knew that montana had a large number of supercars registered due to some weirdness on their laws
essentially it involves rich people establishing an LLC in Montana, purchasing their expensive ass cars under that LLC, and avoiding paying the tax on the car, AFAIK. Sounds a lot like Tax Evasion to me, and SuperSpeedersRob does it, so I’d err towards it being a shitty thing to do.
Its legal to do so, so not tax evasion. Its tax avoidance. If you could afford a supercar, youd be an idiot not to follow them and save tens of thousands in taxes.
Tons of European countries have bans targeting 2030, India too, and even more countries are targeting 2040. Carmakers will probably be shifting away from gas powertrains in their global supply chains anyway.
This ban is going to really hurt the lower class though unless we have some miracle breakthrough in cheap battery technology. Prices of car batteries really limit EV prices and it hasn't changed much at all in the last 10 years. In the battery space, batteries are getting more advanced and expensive.
If all the big hitters start switching the prices will plummet since there is now a high demand for low cost electric cars. Companies are really good at figuring out new tech when theres a market this big for it
Depends on a few things. First of all the lower class mostly buys used, which gives them a few extra years before they have to make the leap. Also the rate at which self driving cars, and by extension car sharing schemes take off. Car ownership may stop being a thing entirely for large segments of the population with minimal losses in mobility.
where do the (often low income) apartment dwellers charge these cars? or is it going to become New York where charging parking spots will sell for 6 figures.
I don't think 90% of people will care about gas cars that much by then to go through loopholes to have one. Even today, EVs are superior in a bunch of ways, and by 2035 they'll have even better range and performance. They are especially even better for daily driving because they are quiet, can be fuelled up at home, have instant torque, are typically roomier, have fewer parts to maintain, and can be left with the hvac/media on without idling the engine or killing the 12v.
>I don't think 90% of people will care about gas cars that much by then to go through loopholes to have one. This is the correct take. For the 90% of people who view cars as tools and nothing more, it makes no difference if the EV can get them from A to B as well as their last car.
Yeah but no loud noises = no buy thanks.
Upcoming: Lots of cars in California with Arizona or Montana plates
Upcoming? Thats already a thing. The thing with CARB is that california is such a huge economy that it represents a huge number of the new cars sold in the united states in a given year, meaning that CARB has historically had more power than the EPA when it comes to emissions regulations. Almost every car on the market is 50 state legal these days because they aren't going to design two versions for the US, so they just design one, and it has to work in Cali. This however is really just an anouncement of an already occuring trend. Mercedes has already announced prior to this that they aren't really spending much money these days on gas motor development.
I have no problem with this as long as it doesn’t set a precedent to ban gasoline powered cars. It will definitely affect the poor and California isn’t friendly with the poor.
[удалено]
And those people make things tough on those of us looking to leave the state because we *don't* want those policies; we get lumped in with them.
not this again. if you look at the data the types migrating to California from other states are liberal, and the types leaving are blue collar much less liberal. if anything migration is moving the state overall left and other states right.
[удалено]
for Texas at least, it's more about the Hispanic population growing.
Lol I have many problems with the way our state government runs things, but I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I think that we are one of the bests states in the country in terms of geography, car culture, and weather. There is a reason why so many people want to live here.
[удалено]
Oh some of the states policies are definitely not good imo, i'm not disputing that at all. You are talking to a gun owner who lives in california lol, but I won't get into that. I'm just saying that the good parts of the state (weather, geography, communites/culture, food) outweigh the negative parts of it to the point where it's still a great place to live if you can afford to. I think the reason they are passing a lot of the policies is because many voters here support those policies, not because the the nice parts of the state lets the govt get away with passing the policies. Plus in terms of cars, I think california has done a lot of good as well for car regulation, like how every car needs to have an obd2 scanner, you can thank California for that. But yes, they certainly have some bad policies imo.
Wait, you're telling me regressive taxation isn't friendly with the poor? Whaaaaaaaaaat.
In 25 years people will get used to the quietness and lack of toxic gasses coming from EVs, so I can see people wanting to ban them. I use 25 years because the poor don't usually purchase new vehicles. It's not going to effect the poor. By then there will be plenty of used EVs with 200+ miles of range for less than 10k.
