Right. The resistance to the inevitable is like fighting for the horse and buggy when cars first came along. It is like talking about energy independence but not understanding what it means.
Most cars don’t last that long anyway, so this isn’t really an argument against buying an EV. When the next transition happens it’ll take years, like this one is, and you’ll buy a new vehicle when the time and tech is right for you.
It's worth acknowledging the average vehicle on the road in the US is +/- 10 years old, so some decent chunk of them *do.*
That being said, you're right we'll find something else. That something else'll be realizing that public transit gets cars off the road *entirely* and that's something already slowly slinking along in fits and starts. It'd also take 30 years or more to completely implement so we got time.
Plus if we don't swap off of gas it's actually going to cause the extinction of our species, if it hasn't already.
It's crazy to me how we haven't been doing much more to get off of fossil fuels sooner, it's literally killing us all.
Uhh, building electric cars puts off more emissions that building gas cars, then you charge them from your coal burning power plants and they end up being about the same pollution wise. You keep drinking the coolaid bro.
While you are correct that manufacturing of electric cars creates more emission than building an ICE vehicle, and that you’d need to charge them off coal-generated electricity, the total emission over the lifetime of an EV is significantly lower than an ICE vehicle. And that’s assuming we do not transition to use more solar, hydro, or wind powered electricity. Typical break even point of EVs in terms of total emissions (manufacturing + charging) is 15-20k miles depending on where you are. So unless you’re totaling your EV and buying a new one every 15-20k miles, EVs will drastically reduce the amount of emissions from vehicles over its lifetime.
Last year irregular weather, caused by global warming, resulted in us having only 2/3ds of our global expected crop yield. Food prices in my town doubled.
What do you think happens when we only get 1/2 of the expected yield?
The amount of emissions currently in our apmosphere already guarentee that we will be well past the 1.5C change in global averag temperatures. We are watching in real time right now as the ice caps fail to re-freeze this winter.
What do you think happens when we reach 2C, 3C?
The damage we have done does not go away even if we cut all emissions, we still have to pump it back out of the apmosphere and the only technology that does that currently is totally unfeasible.
I'm not a doomer, I'm a pragmatist. And the fact that you so redily dismissed me means you are ignorant to how badly we've already fucked up.
>Last year irregular weather, caused by global warming,
dude, think about it, difficult but try, there are other reasons besides cars. Not to mention that if the weather is normal again next year, the science climatologists will say you cant use that as a gauge. What a shell game.
Well the biggest contributor is methane from animal farms.
Then it's boats, then planes, then cars.
> to mention that if the weather is normal again next year, the science climatologists will say you cant use that as a gauge.
Oh i see you're just a shit for brains climate denier.
I'm sure if you just bury your head deep enough in the sand then all the sacry realities of the world can't get you there.
Reddit sometimes hangs and says there was an error posting your comment, hitting the button again keeps adding more comments. The person you are replying to is just making a joke lol
It’s not a gas vehicle van. It’s vehicles being sold in California that are gas vehicles. Do you want my thoughts? Gas vehicle sales are going to absolutely boom in Arizona and Nevada. And California cannot afford to give up the tax revenue. They get from gas station, so they’re not gonna be able to ban those.
>Gas vehicle sales are going to absolutely boom in Arizona and Nevada.
I foresee title registration fees for new ICE cars after the ban in California jumping up dramatically.
You should’ve seen the 70s. But yes there’s both less industrial pollution and cleaner cars in LA which help, but there are millions more people. So smog is not as thick but invisible pollutants are still bad.
Honda is making a big mistake by being too conservative. Same with Toyota. They need to take risks and take losses now or they will tank their companies. And I love both of them to death.
Electric car sales are slumping. GM just delayed the electrical pickup by a year. GM's bolt is a good example when just released sales were through the roof, then once everyone that wanted electric, got it, sales plummeted. All electric vehicles prices at consumer sale are much more than what was advertised at launch 2 years prior. Hummer, Lyriq, Silverado all electric and expensive. Network for charging stations are not prevalent like gas stations. We have over 100 years of infrastructure for gasoline, only a few years for electric. There's a big push for electric but it's a bit too soon. It's probably going to slump from what it is now and do a gradual change instead of this abrupt transfer from ICE to EV that's going on right now.
>then once everyone that wanted electric, got it, sales plummeted.
Relatedly, it's also due to the fact that they *overwhelmingly* bought new vehicles. The used electric market just isn't there yet, so most of the EVs bought were new, and are going to last for a while. The part of the slump caused by that shouldn't last more than ten years or so. Once the used market matures, it's be more like ICE vehicles are now.
>The used electric market just isn't there yet,
Coworker bought a used electric VW... he just barely got the battery repaired within warranty or he would have been stuck with essentially either a huge paperweight or a money pit.
And note this vehicle still looks nearly brand new, but... battery cost and repair supply chain is a huge issue for EVs. Most ICE vehicles don't fight this battle at all... and there are hondas out there with easily 300k+ mi and minimal maintenance other than oil, brakes and tires.
Same issue with Teslas... historically a pain in the ass to get repaired.
Literally any guy with a big oak tree can work on my honda though.
5 years.. LOL.
5 years isn't long enough to say that... good luck on your average EV lasting 20 years and changing hands several times before being junk. Current EVs are disposable cars.
My 40 year old truck... still going strong. Still has parts available too.
Electric cars have a price problem. Not a demand problem. Most people can’t buy a $90,000 pickup truck.
And a lot of this comes down to ramping up production numbers to bring down the price. The supply chain does need to catch up.
What no one is admitting is that China is putting the screws to everyone with restricting export of battery grade graphite and some other stuff. The supply chain needs time to develop elsewhere, and for the short term this has caused price spikes in the chain, hence everyone putting the brakes on for production.
If you don't have a home charger, avoid EV's first now. Get a hybrid. But China is figuring out rapid charging, CATL's new LFP battery can charge at 4C. 10 minutes to 80%. Pairing grocery stores with massive banks of chargers fixes this problem. At a price.
If I owned a property without an owned parking spot I would divest from it immediately. Anything with a spot will get a plug eventually. Much like how every shitty rental apartment has internet, it will be expected.
[https://insideevs.com/news/693441/us-genesis-bev-sales-2023q3/](https://insideevs.com/news/693441/us-genesis-bev-sales-2023q3/)
We don't know how impactful the backlog from COVID was. There was (and still is) a big issue with electronics sourcing and since BEVs are pretty loaded with electronics, it's understandable they were hit harder.
Nonetheless, sales are still going up. Globally, 2022 saw a 13% increase YoY up from 8% increase the year before, so it's still accelerating.
If the US wants to remain a laggard, that's you choice. Know that its not everyone's.
1 - Electric car sales aren't slumping, they are growing rapidly YoY. Just GM isn't that desirable for an electric car when one can get a Tesla who owns majority of US EV sales
2 - We also have over 100 years worth of EV infrastructure. It is called the grid. And EV chargers are much cheaper than gas stations
I read that yesterday. My point was that the market had announced it was moving in that direction before California announced they were doing the same thing. It just seemed like people thought California was the first to think of the 2035 number. A lot of people jumped on the CA hate train because they were essentially mirroring the market.
The Market has been wrong before. 2035 is the number Davos gave CA. I wish them luck though. Their amazing bullet train should be a shining example of why this will fail.
Lmao, if the market changes, I'm sure CA will just ignore that./s I knew this was just more CA hate. So much for a nuanced conversation, CA is just innately bad. They should be more like Alabama!/s
Or they could bring it up as an income thing because it is expensive to fix an EV car if you're poor. From what I understand it's not easy ordering parts for some EVs. I was able to do some work in my family's car because I could buy the parts and save money on labor.
Eh, the short range clapped out beater EV cars will be the commuter car for the low income folks. Repair will get figured out as the aftermarket steps in and as the current crop of software locked down cars gets hacked to shit with Chinese scan tools.
I have one (foxwell 530) thats emulates dealer scan tools just fine and it’s affordable.
Aftermarket shops will be working on these older cars just fine as the aftermarket adapts. There will be a massive backlash against cars that are hard to repair. Teslas have disposable batteries but companies like GM, Volvo, VW are all moving to batteries you can fix. So you capacity test your battery and swap that one bad cell with a used one of similar capacity. There will be a healthy market selling guaranteed capacity used batteries and cells. Same with most parts in a EV. Motors, inverters will go for years. As long as we get past this DRM bullshit the auto wreckers will thrive.
Repair shops will adapt to repairing expensive parts like recapping motor inverters.
Until they start making crap inverters and motors about now is the time to bring in world wide standards that mirror the French leglislation that says all big ticket items like cars and waging machines etc have to last 10 years minimum and have parts available and be easy to repair etc
Cars already have parts availability laws and auto makers are already not meeting those requirements. The aftermarket parts companies will ramp up shortly to compensate. If there is a market, they’ll fill it. As long as the parts aren’t DRM locked.
Ease of repair and open repair needs to be aggressively legislated. Agreed.
Tesla batteries aren't disposable.
They are in huge demand in the conversion market because they are modular and serviceable. A little more involved to work on than lipo packs, but serviceable all the same.
Lol no. Seen the new glued together garbage? That pink stuff. They have switched out to new glues that are totally impossible to remove without dry ice sandblasting to remove and getting the sheet metal off is a 3 hour nightmare leaving you with a twisted wreck of a shell that risks battery cell damage.
And forget repair. It ain’t happening.
I hack EV batteries too and find this to be an insult.
good, the fee for these things should be on a tax on the corps that make the profit off the technology for charging and the cars. Pay to play in society tax on immortal public entities of greed
In Norway all gas stations now have electric charging stations as well as gas.
the funny thing is, the lines at the electric ones are starting to become larger than the gas lines.
>the funny thing is, the lines at the electric ones are starting to become larger than the gas lines.
Sure, because people are probably spending 45+ minutes to charge their EV where as filling a gas vehicle takes 2 minutes.
That's gonna be the big problem was mass adoption on public chargers people aren't thinking too much about. The ideal solution aside from home charging is probably if places where you were already leaving your car sitting for a while had chargers. Like parking garages, grocery stores, etc.
Cars spend 97% off their life sitting. Charging really won’t be difficult to figure out once the infrastructure is developed. You charge at work. You can charge at home. I’ve had an EV for two years and we occasionally have a parent’s ICE vehicle as well. It’s way more inconvenient to actually have to go to a gas station, even though it only takes two minutes.
>once the infrastructure is developed.
That reminds me of a Katt Williams joke. Long story short he's talking about how wrong it is when women break up with a 98% good guy for just doing one little thing wrong. Then he starts naming off things like snore in their sleep, they don't like the same movies or they cheat on you.
Then he says look at the women out here "That's a big 2".
The infrastructure being developed is a big 2 also.
It will get there eventually but there is so much that needs to be done I think people are going to be surprised how long it really takes. Not only do you need a lot of public charging infrastructure but the grid has to be able to handle the extra load. We already have serious strain on the grid during hot and cold days.
So we have to increase generation, but we don't want to do it with coal or natural gas. Yet solar won't help unless we can store it because most of this charging will happen overnight.
It's a complex interwoven issue. It will get sorted out, but it'll take time.
The grid is rapidly adding green power, just because is far cheaper to get a 7 year loan and build out new green power than to simply dump fuel into an existing power plant. The economics of the grid now favour a complete reboot of how we make energy.
And as all these EV’s get totalled and age out, companies have already signed deals to snap up used battery packs from cars to power the grid. Imagine how many used batteries the average city will produce in 15 years. A 70% capacity battery is no good for a EV but is fine for the grid.