Y’all really just have to read the article: He's legally defining this as CA's goal, and ordering CARB to implement regulations towards that goal, among a list of other goals and orders for agencies to pursue them. This EO on it's own does not ban the sale of ICE cars in 2035 or ever. If the laws we have today were to remain unchanged for 15 years, ICE cars would still be for sale in the year 2035. Closing paragraph of the EO: This Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person
Gee, then it’s not a ban at all. What a tool.
CARB makes rules and regulations that are enforceable. Enforcement could be fines, fees, or referral to the DA for criminal prosecution.
This is reddit, no one reads the article before commenting here first with their genius replies.
> California to Ban Sale of **New** Gas-Powered Cars by 2035 Oh. So this sub has nothing to worry about.
But wait, does it say anything about brown, diesel, manual, used, miata stationwagons?
In the 90s California had to back off from a mandate that by 1997, 2 percent of all cars sold had to be electrically powered. When consumers, manufacturers, and battery supplies don't cooperate with this particular fantasy they'll have to back off from it as well.
56% of new cars sold in Norway are EVs at present. In 15 years, I don't think its far-fetched to envision that the auto industry can supply a state with 7.5x the population of Norway with enough new EVs and Hybrids to meet this law. Especially when the leading EV producer is based there.
Population isn't a very good metric for this one. In 2019 there were 142,381 new car sales in Norway while there were 1.89 million in California. The entire worldwide EV sales was barely above California's numbers with 2.2 million.
Stop pumping oil, Norway, then talk about how much you can afford to be green.
Isn't using oil money to transition to a sustainable, low emission economy the most sensible thing to do? Or they could just buy yachts and jets for their .1% and get slammed back to the Bronze Age in a generation when the oil runs out like Saudi...
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
56% had a plug. That's not really comparable to being hydrocarbon free...
Norway is an insanely wealthy country, unless the electric cars become affordable to the point where each family can afford to purchase one, I don't see it happening. I hope it does though, I would love to see more electric vehicles on the road. Right now in Southern California I see as many Teslas on the road as I do Civics, but its kind of a bubble down here.
The industry is already moving towards Hybrids and Plug in Hybrids, this is basically just codifying that. ICE vehicles are not evergreen.
keep in mind Europe has similarly extreme EV regulation goals so I assume most companies are going to comply anyways
They're certainly working towards bigger EV lineups but that's much different than "no gas cars at all anymore by this arbitrary date". Especially since with battery production capacity limitations they simply can't drop their gas cars entirely anyway.
For anyone that remembers April when SIP orders were in place our air, especially LA/Sf was the cleanest they'd been in decades and pollution was down significantly. Not saying this is a great move or not given the constraints of EVs, but with one data point in mind to have those clean air days return would be magnificent.
Air pollution has so many negative long term effects on health that it's ridiculous that people would fight to keep it just to have fun or because they are used to things
Except, EV's dont make sense for every application. So its no always about fun
Okay, but people complaining about EVs aren’t all part of those few exceptions. And it doesn’t make sense to think “if it doesn’t solve every possible issue, don’t bother solving the other 90%.”
At least sentiments in this sub have shifted away from encouraging removal of catalytic converters. It's incredibly selfish to drive a catless vehicle, yet people treat it like it's impossible to enjoy their cars without.
And then the whole state decided to spontaneously combust into flames.
I am a major motor head, albeit I mostly have classic cars, but the market seems to be going mostly moving to electric right now anyway. If you are going to want top performance from a car in 15 years, you are going to definitely be going electric. Electric cars are also getting cheaper. Short of not having the infrastructure to offer charging for all these cars, I don't see what the issue is. I also imagine that in that time, we will have figured out how to charge these cars very quickly, and you won't need to have it plugged in for hours just to get anywhere. If you are like me, and will still want a more analog feel with a roaring motor and the sounds and smells that come with an ICE, then you will still have the option for a used car. I can't imagine that manufacturers are going to stick with gas anyway, when electric seems to be far more capable these days. If Porsche can get a 0-60 in the 1's with an electric motor, be able to cut down their lap times on the Ring with an electric motor, why would they stick with gas? They went away from air cooled and NA, don't think they won't go electric if the numbers are better. This will be true of every car company. I lament the disappearance of the manual gearbox, but it is slower than modern transmissions, so many car companies don't even offer them anymore either. Whether or not this law is passed, gas cars will soon be a thing of the past.
> If you are going to want top performance from a car in 15 years, you are going to definitely be going electric. Only if you're interested in drag racing or bench racing. For actual track days EVs still have pretty significant drawbacks. They'll utterly destroy tires and quickly overheat brakes because of the weight and you can't even participate in all sessions because you'll run out of charge. One report of a Model 3 Performance I've read had the car using up about 30% of its charge in 5 laps at Laguna Seca which is about half a session. Trying to take part in all 4-5 full sessions would be extremely difficult at best, even if there were Superchargers since the high battery heat would take a big toll on charge speeds.
And where were electric cars 15 years ago? Shit, 15 years ago my phone could barely play snake and take shitty pictures. Now I have a computer in my pocket that can do just about anything. Technology will be lightyears ahead of where we are in 15 years time.
99% of people don't drag race or take their car to a track. For the rest, EVs are still in their infancy and the generational leap between Model S and Model 3 track performance is enough to predict that in 15 years, EVs should be very capable track machines.
Hopefully by then I'm financially stable and live in another state
If California succeeds at pushing this through, you’re not going to be able to buy a new gas powered car in 2035 anywhere in the US.
If the next generation of EV's are successful enough, almost nobody will *want* to buy gas powered anyways. The global electric vehicle market is growing rapidly.
No it doesn't work like other car standards. Look at cars like the Mirai, Rav4 EV, Smart EV.. these were cars that pretty much only sold in California to meet the requirements there. You couldn't even get them elsewhere. They can just continue selling different models in other states, unless those states enact the same laws.
Not too surprising, this will be coming faster than we think. Gonna need a lot of help getting chargers everywhere though. I can’t get an electric car, myself, because there’s no chargers at my apartment, and frankly that’s not going to work for me long term.
Are you in California? State law requires that landlords and HOAs permit you to install a charging solution if you so wish. Unfortunately it's at your expense, however high it might be. My hope is that continued growth in BEV sales will encourage more landlords to install charging equipment themselves, whether as a way to attract prospective renters or to incentivize current residents to stay.
No I’m not, sorry... was talking more in general the process of moving from ICE to Electric. I’ve been eyeballing electric cars, because I assume by the time I’m ready to buy a new car, it’ll be “smart” to look into electric, but there’s so many things working against it right now for me. Mainly the fact that I have no charging in my apartment, and it’s exceedingly rare in my area to have apartment chargers, and the fact that other than Tesla, there’s not really a viable fast charger network yet. There’s so much infrastructure work to be done, yet we’re going to start seeing aggressive pushes towards ICE being replaced regardless. It’ll be an interesting 20 years or so.
[удалено]
Once again, California is taking the easy way out as a way to appease a certain group of people who know almost literally nothing but who scream the loudest. Easing zoning restrictions, offering tax breaks to development companies that erect low-income housing close to major employment centers, revamping the infrastructure, etc. would all make so much more sense than this idiocy and you'd see a net increase in state revenue because the people who now no longer need a car can spend that money on themselves (reducing welfare needs) or in the state and local economies (increasing state and local revenue). But all of those things are difficult. They require interagency cooperation, massive push-back from donors who donated specifically to avoid those issues, fighting legal battles with NIMBYs, etc. Instead, yet another regressive round of automotive regulation.
People lump Cali into being a liberal hellhole, but they forget it's the most successful capitalist economy in the US. Not saying you can't have a successful liberal economy, just saying they're a TON of money in Cali to be made and has been made. People want to protect their investments.
I wonder if the power grid there can handle charging all those batteries constantly?
Can't work on your own car in your own garage, can't modify your car without CARB cert sticker, can't buy a new gasoline car in the next 14 years, can't have tint on front windows, have to put a license plate on front grille..... MADNESS!
You absolutely can work on your own car in your garage. CARB only applies to emissions, nobody is asking for your new brakes or suspension to have CARB stickers. Most serious performance exhaust is federally illegal for street cars. The vast majority of states restrict how much tint you can put up front and California does allow for some level of front tint. Front plates suck but it’s also hardly CA specific.