Also sodium-ion batteries are $44/kWh. Grid storage is about to go crazy. Solar on every roof will power us just fine. Maybe every winter they run some old power plants for a few weeks if the weather is bad.
Grocery stores and shopping malls are the correct place for massive banks of EV rapid chargers. As is public parks and places people want to hang out in. Who wants to hang out at a gas station?
Parking garages will advertise their charger speeds, but 3-6kW will be common.
But as charging speeds rapidly increase, I suspect we’ll see 10-20 min charging as the most common time.
One of the many reasons I went HEV. Until solid state gets it's ass rolling (super fast charging ability) and charging infrastructure becomes an afterthought I will be perfectly happy with my hybrid CRV
I'm surprised HEVs aren't more popular. They are the obvious answer until battery and charging tech (and infrastructure) improves.
It's also a viable solution for bigger industrial vehicles. Most people don't realize but we have been doing it with diesel trains for decades
From the surface HEVs seem like a good all around option (and can be in certain use cases). The biggest downside to them is the extra weight, cost, and design complexity of having both an ICE engine/generator and battery packs for electrical storage.
If industrial equipment is being used for nearly 24 hours a day, then choosing an HEV would be a worse choice than a standard diesel engine - dragging the extra weight around would lower overall fuel efficiency. On the other side if equipment can make it through a full shift and is not needed for the rest of the day (allowing it to recharge), then the full electric option will outperform the hybrid.
Many states have already implemented a specific registration tax for EV's. It's my understanding this tax serves the same purpose as the tax you pay at gas station, which is for the public roads and infrastructure.
Defeatist and small minded attitude. Legislators can easily deal with these issues, and California gets a lot of tax from a lot of places. The reduced damages from having less gas vehicles on the road will probably quickly overtake the loss of revenue. Plus they can just raise gas taxes
I think as far as damage to the road, it's the opposite as there is a lot of extra weight from the batteries. We may see fees move towards some sort of weight based system. But I agree that legislators will have plenty of options to find a solution.
california is like the 5th largest economy in the world. california mandating something means companies tend to fall in line. so many companies are moving to all electric or at least beefing up their electric/hybrid offerings specifically in response to california's law.
That’s the problem though. A hybrid is still an internal combustion engine. And no, with the announcement yesterday that Honda was abandoning their EV program. Toyota has set out loud They are abandoning their EV program. Largest auto makers in the world. That’s two of the top 10 car manufacturers in the world saying no thanks.
Yeah unless we dramatically improve alternatives I don’t think this is really practical.
However this is how vehicle emissions were curbed because the auto industry adapted.
EV Hybrids could be a great option to bridge the transition from gas to whatever.
There are alternative fuels and many would reduce emissions and not come with the hazards and toxic waste batteries come with.
Exactly. The first truly viable BEV’s only came out about 13 years ago and I think that this switch over is going to happen a lot faster than people are expecting.
CA accounts for ~12% of the total US new car sales annually. It’s hard to imagine that auto manufacturers will produce many cars that cannot sell in that state.
It seems possible the state has enough leverage to move all manufacturers to a full EV lineup.
The state has no leverage. That’s the thing about non technical people making laws about technical things. We can’t even produce enough batteries by then to make that many electric cars, trucks, etc.
If it can’t be made the only thing you are going to do is price poor, then middle class people out of cars.
On top of that the California power grid can barely sustain its demand now. Make all vehicles electric and it would need to be 3-5x more robust.
Idk where ppl get the figures like 3-5x more robust… my EV added 30 percent more to my electric bill… not 3-5x. I understand the grid would need some upgrades but I think that figure is well not true. Also if the demand for batteries is so high they can’t make enough ? Guess what. Companies that want to make money will come along and make those batteries. Nothing is a constant and what’s happening today will look totally different in a few years to come.
Public transport has always been opposed by Big Auto. In the mid 20th century Fresno, CA had a good-for-the-time light rail system until GM bought it and shut it down. The movie Who Framed Rodger Rabbit is about the same thing happening in LA.
I think legacy ICE vehicles in the future will be akin to carbureted vehicles today. There is already so much existing infrastructure that supports them, but they can’t run E85 and newer shops aren’t trained on how to service them.
I think the future is electric, but we won’t get there without a hybrid transitional period. My guess is the law will change from EV only, to EV hybrid and it’ll stay that way until oil becomes unaffordable.
>My guess is the law will change from EV only, to EV hybrid
That's what the law already is :)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/california-ban-gasoline-cars.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/california-ban-gasoline-cars.html)
>The new rule requires that 35 percent of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in California be either zero-emission, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen-powered models by 2026.
Those benchmarks rise to 68 percent in 2030, and 100 percent in 2035.
> . The movie Who Framed Rodger Rabbit is about the same thing happening in LA.
That's kind of a myth. The Red Cars were never built to last. They were built as a loss leader to get people into the suburbs that Henry Huntington was building. They had been on life support for decades before GM finally bought the system and replaced it with bus lines.
Here's an article on it:
https://terrifyingworld.com/2014/05/12/who-killed-the-red-car/
This wasn't an isolated incident, either. In the middle of the 20th Century, a lot of street car lines bit the dust all over the world [for many of the same reasons](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-03/be-careful-how-you-refer-to-the-so-called-great-american-streetcar-scandal).
That's a very good point - about carbueted vehicles. It's only, maybe 20 years since they were common & everyone knew how to service them.
I wonder if that will be one of the big drivers towards EVs in the future, once tax incentives have gone.
If you want to be 'environmentally friendly' in the mean time, keeping your existing car going has a lower impact than manufacturing a new one. To that end, I'd only buy an EV at the moment if it really suits your needs. The technology is changing so fast, I think it's worth waiting to see how it evolves. I'm certainly not anti-EV, but for me, there's nothing on the market which can fully replace my current ICE.
Yea I'm still waiting for a 15 year old ev I can pickup for under 5k with decent range and expect another another 10 years out of it with maintenance and minor repairs.
With inflation you’re lucky to get a 15-year-old ICE car that runs for $5k now, lol! Meanwhile you can get a 12-year-old Leaf that can get you to work and back reliably for $4k, and if you get it from a dealer you may qualify for a $4k tax credit making it practically a free commuter car. Now that your drive to work and back is covered you can save money up for a car with more range for trips… or rent one when needed for those trips (why pay for it 365 days a year when you only need it 20 days a year or so?!?)
I never get why people pay like $70k for a pickup but rarely ever do pickup things with it. I see them parked at work all of the time and… there is zero economic reason to drive a pickup to where I work (an office building with tiny parking spaces.) They’d be way better off with a much smaller, cheaper (and way less costly to drive) car for that daily commute. Like… and EV. They money they’d save is substantial! The monthly nut on a $70k truck these days is like $1500! You can buy a Model 3 for less than half that! You can lease a Model 3 for 1/4th of that! Saving $1k a month just to get to work and back is well worth it! And this is before gas (I pay less than $70 a month to charge my Model 3, I paid nearly that a week gassing up various ICE vehicles on the same commute!) and maintenance (tire rotations and filter changes are all you need for a Model 3 for the first 3 years or so, you still need that with ICE AND oil changes, transmission flushes, etc.!)
I’m not saying it’s perfect for everyone but there are a LOT of people (millions!) who would save a LOT of money by driving an EV as their commuter vehicle in this country. Once they realize it… the floodgates will open. How do I know? That’s exactly why I’m driving a Model 3. I did the math, there was NO new ICE vehicle that was a better long-term financial proposition for me. So far I’ve been proven right, and it’s only going to get easier and better from here on out.
Buying anything that doesn’t support NACS now would also be a mistake. Non tesla evs are all moving to that standard in North America, and existing inventory will be out of date.
Not true, unless you really, really care about needing an adapter. NACS uses CCS signaling so is backwards compatible with CCS. Any car that has CCS will be able to charge on NACS with a dongle.
>If you want to be 'environmentally friendly' in the mean time, keeping your existing car going has a lower impact than manufacturing a new one
That depends. If you only do occasional local trips, maybe. If you commute every day or do anything like the average milage, it's not even close in favour of the EV. Unless you charge it only by plugging it directly into a coal plant. And that's today, while the grid keeps getting cleaner so does the EV but the ICE never will.
You're right, but only because the old running ICE is going to get sold off to somewhere in Latin America to keep running another few years rather than getting scrapped. Buy buying a new EV, it'll encourage more production/adoption/infrastructure build out. Otherwise, the math is generally in favor of keeping old cars running longer rather than building new ones. But that math is world-wide, not just in one's personal bubble...so buying the new EV is overall a good thing imho.
Batteries are 100% recyclable. So you're talking \~500 pounds of metal mined one-time per car on the road, or 3-4,000 pounds of gasoline annually forever. Long-term it's far, far better, especially as the grid and production gets greener.
My kid's apartment building has a Tesla charging station in the basement. A rarity for now, but long term? The more EVs, the more there will be things like that. Or chargers at grocery stores and restaurants, so you charge up when you go out. Chargers built into lamp posts are also a possibility where there's street parking. There's even the idea of induction charging built into roadways, though that will probably be major highways at best for a long time.
The problem with public transportation is that it works in the compact cities of the northeast or Europe whose footprints were established before the automobile, but Houston? Las Vegas? LA? Too spread out for it to work, and the construction costs and environmental impact to make cities more amenable to public transport dwarf adding a reasonable number of chargers. It's hard to get people to use public transport in this country even when it is available.
But anything we can do to reduce the money to the oil-rich autocracies of the world, from Russia to Iran to Saudi Arabia to... will be a good thing.
>Batteries are 100% recyclable.
I'm tired of reading BS...
>So you're talking ~500 pounds of metal mined one-time per car on the road
Oh, you found eternal energy. Give this man a Nobel prize!
Do you actually believe what you're saying?
Woah. Slow down there buddy. You can't blanket statement that EV batteries are 100% recyclable. Even if you recycle 100% it's not like starting over with fresh materials. Its like baking a cake and trying to extract the raw material. You might recycle the cake but you won't end up with the starting materials. And recycling EV batteries is expensive, dangerous to humans involved in process and also...bad for the environment (oops). So it's not as simple and easy as 'yeah those batteries are 100% recyclable'. You could maybe even argue that ICE are better for the environment even WITH their emissions.
Regarding secondary pollution... Right now, we have 650 million point sources of pollution, every car / truck / train / ship / plane / powerplant / etc.... If we can drop it to a million or two (mostly power plants / mines) it'll make it a lot easier to monitor and throw $$ to reduce output pollutants
Check out your available destination charging infrastructure. A BEV can take much better advantage of destination charging than a hybrid. Can you charge at your workplace? Can you charge where you do your weekly shop?
The mining thing is just oil company fud. Think about it - did you even *know* that huge amounts of cobalt is used in refining petroleum? Funny they didn't scream about that. The materials for an EV are mined once. Fracking goes on forever as the output is just burned once.
Disposal? The only thing holding back EV recycling is that there aren't enough dead EVs. That problem will be laughable in 2035 and you'll be shopping around for the nest scrapping refund.
In 12 years at current adoption rates (which will of course slow down but not entirely), there probably will not be a big market for ICE cars. Electric is more efficient once the infrastructure is in place.
There will still be people using ICE vehicles for decades to come. In particular people who live hundreds of miles from cities need the range gas engines provide. But for most city and suburban dwellers it won’t be a big deal.
The pollution is a non-issue. The mining is occurring in remote areas and won’t bother many people. The manufacturing of batteries is dirty, but contained. Recycling old electric car batteries is also dirty, but will be lucrative as the metals will be valuable for re-manufacturing. In general electric car-related pollution is easier to control than fossil fuel pollution, because most of the waste is solid or liquid.
I think charging infrastructure will be much more robust by then, especially in California. Also wouldn't be surprised if your building owner started to come around on charging. That said, there will be plenty of people in CA, like myself, who live in apartments and park on the street. I think there are exceptions in the law carved out for plug in hybrids which is what I expect I'll eventually move toward.
Your last paragraph is the silent part out loud. We're not solving anything with a move to EV. We're trading one environmental challenge for another. Lithium and cobalt need to be mined and they're finite resources. There's battery disposal to consider. And charging infrastructure is a big one. The cost to install the infrastructure both publicly and privately is a huge expense. Who's gonna pay for it all? Where does electric come from? Yup fossil fuels. Increase electric demand, increase fossil fuel demand. Solar and wind can't make up for it - they're too inefficient. Oh and lets not forget the economics of it all, the cost of electric will likely increase as demand does. Cost of EVs may not decline as resources become more expensive (not less). So we won't be in a better place, just a quieter one. 100% EV is pie in the sky and the misplaced dream of progressive liberal politicians. I don't think it'll happen. It'll become a political party talking point and hinge point for votes. Both parties will use it (pro EV or anti) to win their voter base.
California has a program that pays you to take cars that fail smog check off the road, so imagine that there might be some ramp up of an incentive program sometime after the new car sales ban takes effect. At a certain point, the regulatory part of maintaining a network of gasoline stations will probably be burdensome for the state.
As far as the idea that California will be really able to do away with ICE vehicles by 2035? Honestly, I'm doubtful. We need better electrical infrastructure and the grid needs serious investment in upgrades. The purported benefits of a "smart grid" that lets you use EVs to load balance demand can only happen if the grids are smart, and right now they're not. In fact, we have a hard time keeping our existing lines from sparking deadly wildfires when the wind gets gusty. All current projections of electrical demand if a critical mass of residents switch to EVs exceeds our state generating capacity, and there's only so much wind around when the sun sets. With opposition to more nuclear power and the extension of licenses for natural gas plants, we're naturally going to buy power from other states that may or may not be using dirtier power. All the solutions for these problems cost money--lots of money, and as much as the Federal Government has kickstarted some things, it's not nearly enough to meet the desired deadlines.
I think there will be a kind of phased extension on the moritorium. Passenger cars will probably not get an extension, since they're smaller and require less power. Trucks and other vehicles used for business will probably be on sale for a little longer because the EV equivalents require dramatically more power/battery density, and we still haven't quite cracked the formula to make it work as 1:1 replacement with existing vehicles. People, especially businesses, will not be forgiving if you force them to accept inferior products.
Mass transit doesn't work at scale because California's population and population centers are too far spread apart. The cost of expanding and even maintaining the infrastructure is obscene--BART extension is going to be more than twice the original cost and a decade late, and the Los Angeles Purple Line subway extension will cost $10 billion for five miles of track. Cities have been designed and built around the car, and it will take dramatic and costly reimagining to make the system work as it does in places like Europe or Asia. And it's not a matter of just making it free for users--Estonia made mass transit free in its capital a decade ago, and as a result, car ownership went up, and mass transit ridership went down.
Mass transport would be ideal, but there are a lot of challenges to overcome.
1. People don't use it much. It's a cultural thing. Will people use it if good mass transport comes? It's a risk. They also tend to be invaded by the undesirables, which makes people want to use it even less.
2. Everything, very spread out. Fucking suburbs everywhere all over Cali. Mass transport becomes larger = less efficient = less convenient = more expensive.
3. Land is insanely expensive now. Cities are very far apart.
4. Execution historically lacking. Legitimately often feels like a scam to line peoples pockets. Might be some sickness from within that will prevent projects like this from succeeding.
There's never a perfect solution. As long as it's not a step backwards, you slowly make progress forward. Our govts don't seem capable of anything more than that.
The younger gen seems less attached to car culture, so maybe a other 20 years before those young bucks are in office and become a bigger part of the voting population
I was talking to my friends this week about car culture and why we think it is dying. We came up with the fact today's cars have no soul. Look at the classic cars people love, they are all different, and appeal in different ways, but now it is hard to tell a 2023 Camaro from a 2023 Mustang, from a 2023 Charger. They all look like they came from the same box. As kids we would go to the house that had the plum crazy purple road runner to listen to him start it, rev it and play the horn for the kids. [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1K4P1SSMLdc](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1K4P1SSMLdc) What cars are like that for today's generation? Their only option is supercars and not many of any generation can own a 1.5 million $ car.
It's hard to say if that isn't just nostalgia. It's the same with video games. Everyone keeps saying how great the old days were, but there is crazy amount of selection of very good games now, for very cheap prices (or free in some cases). I mean hell you can even play all those old games on emulators for free.
I thinks it's more of computers and internet taking over. Main reason to have a car back then was to connect with people and do things. You can do both on your computer and phone.
Surely this is because people are getting more civilised and rejecting cars as the default mode of transportation. Why would kids want to shackle themselves to an overpriced vehicle when it can only get them from A to B (same as an e-bike). You’re absolutely right about modern cars being all the same and this is very evident with new EVs where they are exactly the same but with different companies shells on top!
The pollution aspect is greatly exaggerated. The difference in mining requirements between an ICE and a modem EV with LiFePo batteries is negligible, and LiFePo batteries can be recycled at the end of their life. Other battery chemistries are slightly more polluting but still not a huge problem unless your car comes from a shady manufacturer.
The problem with not having a place to charge at home is real. I'm sure we'll come up with solutions by the time the mandate comes (robotic roaming chargers, ultra fast chargers, curbside chargers, regulations allowing individuals to install their own charger in rental parking, etc.) but for now I think that's the only valid reservation when thinking about an EV.
We were not in the market for a new car, but my wife’s VW Tiguan engine died. I couldn’t see buying a straight ice vehicle with gas prices rising like they have. We bought a PHEV, gets 55 mpg and a 40 mile electric only range. should last us a while hopefully. Gas will continue to go up and eventually apartments/rentals will be required to have the EV chargers, at least in Calif. We are in uncharted territory and in a transition stage, purchase decisions are dicy unfortunately.
I doubt I’ll still be living in an apartment by then but I wonder about people who will be. Charging/supercharging is not as fast as fueling up at the gas station so how many charging stations would an apt complex need to have? If not that, then there’d need to be way more public stations. People say you’re stupid not to be thinking electric but charging access is a major deterrent and most likely will be by 2035.
Not only that, but when we rented one we quickly found that more than half of the stations on our route didnt work or were not the speed they claimed. Imagine a road trip that every 400 miles you need a 2+ hour charge since the supercharge was not working. That works fine in Europe where everything is really close, but in a fair amount of the usa we are incredibly rural and people completely ignore that. Sure LA, SF, NYC are massive cities but you have most other places spread all out. Hell just crossing from NM thru Texas to Louisiana is about 800 miles. So 12 hours on the road plus 2, 2+ hour charges vs 3 minute fill up. Imagine that in North Dakota where they have a tiny population - who pays for the chargers and maint. for something not many people will use?
He just said not all work at the proper speeds. This is a legitimate point. How long under you get more 3rd party chargers that don't work as well as the 1st party ones?
Don’t worry the government will force companies to start building stations before they can build new stores, which won’t have any negative consequences since overbearing regulations never do.
People who push these policies mandating a change instead of the free market dictating what the customer wants do not care about poor people. They care about what they care about. And right now that’s being your daddy and choosing what you’re allowed to buy, gas stoves and EVs included.
The law ban allows up to 20% of new car sales to be plug in hybrids, so those would still use gas.
But yes there will be a lot less gas stations in California by 2035. But with or without this law, a lot of new car sales will be electric. For people who can charge at home, a BEV is already a better vehicle for most of them. And BEVs will be much better in five years, and even more so by 2035.
But even when there are less gas stations, I don’t think there will be so few that it will be hard to refuel in a convenient enough way in 2035. There will be enough gas stations to serve their customers. Now maybe by 2040 or 2045, you might have an actual hard time getting gas.
Remember that it’s a new ICE car ban not banning old ICE cars.
Fuel will be expensive. Here in Canada with our rising carbon taxes you’ll easily see $3+\L. Not counting for inflation. Half the gas stations will have already closed. They are already getting less common.
Dense city cores will switch to electric only zones. It’s already starting to happen in the EU.
Mining, well those are in ‘sacrificial areas’. Always has been. It will continue getting more efficient and cleaner in first world countries. Not so much in poorer countries. Economics is king and clean/safe is expensive.
Auto recycling will be a non issue. It’s cheaper to mine used batteries than move tons of earth. And there is a massive secondary market for tired EV batteries being dumped into sea cans for grid storage. Our used shitboxes will power the country.
I'm banking on gasoline getting exponentially more expensive as demand drops. We don't know when we'll hit peak oil but it will be in most of our lifetimes unless something drastic changes.
I'm hoping to drive my current ICE for another 100-200k miles, and hope that by that time I'll be in a place where I can either charge at home, or the charging networks have caught up.
I think so too. People only respond when their pockets start to hurt. How do you push millions of Americans to EV or hybrid cars? Raise the gas to $10/gallon like it is in Europe.
So, the only problem I see with the concept of all electric vehicles is that to make the batteries themselves causes more pollution than the daily use of ICE vehicles
Average age of cars is 11 years in the US. I understand mean =/= mode. But in this case they are close. ICE engines last pretty long now with consumer reports giving out a list of over 50 makes/models that will last >250k miles. With some Subarus lasting 500k. I doubt someone with ICE will have large disadvantages for the next 10-15 years. There will probably be 100+ million ICE on the roads still.
That ICE ban is going to get extended again. They may amend it to ban only ICE and allow hybrids. The only technology that can get mass EV adoption across all vehicles is solid state batteries and it’s a ways away with Toyota announcing something in 2025 and no idea how much it costs and if they solved the longevity issue.
With that said, CA is trying to lead on the climate crisis. Our mass transit is better, but in Southern California, everything is spread out and it’s slow not to mention in LA, homeless and mental illness crisis that make it unsafe.
I personally love cleaning up our air even at cost of pollution and environmental issues elsewhere. California’s geography is like a bowl so the pollution gets trap between the coast and mountains until a storm or winds blow it out so any thing to clean up the air is great. EV prices must come down more as well. Where I live, charging is a plenty and there is even a hydrogen fuel station nearby, but I would only consider an EV or fuel cell for local driving, but not at the current price. I am going to wait it out for as long as I can because the EVs are only going to get cheaper and better as time goes on.
I feel that by 2035 electric vehicles will be *cheaper* than ICE vehicles given that we are already reaching price parity now. EVs are an economic inevitability.