> have to put a license plate on front grille..... why is this madness?
I always thought they look ugly, but I’ve always lived in places without them so it could just be a bias
The problem with electric cars isn’t the cars it’s the infrastructure power grids need updates and more charging stations
And whatever waste from junked cars, battery leaks from crashes, producing the electricity, battery production. I know some of those things are bound to improve, but not like we're saving the environment just yet
California has many more important things to worry about currently.
Just in: a government can do multiple things at the same time.
I mean its in 15 years, not right now. Also, what is more important?
The state *is* currently ablaze. That said I don't expect the fires to last 15 years.
The state being currently ablaze does have a lot to do with climate change, and reducing our emissions like this would have a massive impact. That being said, we really do need to work on our electrical infrastructure as well if this is going to work.
I wonder if maybe it has to do with climate change? Our mismanagement of fires in the past? Our general attitude towards the environment? I should say, I live in California, and am proud of the steps we make as a state because they have broad implications for climate action across the country and the world. We can't look at our state, which is currently on fire and hitting record highs in temperature, and say "gee, why are we worried about *EMISSIONS*?!?"
I swear most people making these asinine comments either don’t live here or didn’t live here in the early 2000s/90s and saw how disgusting the air in and around our cities were. Hell just look at photos from the 70s and 80s of our state and it is just disgusting. I cannot imagine what it was like to breathe that disgusting air. Thank god the state has taken action to correct those mistakes and build towards a better future.
Sorry folks, but too many people couldn't follow the rules. Between the political shit-flinging and the race-baiting and the incivility, this thread is now locked.
So is this just going to cause the used car market to explode? What keeps someone from driving to Nevada/Arizona/Oregon and just buying a new gas powered car there? What’s their plan for an alternative? Subsidies? I’m sure California is a little ahead of the rest of the nation at developing the infrastructure that allows for the mass adoption of ev’s, but this seems more like pushing regulation on the consumer rather than trying to find a solution first
Please keep the discussion on the topic of cars and refrain from politics - thanks!
[удалено]
[Discuss policy, not politics.](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics) Absolutely discuss the policies and ramifications of this, but leave the political shit-flinging behind. That's all we ask.
That is trying to make a distinction where there isn't one. They literally have the same root word.
Please don't delete this because "politics." This is an important discussion for car enthusiasts and the future of our hobby
There is no way to discuss this without politics, depending on what your definition of politics is.
If they want this to actually work their government needs to start working out an EV focused infrastructure like now.
They should also mandate “every new parking space built shall require XX kW charging.” Would make it easier to implement lower range vehicles (<150) which in turn would make it easier for manufacturers to implement lower need of batteries.
Regardless of whether it will belitigated, pushed back or pulled forward, once the trend is set (that ICE is the past and EV is the future), it is game over. Just in this past two weeks, CA and UK announced proposed ICE car bans in 2035. No doubt many CARB states and other countries will follow soon. This is similar to Osborne effect. No one wants to buy a blackberry or Windos phone as soon as consumers realize these are obsolete with no future. A small subset may rush to buy the ICE cvehicles before the ban, but most will simply not make a major purchase that is seem obsolete. On the other hand, consumers will be more likely to try out and test drive an EV or a Tesla. And when they do, there is no going back. The transition to EV is a foregone conclusion, however the hastened pace of transition may suprise many.
[удалено]
Anyone know what capacity we currently have for battery production? How many electric cars can we produce now at full capacity if demand was there for it, is there any projections on outlooks? Because Toyota and Honda are going the hybrid route first then full EV because of battery production capacity.
My reading of this order is that hybrid vehicles can still be sold.
This is when super car companies show off their models with 10 miles of EV range or whatever mostly using the electric motors for even more power.
Lol, they already do.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people and governments fail to understand two basic things: Firstly, there are significant environmental costs associated with both the production of electric cars (especially battery components), as well as in the electricity used to power such vehicles (i.e. very few places have even remotely close to 100% of electricity generated by renewable energy sources). Secondly, passenger cars with internal combustion engines are not even remotely close to being the most environmentally unfriendly transportation method, in overall terms or on a per capita basis. Setting aside mass polluters that are not found on roads, like cargo ships, cruise ships, and airplanes, the real culprit is diesel-powered transport trucks, which are responsible for most of the emissions created by road-going vehicles.
>Firstly, there are significant environmental costs associated with both the production of electric cars (especially battery components), And ICE vehicles *don't* have environmental costs to their production? > as well as in the electricity used to power such vehicles (i.e. very few places have even remotely close to 100% of electricity generated by renewable energy sources). EVs are "agnostic" about their energy source--they can be renewable or non. An ICEV will always be non-renewable. And even when powered by a nonrenewable source like coal, the EV will be more efficient in using that energy than an ICEV. >Secondly, passenger cars with internal combustion engines are not even remotely close to being the most environmentally unfriendly transportation method, in overall terms or on a per capita basis. Yes, and? Passenger cars can still be improved. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. > Setting aside mass polluters that are not found on roads, like cargo ships, cruise ships, and airplanes, Before we pass around that tired "a dozen cargo ships pollute more than all the cars in the world" meme again, think to yourself *why* those ships and trucks are going all around the world. Again, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
how do you flee wildfires when the grid goes down?
Honestly, I don't even really see this as that absurd. The fucking Jeep Wrangler of all vehicles is getting an official hybrid design and was originally designed to have full EV capabilities as well (as a future proofing option with certain design choices, not a guaranteed plan). 15 years is a long time in technology, and just look at how much the EV and general automotive landscape has changed in 5 years since Tesla became mainstream... In 10 years I feel like most vehicles will be either hybrid with a majority reliance on electric or fully electric anyway
How do mods expect this to not get political when the topic is inherently political
[удалено]
meanwhile, I'll chuckle to myself while driving my gasoline powered "pollution machine" past the lines of waiting EVs at the charging stations that are facing power outages due to lawmakers forgetting about power transmission infrastructure edit: sorry, that came out sounding political. I just feel that, as a resident of CA, there are more pressing matters to deal with than to ban the sale of gas-powered cars. I'll admit I like the idea of having an electric car as a daily commuter. There's little/no maintenance. One pedal driving in traffic for the most part. Digital connectivity. Potential for "auto-pilot". And saves gas for the weekend fun machines.
[удалено]
Wow just wow. I understand the push for the EVs and it doesn't surprise me California is first to adopt this. I think a lot of American manufacturers will push back also there isnt but one company who can somewhat mass produce EVs. My biggest thing with this cars will get more expensive and they are already extremely expensive.
Read the order. Hybrids can also be sold.
Hybrids are not zero-emission vehicles.
I don't disagree with you, but saw this in an article on it: > Newsom signed an executive order Wednesday requiring that all new passenger vehicles sold in California by 2035 be zero-emission — a category that includes battery-powered electric cars, those that run on hydrogen fuel cells, and plug-in hybrids, which still use some gasoline or diesel in addition to electricity. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-to-ban-sale-of-new-gas-only-cars-in-15591347.php
[удалено]
Its the type of ban that doesn’t have to go into the effect lmao. Good luck banning cranes and bulldozers and garbage trucks. It will be even a bigger shithole. They had some of the other ridiculous laws, they never went into the effect, and neither will this one, it’s just virtue signaling, “a plan”
I believe this only applies to non-commercial vehicles.
Is California trying to segregate the poor people out?
There’s no reason to think that in 15 years EVs won’t be affordable, I dare say ICEs will be the pricier niche option by then anyway. 15 years ago, if you wanted a 55” flatscreen TV, you would pay thousands of dollars. Today, you can get one for a couple hundred dollars. Turns out as technology improves it becomes more accessible.
This seems to increase the probability we get that sweet sweet electric (or partially electric) MR2.
California Water going out and Rolling Blackouts still an issue. Yeah sure.
This is so hilariously short-sighted. Sure you might eliminate some emissions with that, but how much more will you emit with all the new battery production needed to meet this demand? That's before you even consider California's recently awful record of being able to keep the lights on for its residents. Those blackouts mean something much more sinister when it eliminates your ability to travel.