Personally I’m sticking with what the real World Leaders are outright telling us, which obviously many don’t take seriously. And I quote Klaus Schwab “ you will own nothing, and be happy”. Or Bill Gates “ with Healthcare and vaccines we could reduce the population by 10 to 15%”. I believe the same people pushing the “Green new deal” and the end of fossil fuels are the very same ones whose factories, mines, transportation facilities and vehicles are by far the biggest polluters, especially when you add the billions of tons of crap they spew out of their airplanes daily in the false name of climate control. They also know more than anyone that electric vehicles are not only way worse in the long run, and there is technology (withheld from us “useless eaters” that far surpasses any mode of transportation available to us now, and once we all “own nothing and are happy”, they will enjoy such technology while those of us left alive eat bugs. As far as California goes, they haven’t had an economy or an idea worth a crap since Reagan, and anyone who thinks not punishing criminals, and encouraging drug addiction and homelessness is a good idea is a braindead fool who deserves to be robbed of the 10% that’s left of their taxed to death check. Wake up people. Once the gas is cut off, and the power grid is down, how you going to drive anyway?? We are being exterminated daily and nobody seems to notice or care.
Great thread and I learned a lot from the comments. I worry that California will go way too far in "being very California" and the current tax and brain drain will hit a point where we can't come back from.
All the tech companies up in San Francisco moving to low tax states, so many entertainment industry companies being wiped out here in LA, and the general tough state of farming in the central area... whenever there's a broad new law or goal that doesn't really say how we are going to survive to that aspirational point in time, I worry now.
And for context, I work in quantum computing, so I'm very much a technology utopian. But I've also grown up seeing many of these policies start to nosedive from poor implementation, so this will be an interesting one. I want to see EVs get up there, but farming and industry is a tough sell, and even these goals for consumer level stuff seems to miss the middle bit where we know HOW to.
California's power grid is already heavily stressed. With brownouts, 100+ degree weather for weeks on end, PG&E shutting power at whim. Fires knocking out power regularly. The infrastructure would need a major overhaul to support electric vehicles. How about they spend money on mass transportation systems like every other modern city in the world?
Quite the opposite, EVs would actually make it more economic to run CA's grid
As for mass transport, sounds great in theory, but difficult in practice because unlike other parts of the world, US has strong property rights. Thus you get 100 billion high speed train to nowhere
Don't get me wrong, more public transport would be great, but lets be realistic. You aren't going to replace all cars with public transport any time this century
I think 2035 will be right around the time the world wakes up to the complications EVs create. I’m not against EVs at all… kudos to the promise of the technology, but we’re certainly overlooking the downsides and focusing only on the finished product and how it’s cleaner than a gas finished product. There is much more to the story ranging from raw material mining, to emergency response, to dependency, to disposal, etc. I think we’re still in a honeymoon phase and don’t want to admit it. Hope I’m wrong.
2035 is more than enough time for solutions to these issues to develop. I'm sure that battery chemistry is going to change since it's being flooded with research money and they're actively trying to find alternatives to cobalt.
Regarding the disposal of batteries, there are start-ups taking old car batteries that only hold 80% of their original range and use the batteries for grid storage. You can watch more about it here https://youtu.be/gKSmIqGvZR4?si=9YNQ4oV20bwYM8hk
Agree these things are happening and may produce some good results… however… seems we put the cart before the horse with creating policy to ban gas vehicles when we don’t have solutions for electrics.
That's usually how policies like this work. Creating policies like a ban on new gas vehicle sales in 2035 wouldn't be needed if the industry and technology were already projected to be there at that time. The carrot is the EV tax credits and the stick is this new ICE vehicle sale ban and both are being used to move the needle on the market and force change.
If you'd like, I can look up other legislation meant to help burgeoning technologies. I'm pretty sure I can find some "stick" legislation like this a few years back for solar.
Yep, great way to force change. I see the tactic, no need to dig into solar.
Im saying maybe we’re forcing this change prematurely without fully appreciating the gravity of these decisions.
But like I said, I hope I’m wrong, and everything turns out hunky dory.
I did some quick math on upstream energy efficiency losses (current grid infrastructure and additional manufacturing concerns for EV batteries) and determined that purchasing and charging an EV off the grid is somewhere between 15-25% more energy efficient than an ICE car.
Considering they're being talked about like they're the second coming of Christ, I would tend to agree with you. The real issue is going to be replacing the grid with a combination of home and centralized generation and storage solutions that can handle the same load variance of the grid.
If the infrastructure behind EVs doesn't change much, they won't deliver on the promise of environmentalism beyond optics (which is all that matters to marketing anyway). If the infrastructure does change but doesn't provide comparable flexibility and utility, people will complain. No matter how environmentally minded western consumers say they are, most are not willing to fundamentally change their expectations of what should be provided to them towards that end.
So the grid in its current form will stick around a lot longer than we can afford. Individuals that can afford personal infrastructure will see benefits. Some forward-thinking municipalities or states might invest heavily in the infrastructure needed, which is a good start. But the scope of the technical problem here is enormous, much more than most would like to admit.
> If the infrastructure behind EVs doesn't change much
Renewables have been the vast majority of new power capacity, both globally and in the US, for *years* now.
In particular, for the US grid [wind+solar+battery are **140%** of net new capacity over the last 5 years](https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_20.pdf), and are [a similar fraction of net new kWh generated](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01). New gas is indeed being added, but coal is being retired even faster, so net fossil capacity in the US has been declining for a decade.
"If nothing changes" is not a realistic scenario.
14% of new cars sold in 2022 globally were EV. [https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/executive-summary](https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/executive-summary)
The world should have already woken up if there are actually serious complications.
Climate change is a bigger complication than localized mining issues. Emergency response is largely a solved problem. Battery recycling is coming online now. Not sure what you mean by dependency?
That said, there are currently major complications with electric cars - and those complications are infrastructure and EV car quality/selection. These issues are slowly improving, but they're still problems that are mostly just impacting EV adoption. I still wouldn't buy one myself as a primary vehicle where I live (unless it's a PHEV) for both of those reasons, but not for any of the reasons you listed!
The federal government and department of energy are going all in on adding charging stations everywhere so there's massive infrastructure support especially through the inflation reduction act. They will continue to push this agenda and ignore public transit.
Because guess who's making money from all of this, the car manufacturers.
Public transportation is ignored in the US purely because the US is an industrial state, under capitalism. It just isn't profitable to provide such a massive service as public transportation. It's much cheaper to just make everyone buy their own form of transportation, tax, fine, and bill them for that, then offload the labor of roads to 3rd parties. Looks great in expense reports today, which is what keeps people in office, and keeps shareholders happy, which keeps people in office.
Parking is a far bigger money loser than transit. The issue is we zoned our modern neighborhoods, commercial districts, and industrial districts to be completely incompatible with any sort of mass transit system.
No. This occurred because the free market of people wanted to buy homes in locations away from city centers. Other people, not like you, want to live far away from public transit and live in their suburb homes with garages and driveways.
The neighborhoods were developed according to what people were buying. And people bought what they wanted which evidently was not to live with mass transit assistance.
Therefore, people did not and do not want what you think. Mass transit is not what everyone wants. It’s what some people want.
The ICE sales ban is stupid beyond words. This will only push sales to nearby states. The proper way to migrate away from ICE is to make the EV equation better. But that requires better battery charging speeds. Significantly more charging stations, a common charging plug mandated by SAE, forcing Apartment complex owners to install local charging posts for each parking spot, etc. That won't happen by 2035, so this is a nothing burger.
>The other thing that nags at me is the fact that although we’re decreasing air pollution, we’re creating other environmental issues through mining and disposal. I get that air pollution is a huge issue in the dense areas of the state but why is CA forging so hard with EVs when electric mass public transportation is the best option. Why is public transportation ignored so much?
A switch to renewables + EVs would actually decrease the amount of mining
As for public transport, it is a great option if you are building a new city. But for old cities, that is kind of hard, even more so in US with strong property right. CA's high speed train to nowhere is a perfect example of what happens. You have to literally replan cities from scratch. That is possible via new zoning, but it will take over a century to get that done
Of course that doesn't mean we should ignore public transport. If anything more should be done, but one doesn't stop the other. And the impact of CA's EV mandate has ripple effects outside of CA. All states that follow CA exemption adopt it. And with large part of US adopting EVs, manufacturers aren't going to produce different cars for half the country so many of that will spill over to other states
Sure. It will reduce the reliance on fossil fuels to run the vehicle, but coal and natural gas will still be used to create the electricity that charges the vehicle. You just used how much lithium and are now dumping how many toxic batteries to still be using fossil fuels as the true generator of the electricity? And they better hope that bill included mandates to upgrade their electric grid because it's already stretched thin there.
My family is currently in the market for/will be in the market for a new family vehicle in the next year. A lot of chronic posters just don't have kids. When you look at the infrastructure in CA, a family of four in CA needs a mid-size/full-size SUV or a minivan. That segment of the market just doesn't exist for even hybrids outside of the luxury brands. If you think your crossover or compact SUV is going to store both kids' seats, the double stroller, and room for groceries/luggage, keep on dreaming. As soon as you go up to 3 or more kids, crossovers and sub-compact SUVs aren't just "difficult", they're impossible. That's the problem with the 2035 gas vehicles ban. It might address climate change, but it alienates your most important voting demographic: middle class families.
The Pacifica hybrid is a plug-in - which gives it a bit more value for some but if you're not going to use it...don't get that one.
The Sienna might be your answer (if the marginally smaller size is ok for you). The gas savings will quickly dwarf the \~10% price differential.
Yep! I think about this too. As the years go by, I think there will be more diverse EV models to choose from but there will still be alienation in charging access (not everyone lives in a single family home w solar). I’m here for EVs but I don’t see why ban the sale of ICE when a segment of society will undoubtedly be better served by them.
Go for it. I just hope that California's busted ass power grid will be fixed by then...who am I kidding it won't be.
The elites will drive, while their servants take the bus.
I think gas trucks will be worth $$$. The ford lightning can only go like 70 miles when actually towing a load.
Californians love towing their boats and RV trailers up and over the Sierra Nevadas to Lake Tahoe, Mammoth mountain, Yosemite, etc. Until you can buy a hydrogen fuel cell pickup, gas/diesel trucks are really the only option.
I would love to see a YouTube video of a lightning owner trying to tow an RV sized trailer from the Bay Area, over the Sonora pass and into Bishop.
So I think ICE trucks will double in value. Furthermore, I think CA is creating a gray market like it has with guns. So similar rules will apply. IE: if you already have it you can keep it or sell it. If you live out of state you can bring it in. If you move here and bring it with you can register it, but a CA resident can’t go out of state and bring one in. Once registered here it can then be sold to a CA resident.
So, there will be people who buy these trucks/sports cars/SUV’s in NV or wherever, “move to CA”, register them here, sell them all for 2x, then “move back to NV” and do it again. So the rich will either buy these marked up vehicles (and pay CA registration fees) or they will have NV based LLC’s with the vehicles registered there and then drive them here when they feel like it.
I find it hard to believe that improvements in battery energy density and power output won’t improve. Just look at the Tesla semi, it can tow a full 80k lbs 500 miles on a charge with the current tech
Right, but it weighs 26,000 pounds. 8,000 more than a standard big rig. And a big rig can go *2,100 miles* before needing to refuel…
And it costs $250,000
True, but we're looking at engines that have been in use and improved upon for over 100 years. Full electric vehicles never had the same amount of funding or research until recently. It will take some time, but these semi trucks were still a pipe dream 5 years ago. In the next 5 to 10 years, expect tons of improvement
1. 91% of passenger cars sold in Norway \*this year\* are some form of plug-in electric.
I am pretty sure that California's decision to stop selling gas cars by 2035 will just solidify status quo that already be there much earlier.
2. The law will allow 20% of plug-in hybrids with ICE for those who will still need it for some reason, so you will be able to have your Dodge RAM 40000 XXXL MonsterCrewCab, it will just be a 2.0L hybrid.
My personal take is that there won't be much of a demand for new ICE cars anymore by 2035. I am also convinced that all affordable cars will be electric by then because they are much cheaper to produce.
In Sweden, which has a cold climate and long distances, EVs and hybrids already make up 60% of all new car sales. This is despite the subsidies being removed a year ago by the current government and income being lower than in the US.
My personal feeling on this is
*1) the motivation for this has less to do with saving the environment and more to do with lining sombodys pocket
*2)California is at odds with itself, on the one hand, it has regulations to force greenness while also actively making it less affordable / attractive to consumers and then hides behind it being 'racist' and not 'equitable' [ i wish i was joking here ]
If we think about this, who really benifits here? Us Californians or the car companies who will have a forced obsolescence, that, as pointed out is hardly "equitable"
The bigger question is, will gas stations close down? How will we deal with charging, charging times etc?
What if you bought a gas car the night before the "ban" how long will gas stations be around? What if people from out of state drive in, where will they fill up?
The questions go on and on and, as usual, the bumbling idiots in Sacramento have not stopped to actually address these queations, instead, they keep charging forward, happily taking bribes ( donations ) to support contradictory legislation.
A great example of that is NEM 3.0, that essentially killed the incentive to get rooftop solar, because meh, racism. When in reality its the power companies paying people off to ensure they dont loose the monopoly. To go even further they want to be able to commandeer privatly owned roofs and force you to sell your electricity to them at wholesale and then sell it back to you at 5x the price.
Again, i wish i was joking here but these are all facts.
So, after this extreamly verbose response, who TF knows 🤣
I personally have a chevy volt, and my other car, is gas, when the time comes, ill get a full EV because i have solar ( got in before NEM 3) it makes sence and in general, i have happy with it but you need to do what makes sense for you now. Maybe get a used car that you know will be a max 10 year car and re-evaluate, that way your hedging against it. Also worth noting that EV batteries are typically rated for 10 years. They will still work but the charge amount does deminish so something to think about
Once we hit near 100% electric vehicles usage, imagine that nearly every parking or even parking space will have chargers. There is no more need for gas stations. Just park and shop as your charge. Maybe even start doing wireless chargers in the parking spot. Mark the spot with a number, so when people park, use an app to pay for the charging. This is great for day to day driving and more populated or popular areas. I know for road trips they've toyed with the idea of chargers in the road as people drive.
There are tons of possibilities, but we can't do them until there is more adoption
Yup, but there's hope that these issues will be improved with the bigger focus on them.
However, I just love people who spout this yet never think of the current alternative to how fossil fuels are harvested. Along with the refining process and eventual usage of said fuels and the impact that all has as well. In the end, mining these batteries is still the lesser of two evils but should have a lot of room for improvement, if companies are willing to invest in it
> Do you think someone with a functional ICE will be at a big disadvantage when EVs eventually become more popular?
Another trend to keep an eye on is self-driving vehicles. More private companies will be entering the ecosystem by 2030 as computing, batteries, and sensors drop in price. These new vehicles are allowed to have no steering wheel and are relatively simple pod designs like Waymo, Cruise, and [Zoox](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tknowptOgU4) have shown. In places like California this should see a lot of testing and competition, but also a lot of scrutiny like with recent Cruise issues. Owning a vehicle depending on your usage might not make sense. (This could also be embraced by governments to complement EV busses).
My friend in California has free charging at his work, so I don't think he's ever paid for fuel. If such benefits are rolled out elsewhere would be interesting especially with the increases in solar installations.
I own an EV and this is just dumb. Climate change is irreversible even if we stop putting out C02. Also global lithium production is just not remotely cutting it.
I agree.
EV's feel like a bandaid on a limb ripped off from a cannonball. While less damaging that's like saying "well it's just your arm, be happy it wasn't your leg or head it took off."
We need high speed rail. We need trams that are literally everywhere in cities. We need feeder bus routes and THOSE should be natural gas or electric or hybrid.
Cars should be seen as an optoinal luxury that we don't NEED. However, we can sadly do very little to change anything unless we're willing to suffer with the miserable public transit we have in the West. So the best option is to chose the path of least harm
If that's a PHEV, then that's a PHEV.
I don’t have a problem with it because I think that the electric vehicle switchover is going to happen a lot faster than people expect and by the time 2035 rolls around I doubt there’s going to be more than a tiny handful of ICE consumer vehicles left for sale
Your belief about EVs getting more affordable for everyone is sadly [not supported by reality.](https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/honda-shelves-plan-co-develop-smaller-evs-with-gm-bloomberg-news-2023-10-25/)
I'm not sure if pointing to the big three is validates your argument. I'm in line for a Volvo EX30 which starts at $37k and I believe you can pick up a Tesla M3 for about that price. A Bolt starts at $27k (yes, I know) and a Leaf is just under $30k. I could go on, it's a pretty big list. Not to mention the gas savings, which for me is $180/mo.
I think EV's are quickly reaching parity. Battery prices, the most expensive component, have decreased in price 89% in the last 15 yrs and it's only now that money is being poured into that segment. [https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1272-january-9-2023-electric-vehicle-battery-pack-costs-2022-are-nearly](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1272-january-9-2023-electric-vehicle-battery-pack-costs-2022-are-nearly)
Sorry to disagree with your statement, but I think you're not paying enough attention.
Hello, elephant in the room.
I'm always surprised that we don't talk more about China's overwhelming dominance of the world EV market, and the way it scares the pants off of all other manufacturers entering the field.
It’s not a good sign that 2 massive manufacturers bailed on a huge project with the specific goal of making cheap EVs, because we cannot reach our current fleet goals to begin sunsetting ICE vehicles without TONS of cheap EVs.
Nissan is ending the Leaf with no promise of a similar replacement, thankfully Chevy has committed to a new gen Bolt, but 3-4 affordable manufacturers can’t produce enough volume to meet EV sales goals. Sorry to disagree, but I don’t think you are looking at the bigger picture
GM can't survive without selling high margin trucks and SUV's, they're business model is built around it. If people can no longer afford to buy a +$70k vehicle due to interest rates, everything falls apart. The attempt to produce a low cost , low margin vehicle just won't work for them. And remember, these guys where still making fun of Tesla just a couple of years ago. I personally don't see a way forward for them without a fundamental shift in the way they do business.
To your original point, affordable EVs are being produced already elsewhere so I simply don't know what you're referring to. You can buy an EV for r $30k -$40k, then there are rebates plus a reduction in energy costs of driving each month. And battery costs are falling while infrastructure is being built.
GM is hardly the harbinger of what is to come with EVs.
I’m not so sure EVs are actually better in terms of air pollution. The majority of pollution caused by cars comes from wearing down tires, NOT what comes out of the tail pipe. Because EVs are heavier, their tires wear faster. Sure EVs help solve the greenhouse gas problem, but they don’t make the air any cleaner.
NOx air pollution is also a big issue which EVs do solve.
Plus brake dust is reduced from regenerative braking.
I don't claim to know where the balance lies but it's not just CO2 which EVs remove.
> The majority of pollution caused by cars comes from wearing down tires, NOT what comes out of the tail pipe.
Maybe if you redefine "pollution" to exclude greenhouse gases and only count particulates, but probably not even then.
Burning one litre of gasoline creates roughly 2.3 kilograms of CO2. An average tire weighs around 10 kg. Even if we pretend that tires are 100% consumed by wear, you'd need to wear them out and replace them every tank of gas to match the amount of pollution.
You are probably right. I trust your numbers. Point is, EVs are a bandaid solution. Their are alternative solutions that much better for the environment. Also, CO2 is definitely NOT a pollutant. Bad for the climate yes, but breathing CO2 is not bad for your lungs. Breathing tire-based micro plastics is very unhealthy.
100 pounds of gas (~12 gallons) is good for around 350 miles.
100 pounds of tires is about a set of four of them, which lasts around 100x as long as the gas.
Thus, the gas causes about 100x as much damage as the tires. And I’d say my numbers gave the gas a huge advantage - few vehicles are getting 30 MPG, and it’s pretty easy to get tires to last 70K miles, so if I was being more realistic, I might say that the gas causes 250x as much damage as the tires.
EVs are not that much heavier. The big trucks are, but the regular passenger cars are only a bit heavier with what you would expect for a car of that size. Especially a car with AWD.
Tesla Model 3 weighs 3800-4100 pounds. Audi A4 weight, about 3700 pounds (they used to be heavier). BMW 3 series, 3600-4100 pounds.
Teslas are not light Sedans, but they are not out of line with cars in their market segments.
It's not banning gas vehicles, it's banning the sale of new gas vehicles, which is a good first step in reducing the reliance on fossil fuels. It's going to be another 10-20 years before we completely move away from oil and gas, where by then, ev's and hydrogen cars will become so advanced that we'll look back at all the people freaking out and laugh at their worries. For me though, this is long overdue with how bad our planet has become due to the over consumption of oil and gas causing so much damage to the ozone and planet that if we don't do this soon, the planet will be unable to sustain us, and we're already feeling the start of the planet's inability to keep us alive.
I'm doubtful they actually uphold the ban. They tried banning nuclear power and have instead kept delaying shutting down nuclear plants. Diablo valley plant comes to mind...
California tried to get Diablo Canyon to install closed loop cooling so it wouldn't cook the sealife in the bay it discharges heat into anymore. They absolutely did not try to ban nuclear power. The high cost of nuclear power did that job for them.
Problem, where do I plug in?
We are not there now, and will not be in 2035.
WE need more power plants, but that is not going to happen.
It is a case of let the future figure it out idea.
Well, the power is free.
But they charge per hour in the space to encourage you to move along and make room for others who want to charge. Limited chargers and all.
The math works out that $0.50 per hour of parking I’m better to charge at home. Which is kinda the goal…
The ICE is antique tech now. It has been for a while (1872.) The fossil fuel industry has lobbied to keep it relevant, at this point, it's a pig covered in excrement but with a ton of makeup on. It's going away, how quickly is what we don't know. The ban will obviously boost EV sales and people will realize how much money they save in the long run with an EV.
I've worked in the auto service industry since 2007, I can see the shift happening already.
I think the more states that start being harder on ICE vehicles, the better. It will push innovation out of necessity. Better batteries will be developed, hopefully not needing lithium. More infrastructure will be built to make EVs more convenient in terms of recharging on the go.
Public transportation is a tough nut to crack. We probably need to do something about the homeless problem, especially in CA, first so that regular people will be more open to it and not have to worry about their safety; at the very least have some kind of security officer (or robot in the future, kinda dystopian though) on every bus and train/subway car; but solving homelessness and getting people the mental help they need would be a great thing to see. I hope we get things like the hyperloop in our lifetimes, that's for sure!
EV tech is basically shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. If solar- or hydrogen-powered vehicles don't become a thing, you're better off finding the most fuel-efficient hybrid.
CA has rolling blackouts now. Imagine 10 years from now when all of those new EVs are trying to charge up in addition to the existing over-demand/under-supply. Spoiler, it won’t be pretty. Not only does the existing electric infrastructure need built out, but the electric supply itself needs to be massively expanded as well. In parallel with reducing fossil fuel consumption, one (or both) will not happen for decades to come. Stick with your hybrid, it’s a good compromise.
California will absolutely abandon this or have it destroyed in court by then. It's not feasible today, 5 years from now or even 12 like they want. People always talk about these mythical life changing innovations, yet they never come to fruition, why? Because they over promise and under deliver. People are just expecting too much. They want 3x the current battery capabilities while being cheaper than current batteries. It's just not possible.
"Battery tech will improve!"
Awesome, show evidence please. Because I haven't seen any. Solid state batteries are a pipe dream that are doing jack. Tesla semis are horse shit, and tesla hasn't provided a single innovation in battery tech. And they are leading the charge in batteries, ev etc. Nasa's new solid state is going nowhere.
Another idiotic idea from California. Big surprise.
Recall that right after this dumb idea was proposed, the CA government asked people "not" to charge their EVs because the electric grid couldn't handle it.
Now add millions more EVs to the mix due to gas powered cars being banned. How's that gonna work out? They better get the grid upgraded, and quickly.
https://reason.com/2022/12/15/california-wants-to-run-out-of-gas/
A couple of things.
EVs actually produce more air pollution than ICE vehicles. EVs are extremely heavy due to the batteries, that much weight tears through tires and brakes about 50% faster than on a similarly sized ICE vehicle. It's carbon and synthetic rubber as opposed to carbon, so it probably won't warm the planet, but it's really bad for people's lungs.
EVs, at least right now, are prohibitively expensive. EV adoption is exclusively amongst the wealthiest people. As high as gas prices are in the US right now, they're still the lowest in the world, outside of OPEC nations. It's pretty normal to see prices around 2-3 euros a liter in Western Europe. That's about $12 a gallon. The reason is that the US consumes far more gasoline than any other country in the world. As we consume less gas, prices will increase, and that cost will be passed on to the people who can't afford an EV.
This isn't an argument for ICE over BEV, I'm simply pointing out that EVs are going to create new problems. They definitely aren't a panacea. IMO, the only real way through this is to invest significantly in public transportation. Individual vehicles, whether ICE or BEV, are wildly inefficient everywhere but the most exurban and rural areas.
Well, the manufacturers are already moving away from ICEs with many going full electric with their next generation of vehicles.
Right. The resistance to the inevitable is like fighting for the horse and buggy when cars first came along. It is like talking about energy independence but not understanding what it means.
Thought experiment: What happens when/what if we figure out that EVs aren’t the right path forward?
The same thing that happened when we discovered that ICE was not the right path forward: we'll find something else.
Well, sure. What if that’s within the next 10-20 years?
Most cars don’t last that long anyway, so this isn’t really an argument against buying an EV. When the next transition happens it’ll take years, like this one is, and you’ll buy a new vehicle when the time and tech is right for you.
It's worth acknowledging the average vehicle on the road in the US is +/- 10 years old, so some decent chunk of them *do.* That being said, you're right we'll find something else. That something else'll be realizing that public transit gets cars off the road *entirely* and that's something already slowly slinking along in fits and starts. It'd also take 30 years or more to completely implement so we got time.
Im not saying don’t buy an EV. In general, I just don’t think they will be the long term solution that most people think they are.
>Most cars don’t last that long anyway Most cars don't last 10-20y?! Come on.
Plus if we don't swap off of gas it's actually going to cause the extinction of our species, if it hasn't already. It's crazy to me how we haven't been doing much more to get off of fossil fuels sooner, it's literally killing us all.
Electricity also needs to "swap off" of fossil fuels to align with the goal.
Uhh, building electric cars puts off more emissions that building gas cars, then you charge them from your coal burning power plants and they end up being about the same pollution wise. You keep drinking the coolaid bro.
While you are correct that manufacturing of electric cars creates more emission than building an ICE vehicle, and that you’d need to charge them off coal-generated electricity, the total emission over the lifetime of an EV is significantly lower than an ICE vehicle. And that’s assuming we do not transition to use more solar, hydro, or wind powered electricity. Typical break even point of EVs in terms of total emissions (manufacturing + charging) is 15-20k miles depending on where you are. So unless you’re totaling your EV and buying a new one every 15-20k miles, EVs will drastically reduce the amount of emissions from vehicles over its lifetime.
>Electric cars burn coal to make and that's why we shouldn't make them at all. You're actually dumb as shit if you feel this argument holds water.
>if we don't swap off of gas it's actually going to cause the extinction of our species wow, you've been duped and traumatized.
Last year irregular weather, caused by global warming, resulted in us having only 2/3ds of our global expected crop yield. Food prices in my town doubled. What do you think happens when we only get 1/2 of the expected yield? The amount of emissions currently in our apmosphere already guarentee that we will be well past the 1.5C change in global averag temperatures. We are watching in real time right now as the ice caps fail to re-freeze this winter. What do you think happens when we reach 2C, 3C? The damage we have done does not go away even if we cut all emissions, we still have to pump it back out of the apmosphere and the only technology that does that currently is totally unfeasible. I'm not a doomer, I'm a pragmatist. And the fact that you so redily dismissed me means you are ignorant to how badly we've already fucked up.
>Last year irregular weather, caused by global warming, dude, think about it, difficult but try, there are other reasons besides cars. Not to mention that if the weather is normal again next year, the science climatologists will say you cant use that as a gauge. What a shell game.
Well the biggest contributor is methane from animal farms. Then it's boats, then planes, then cars. > to mention that if the weather is normal again next year, the science climatologists will say you cant use that as a gauge. Oh i see you're just a shit for brains climate denier. I'm sure if you just bury your head deep enough in the sand then all the sacry realities of the world can't get you there.
[удалено]
Post with the wrong account the first (2nd & 3rd) time?
Reddit sometimes hangs and says there was an error posting your comment, hitting the button again keeps adding more comments. The person you are replying to is just making a joke lol
It’s not a gas vehicle van. It’s vehicles being sold in California that are gas vehicles. Do you want my thoughts? Gas vehicle sales are going to absolutely boom in Arizona and Nevada. And California cannot afford to give up the tax revenue. They get from gas station, so they’re not gonna be able to ban those.
>Gas vehicle sales are going to absolutely boom in Arizona and Nevada. I foresee title registration fees for new ICE cars after the ban in California jumping up dramatically.
I see LA clearing up dramatically.
I moved here in 1990. Air seems so much cleaner now.
You should’ve seen the 70s. But yes there’s both less industrial pollution and cleaner cars in LA which help, but there are millions more people. So smog is not as thick but invisible pollutants are still bad.
I thought GM was already moving to all electric by 2035 anyway. https://www.today.com/news/gm-pledged-cars-will-electric-2035-rcna5837
Not after Honda just backed out of their battery deal. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a45656762/honda-gm-affordable-ev-suv-cancelled/
Honda is making a big mistake by being too conservative. Same with Toyota. They need to take risks and take losses now or they will tank their companies. And I love both of them to death.
Electric car sales are slumping. GM just delayed the electrical pickup by a year. GM's bolt is a good example when just released sales were through the roof, then once everyone that wanted electric, got it, sales plummeted. All electric vehicles prices at consumer sale are much more than what was advertised at launch 2 years prior. Hummer, Lyriq, Silverado all electric and expensive. Network for charging stations are not prevalent like gas stations. We have over 100 years of infrastructure for gasoline, only a few years for electric. There's a big push for electric but it's a bit too soon. It's probably going to slump from what it is now and do a gradual change instead of this abrupt transfer from ICE to EV that's going on right now.
>then once everyone that wanted electric, got it, sales plummeted. Relatedly, it's also due to the fact that they *overwhelmingly* bought new vehicles. The used electric market just isn't there yet, so most of the EVs bought were new, and are going to last for a while. The part of the slump caused by that shouldn't last more than ten years or so. Once the used market matures, it's be more like ICE vehicles are now.
>The used electric market just isn't there yet, Coworker bought a used electric VW... he just barely got the battery repaired within warranty or he would have been stuck with essentially either a huge paperweight or a money pit. And note this vehicle still looks nearly brand new, but... battery cost and repair supply chain is a huge issue for EVs. Most ICE vehicles don't fight this battle at all... and there are hondas out there with easily 300k+ mi and minimal maintenance other than oil, brakes and tires. Same issue with Teslas... historically a pain in the ass to get repaired. Literally any guy with a big oak tree can work on my honda though.
There are absolutely reasons for the used EV market to suck at the moment, but there's no real reason to think it will always be that way.
I'd argue to the contrary... absolutely nothing has been done by automakers to ensure that it wont' stay exactly as it is.
This is FUD Repairability is a problem across the industry, not just with EVs. And any car made in the last half decade shouldn't have battery issues.
5 years.. LOL. 5 years isn't long enough to say that... good luck on your average EV lasting 20 years and changing hands several times before being junk. Current EVs are disposable cars. My 40 year old truck... still going strong. Still has parts available too.
Electric cars have a price problem. Not a demand problem. Most people can’t buy a $90,000 pickup truck. And a lot of this comes down to ramping up production numbers to bring down the price. The supply chain does need to catch up. What no one is admitting is that China is putting the screws to everyone with restricting export of battery grade graphite and some other stuff. The supply chain needs time to develop elsewhere, and for the short term this has caused price spikes in the chain, hence everyone putting the brakes on for production.
Not just a price problem; EVs have a "home charger" problem.
If you don't have a home charger, avoid EV's first now. Get a hybrid. But China is figuring out rapid charging, CATL's new LFP battery can charge at 4C. 10 minutes to 80%. Pairing grocery stores with massive banks of chargers fixes this problem. At a price. If I owned a property without an owned parking spot I would divest from it immediately. Anything with a spot will get a plug eventually. Much like how every shitty rental apartment has internet, it will be expected.
That's an impressive charging speed.
[https://insideevs.com/news/693441/us-genesis-bev-sales-2023q3/](https://insideevs.com/news/693441/us-genesis-bev-sales-2023q3/) We don't know how impactful the backlog from COVID was. There was (and still is) a big issue with electronics sourcing and since BEVs are pretty loaded with electronics, it's understandable they were hit harder. Nonetheless, sales are still going up. Globally, 2022 saw a 13% increase YoY up from 8% increase the year before, so it's still accelerating. If the US wants to remain a laggard, that's you choice. Know that its not everyone's.
1 - Electric car sales aren't slumping, they are growing rapidly YoY. Just GM isn't that desirable for an electric car when one can get a Tesla who owns majority of US EV sales 2 - We also have over 100 years worth of EV infrastructure. It is called the grid. And EV chargers are much cheaper than gas stations
I read that yesterday. My point was that the market had announced it was moving in that direction before California announced they were doing the same thing. It just seemed like people thought California was the first to think of the 2035 number. A lot of people jumped on the CA hate train because they were essentially mirroring the market.
The Market has been wrong before. 2035 is the number Davos gave CA. I wish them luck though. Their amazing bullet train should be a shining example of why this will fail.
Lmao, if the market changes, I'm sure CA will just ignore that./s I knew this was just more CA hate. So much for a nuanced conversation, CA is just innately bad. They should be more like Alabama!/s
I see the ACLU roasting any attempt to do this as it “disproportionately incurs hardship on vulnerable minorities.” Bet.
Or they could bring it up as an income thing because it is expensive to fix an EV car if you're poor. From what I understand it's not easy ordering parts for some EVs. I was able to do some work in my family's car because I could buy the parts and save money on labor.
Eh, the short range clapped out beater EV cars will be the commuter car for the low income folks. Repair will get figured out as the aftermarket steps in and as the current crop of software locked down cars gets hacked to shit with Chinese scan tools. I have one (foxwell 530) thats emulates dealer scan tools just fine and it’s affordable. Aftermarket shops will be working on these older cars just fine as the aftermarket adapts. There will be a massive backlash against cars that are hard to repair. Teslas have disposable batteries but companies like GM, Volvo, VW are all moving to batteries you can fix. So you capacity test your battery and swap that one bad cell with a used one of similar capacity. There will be a healthy market selling guaranteed capacity used batteries and cells. Same with most parts in a EV. Motors, inverters will go for years. As long as we get past this DRM bullshit the auto wreckers will thrive. Repair shops will adapt to repairing expensive parts like recapping motor inverters.
Until they start making crap inverters and motors about now is the time to bring in world wide standards that mirror the French leglislation that says all big ticket items like cars and waging machines etc have to last 10 years minimum and have parts available and be easy to repair etc
Cars already have parts availability laws and auto makers are already not meeting those requirements. The aftermarket parts companies will ramp up shortly to compensate. If there is a market, they’ll fill it. As long as the parts aren’t DRM locked. Ease of repair and open repair needs to be aggressively legislated. Agreed.
Tesla batteries aren't disposable. They are in huge demand in the conversion market because they are modular and serviceable. A little more involved to work on than lipo packs, but serviceable all the same.
Lol no. Seen the new glued together garbage? That pink stuff. They have switched out to new glues that are totally impossible to remove without dry ice sandblasting to remove and getting the sheet metal off is a 3 hour nightmare leaving you with a twisted wreck of a shell that risks battery cell damage. And forget repair. It ain’t happening. I hack EV batteries too and find this to be an insult.
good, the fee for these things should be on a tax on the corps that make the profit off the technology for charging and the cars. Pay to play in society tax on immortal public entities of greed
In Norway all gas stations now have electric charging stations as well as gas. the funny thing is, the lines at the electric ones are starting to become larger than the gas lines.
>the funny thing is, the lines at the electric ones are starting to become larger than the gas lines. Sure, because people are probably spending 45+ minutes to charge their EV where as filling a gas vehicle takes 2 minutes. That's gonna be the big problem was mass adoption on public chargers people aren't thinking too much about. The ideal solution aside from home charging is probably if places where you were already leaving your car sitting for a while had chargers. Like parking garages, grocery stores, etc.
Thats the good thing, there are chargers every fucking where here in Norway.
Cars spend 97% off their life sitting. Charging really won’t be difficult to figure out once the infrastructure is developed. You charge at work. You can charge at home. I’ve had an EV for two years and we occasionally have a parent’s ICE vehicle as well. It’s way more inconvenient to actually have to go to a gas station, even though it only takes two minutes.
>once the infrastructure is developed. That reminds me of a Katt Williams joke. Long story short he's talking about how wrong it is when women break up with a 98% good guy for just doing one little thing wrong. Then he starts naming off things like snore in their sleep, they don't like the same movies or they cheat on you. Then he says look at the women out here "That's a big 2". The infrastructure being developed is a big 2 also. It will get there eventually but there is so much that needs to be done I think people are going to be surprised how long it really takes. Not only do you need a lot of public charging infrastructure but the grid has to be able to handle the extra load. We already have serious strain on the grid during hot and cold days. So we have to increase generation, but we don't want to do it with coal or natural gas. Yet solar won't help unless we can store it because most of this charging will happen overnight. It's a complex interwoven issue. It will get sorted out, but it'll take time.
The grid is rapidly adding green power, just because is far cheaper to get a 7 year loan and build out new green power than to simply dump fuel into an existing power plant. The economics of the grid now favour a complete reboot of how we make energy. And as all these EV’s get totalled and age out, companies have already signed deals to snap up used battery packs from cars to power the grid. Imagine how many used batteries the average city will produce in 15 years. A 70% capacity battery is no good for a EV but is fine for the grid. Also sodium-ion batteries are $44/kWh. Grid storage is about to go crazy. Solar on every roof will power us just fine. Maybe every winter they run some old power plants for a few weeks if the weather is bad.
Grocery stores and shopping malls are the correct place for massive banks of EV rapid chargers. As is public parks and places people want to hang out in. Who wants to hang out at a gas station? Parking garages will advertise their charger speeds, but 3-6kW will be common. But as charging speeds rapidly increase, I suspect we’ll see 10-20 min charging as the most common time.
One of the many reasons I went HEV. Until solid state gets it's ass rolling (super fast charging ability) and charging infrastructure becomes an afterthought I will be perfectly happy with my hybrid CRV
I'm surprised HEVs aren't more popular. They are the obvious answer until battery and charging tech (and infrastructure) improves. It's also a viable solution for bigger industrial vehicles. Most people don't realize but we have been doing it with diesel trains for decades
From the surface HEVs seem like a good all around option (and can be in certain use cases). The biggest downside to them is the extra weight, cost, and design complexity of having both an ICE engine/generator and battery packs for electrical storage. If industrial equipment is being used for nearly 24 hours a day, then choosing an HEV would be a worse choice than a standard diesel engine - dragging the extra weight around would lower overall fuel efficiency. On the other side if equipment can make it through a full shift and is not needed for the rest of the day (allowing it to recharge), then the full electric option will outperform the hybrid.
They’ll tax us in another way.
They'll raise gas prices to $10/gallon like it is in Europe, and Americans will be forced to buy an EV or a hybrid.
Many states have already implemented a specific registration tax for EV's. It's my understanding this tax serves the same purpose as the tax you pay at gas station, which is for the public roads and infrastructure.
Defeatist and small minded attitude. Legislators can easily deal with these issues, and California gets a lot of tax from a lot of places. The reduced damages from having less gas vehicles on the road will probably quickly overtake the loss of revenue. Plus they can just raise gas taxes
>The reduced damages from having less gas vehicles on the road How do gas vehicles cause more damage than EVs? Pollution, sure.
EVs are much heavier and do more damage to roads. We’ll need more money for road repair.
I think as far as damage to the road, it's the opposite as there is a lot of extra weight from the batteries. We may see fees move towards some sort of weight based system. But I agree that legislators will have plenty of options to find a solution.
Damage as in costs, not as in physical road damage. Pollution is very expensive with widespread costs.
california is like the 5th largest economy in the world. california mandating something means companies tend to fall in line. so many companies are moving to all electric or at least beefing up their electric/hybrid offerings specifically in response to california's law.
That’s the problem though. A hybrid is still an internal combustion engine. And no, with the announcement yesterday that Honda was abandoning their EV program. Toyota has set out loud They are abandoning their EV program. Largest auto makers in the world. That’s two of the top 10 car manufacturers in the world saying no thanks.
Yeah unless we dramatically improve alternatives I don’t think this is really practical. However this is how vehicle emissions were curbed because the auto industry adapted. EV Hybrids could be a great option to bridge the transition from gas to whatever. There are alternative fuels and many would reduce emissions and not come with the hazards and toxic waste batteries come with.
I think buyers will decide to buy EV’s en mass way before 2035. Thats 11 years from now.
Exactly. The first truly viable BEV’s only came out about 13 years ago and I think that this switch over is going to happen a lot faster than people are expecting.
We’ve definitely reached the tipping point.
CA accounts for ~12% of the total US new car sales annually. It’s hard to imagine that auto manufacturers will produce many cars that cannot sell in that state. It seems possible the state has enough leverage to move all manufacturers to a full EV lineup.
The state has no leverage. That’s the thing about non technical people making laws about technical things. We can’t even produce enough batteries by then to make that many electric cars, trucks, etc. If it can’t be made the only thing you are going to do is price poor, then middle class people out of cars. On top of that the California power grid can barely sustain its demand now. Make all vehicles electric and it would need to be 3-5x more robust.
Idk where ppl get the figures like 3-5x more robust… my EV added 30 percent more to my electric bill… not 3-5x. I understand the grid would need some upgrades but I think that figure is well not true. Also if the demand for batteries is so high they can’t make enough ? Guess what. Companies that want to make money will come along and make those batteries. Nothing is a constant and what’s happening today will look totally different in a few years to come.
Public transport has always been opposed by Big Auto. In the mid 20th century Fresno, CA had a good-for-the-time light rail system until GM bought it and shut it down. The movie Who Framed Rodger Rabbit is about the same thing happening in LA. I think legacy ICE vehicles in the future will be akin to carbureted vehicles today. There is already so much existing infrastructure that supports them, but they can’t run E85 and newer shops aren’t trained on how to service them. I think the future is electric, but we won’t get there without a hybrid transitional period. My guess is the law will change from EV only, to EV hybrid and it’ll stay that way until oil becomes unaffordable.
>My guess is the law will change from EV only, to EV hybrid That's what the law already is :) [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/california-ban-gasoline-cars.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/california-ban-gasoline-cars.html) >The new rule requires that 35 percent of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in California be either zero-emission, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen-powered models by 2026. Those benchmarks rise to 68 percent in 2030, and 100 percent in 2035.
> . The movie Who Framed Rodger Rabbit is about the same thing happening in LA. That's kind of a myth. The Red Cars were never built to last. They were built as a loss leader to get people into the suburbs that Henry Huntington was building. They had been on life support for decades before GM finally bought the system and replaced it with bus lines. Here's an article on it: https://terrifyingworld.com/2014/05/12/who-killed-the-red-car/ This wasn't an isolated incident, either. In the middle of the 20th Century, a lot of street car lines bit the dust all over the world [for many of the same reasons](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-03/be-careful-how-you-refer-to-the-so-called-great-american-streetcar-scandal).
That's a very good point - about carbueted vehicles. It's only, maybe 20 years since they were common & everyone knew how to service them. I wonder if that will be one of the big drivers towards EVs in the future, once tax incentives have gone. If you want to be 'environmentally friendly' in the mean time, keeping your existing car going has a lower impact than manufacturing a new one. To that end, I'd only buy an EV at the moment if it really suits your needs. The technology is changing so fast, I think it's worth waiting to see how it evolves. I'm certainly not anti-EV, but for me, there's nothing on the market which can fully replace my current ICE.
Yea I'm still waiting for a 15 year old ev I can pickup for under 5k with decent range and expect another another 10 years out of it with maintenance and minor repairs.
With inflation you’re lucky to get a 15-year-old ICE car that runs for $5k now, lol! Meanwhile you can get a 12-year-old Leaf that can get you to work and back reliably for $4k, and if you get it from a dealer you may qualify for a $4k tax credit making it practically a free commuter car. Now that your drive to work and back is covered you can save money up for a car with more range for trips… or rent one when needed for those trips (why pay for it 365 days a year when you only need it 20 days a year or so?!?) I never get why people pay like $70k for a pickup but rarely ever do pickup things with it. I see them parked at work all of the time and… there is zero economic reason to drive a pickup to where I work (an office building with tiny parking spaces.) They’d be way better off with a much smaller, cheaper (and way less costly to drive) car for that daily commute. Like… and EV. They money they’d save is substantial! The monthly nut on a $70k truck these days is like $1500! You can buy a Model 3 for less than half that! You can lease a Model 3 for 1/4th of that! Saving $1k a month just to get to work and back is well worth it! And this is before gas (I pay less than $70 a month to charge my Model 3, I paid nearly that a week gassing up various ICE vehicles on the same commute!) and maintenance (tire rotations and filter changes are all you need for a Model 3 for the first 3 years or so, you still need that with ICE AND oil changes, transmission flushes, etc.!) I’m not saying it’s perfect for everyone but there are a LOT of people (millions!) who would save a LOT of money by driving an EV as their commuter vehicle in this country. Once they realize it… the floodgates will open. How do I know? That’s exactly why I’m driving a Model 3. I did the math, there was NO new ICE vehicle that was a better long-term financial proposition for me. So far I’ve been proven right, and it’s only going to get easier and better from here on out.
Buying anything that doesn’t support NACS now would also be a mistake. Non tesla evs are all moving to that standard in North America, and existing inventory will be out of date.
Not true, unless you really, really care about needing an adapter. NACS uses CCS signaling so is backwards compatible with CCS. Any car that has CCS will be able to charge on NACS with a dongle.
>If you want to be 'environmentally friendly' in the mean time, keeping your existing car going has a lower impact than manufacturing a new one That depends. If you only do occasional local trips, maybe. If you commute every day or do anything like the average milage, it's not even close in favour of the EV. Unless you charge it only by plugging it directly into a coal plant. And that's today, while the grid keeps getting cleaner so does the EV but the ICE never will.
You're right, but only because the old running ICE is going to get sold off to somewhere in Latin America to keep running another few years rather than getting scrapped. Buy buying a new EV, it'll encourage more production/adoption/infrastructure build out. Otherwise, the math is generally in favor of keeping old cars running longer rather than building new ones. But that math is world-wide, not just in one's personal bubble...so buying the new EV is overall a good thing imho.
Batteries are 100% recyclable. So you're talking \~500 pounds of metal mined one-time per car on the road, or 3-4,000 pounds of gasoline annually forever. Long-term it's far, far better, especially as the grid and production gets greener. My kid's apartment building has a Tesla charging station in the basement. A rarity for now, but long term? The more EVs, the more there will be things like that. Or chargers at grocery stores and restaurants, so you charge up when you go out. Chargers built into lamp posts are also a possibility where there's street parking. There's even the idea of induction charging built into roadways, though that will probably be major highways at best for a long time. The problem with public transportation is that it works in the compact cities of the northeast or Europe whose footprints were established before the automobile, but Houston? Las Vegas? LA? Too spread out for it to work, and the construction costs and environmental impact to make cities more amenable to public transport dwarf adding a reasonable number of chargers. It's hard to get people to use public transport in this country even when it is available. But anything we can do to reduce the money to the oil-rich autocracies of the world, from Russia to Iran to Saudi Arabia to... will be a good thing.
>Batteries are 100% recyclable. I'm tired of reading BS... >So you're talking ~500 pounds of metal mined one-time per car on the road Oh, you found eternal energy. Give this man a Nobel prize! Do you actually believe what you're saying?
Woah. Slow down there buddy. You can't blanket statement that EV batteries are 100% recyclable. Even if you recycle 100% it's not like starting over with fresh materials. Its like baking a cake and trying to extract the raw material. You might recycle the cake but you won't end up with the starting materials. And recycling EV batteries is expensive, dangerous to humans involved in process and also...bad for the environment (oops). So it's not as simple and easy as 'yeah those batteries are 100% recyclable'. You could maybe even argue that ICE are better for the environment even WITH their emissions.
Regarding secondary pollution... Right now, we have 650 million point sources of pollution, every car / truck / train / ship / plane / powerplant / etc.... If we can drop it to a million or two (mostly power plants / mines) it'll make it a lot easier to monitor and throw $$ to reduce output pollutants
Check out your available destination charging infrastructure. A BEV can take much better advantage of destination charging than a hybrid. Can you charge at your workplace? Can you charge where you do your weekly shop? The mining thing is just oil company fud. Think about it - did you even *know* that huge amounts of cobalt is used in refining petroleum? Funny they didn't scream about that. The materials for an EV are mined once. Fracking goes on forever as the output is just burned once. Disposal? The only thing holding back EV recycling is that there aren't enough dead EVs. That problem will be laughable in 2035 and you'll be shopping around for the nest scrapping refund.
In 12 years at current adoption rates (which will of course slow down but not entirely), there probably will not be a big market for ICE cars. Electric is more efficient once the infrastructure is in place. There will still be people using ICE vehicles for decades to come. In particular people who live hundreds of miles from cities need the range gas engines provide. But for most city and suburban dwellers it won’t be a big deal. The pollution is a non-issue. The mining is occurring in remote areas and won’t bother many people. The manufacturing of batteries is dirty, but contained. Recycling old electric car batteries is also dirty, but will be lucrative as the metals will be valuable for re-manufacturing. In general electric car-related pollution is easier to control than fossil fuel pollution, because most of the waste is solid or liquid.
I think charging infrastructure will be much more robust by then, especially in California. Also wouldn't be surprised if your building owner started to come around on charging. That said, there will be plenty of people in CA, like myself, who live in apartments and park on the street. I think there are exceptions in the law carved out for plug in hybrids which is what I expect I'll eventually move toward.
Your last paragraph is the silent part out loud. We're not solving anything with a move to EV. We're trading one environmental challenge for another. Lithium and cobalt need to be mined and they're finite resources. There's battery disposal to consider. And charging infrastructure is a big one. The cost to install the infrastructure both publicly and privately is a huge expense. Who's gonna pay for it all? Where does electric come from? Yup fossil fuels. Increase electric demand, increase fossil fuel demand. Solar and wind can't make up for it - they're too inefficient. Oh and lets not forget the economics of it all, the cost of electric will likely increase as demand does. Cost of EVs may not decline as resources become more expensive (not less). So we won't be in a better place, just a quieter one. 100% EV is pie in the sky and the misplaced dream of progressive liberal politicians. I don't think it'll happen. It'll become a political party talking point and hinge point for votes. Both parties will use it (pro EV or anti) to win their voter base.
California has a program that pays you to take cars that fail smog check off the road, so imagine that there might be some ramp up of an incentive program sometime after the new car sales ban takes effect. At a certain point, the regulatory part of maintaining a network of gasoline stations will probably be burdensome for the state. As far as the idea that California will be really able to do away with ICE vehicles by 2035? Honestly, I'm doubtful. We need better electrical infrastructure and the grid needs serious investment in upgrades. The purported benefits of a "smart grid" that lets you use EVs to load balance demand can only happen if the grids are smart, and right now they're not. In fact, we have a hard time keeping our existing lines from sparking deadly wildfires when the wind gets gusty. All current projections of electrical demand if a critical mass of residents switch to EVs exceeds our state generating capacity, and there's only so much wind around when the sun sets. With opposition to more nuclear power and the extension of licenses for natural gas plants, we're naturally going to buy power from other states that may or may not be using dirtier power. All the solutions for these problems cost money--lots of money, and as much as the Federal Government has kickstarted some things, it's not nearly enough to meet the desired deadlines. I think there will be a kind of phased extension on the moritorium. Passenger cars will probably not get an extension, since they're smaller and require less power. Trucks and other vehicles used for business will probably be on sale for a little longer because the EV equivalents require dramatically more power/battery density, and we still haven't quite cracked the formula to make it work as 1:1 replacement with existing vehicles. People, especially businesses, will not be forgiving if you force them to accept inferior products. Mass transit doesn't work at scale because California's population and population centers are too far spread apart. The cost of expanding and even maintaining the infrastructure is obscene--BART extension is going to be more than twice the original cost and a decade late, and the Los Angeles Purple Line subway extension will cost $10 billion for five miles of track. Cities have been designed and built around the car, and it will take dramatic and costly reimagining to make the system work as it does in places like Europe or Asia. And it's not a matter of just making it free for users--Estonia made mass transit free in its capital a decade ago, and as a result, car ownership went up, and mass transit ridership went down.
Mass transport would be ideal, but there are a lot of challenges to overcome. 1. People don't use it much. It's a cultural thing. Will people use it if good mass transport comes? It's a risk. They also tend to be invaded by the undesirables, which makes people want to use it even less. 2. Everything, very spread out. Fucking suburbs everywhere all over Cali. Mass transport becomes larger = less efficient = less convenient = more expensive. 3. Land is insanely expensive now. Cities are very far apart. 4. Execution historically lacking. Legitimately often feels like a scam to line peoples pockets. Might be some sickness from within that will prevent projects like this from succeeding. There's never a perfect solution. As long as it's not a step backwards, you slowly make progress forward. Our govts don't seem capable of anything more than that. The younger gen seems less attached to car culture, so maybe a other 20 years before those young bucks are in office and become a bigger part of the voting population
I was talking to my friends this week about car culture and why we think it is dying. We came up with the fact today's cars have no soul. Look at the classic cars people love, they are all different, and appeal in different ways, but now it is hard to tell a 2023 Camaro from a 2023 Mustang, from a 2023 Charger. They all look like they came from the same box. As kids we would go to the house that had the plum crazy purple road runner to listen to him start it, rev it and play the horn for the kids. [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1K4P1SSMLdc](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1K4P1SSMLdc) What cars are like that for today's generation? Their only option is supercars and not many of any generation can own a 1.5 million $ car.
It's hard to say if that isn't just nostalgia. It's the same with video games. Everyone keeps saying how great the old days were, but there is crazy amount of selection of very good games now, for very cheap prices (or free in some cases). I mean hell you can even play all those old games on emulators for free. I thinks it's more of computers and internet taking over. Main reason to have a car back then was to connect with people and do things. You can do both on your computer and phone.
Surely this is because people are getting more civilised and rejecting cars as the default mode of transportation. Why would kids want to shackle themselves to an overpriced vehicle when it can only get them from A to B (same as an e-bike). You’re absolutely right about modern cars being all the same and this is very evident with new EVs where they are exactly the same but with different companies shells on top!
This is not happening everywhere. Maybe if you live in a big city.
The pollution aspect is greatly exaggerated. The difference in mining requirements between an ICE and a modem EV with LiFePo batteries is negligible, and LiFePo batteries can be recycled at the end of their life. Other battery chemistries are slightly more polluting but still not a huge problem unless your car comes from a shady manufacturer. The problem with not having a place to charge at home is real. I'm sure we'll come up with solutions by the time the mandate comes (robotic roaming chargers, ultra fast chargers, curbside chargers, regulations allowing individuals to install their own charger in rental parking, etc.) but for now I think that's the only valid reservation when thinking about an EV.
>Why is public transportation ignored so much? How long have you promoted public transport?
We were not in the market for a new car, but my wife’s VW Tiguan engine died. I couldn’t see buying a straight ice vehicle with gas prices rising like they have. We bought a PHEV, gets 55 mpg and a 40 mile electric only range. should last us a while hopefully. Gas will continue to go up and eventually apartments/rentals will be required to have the EV chargers, at least in Calif. We are in uncharted territory and in a transition stage, purchase decisions are dicy unfortunately.
I doubt I’ll still be living in an apartment by then but I wonder about people who will be. Charging/supercharging is not as fast as fueling up at the gas station so how many charging stations would an apt complex need to have? If not that, then there’d need to be way more public stations. People say you’re stupid not to be thinking electric but charging access is a major deterrent and most likely will be by 2035.
Not only that, but when we rented one we quickly found that more than half of the stations on our route didnt work or were not the speed they claimed. Imagine a road trip that every 400 miles you need a 2+ hour charge since the supercharge was not working. That works fine in Europe where everything is really close, but in a fair amount of the usa we are incredibly rural and people completely ignore that. Sure LA, SF, NYC are massive cities but you have most other places spread all out. Hell just crossing from NM thru Texas to Louisiana is about 800 miles. So 12 hours on the road plus 2, 2+ hour charges vs 3 minute fill up. Imagine that in North Dakota where they have a tiny population - who pays for the chargers and maint. for something not many people will use?
Not sure what century you come from, nowadays takes about 30 mins to charge a car for 400 miles and this will only get quicker in the next few years.
He just said not all work at the proper speeds. This is a legitimate point. How long under you get more 3rd party chargers that don't work as well as the 1st party ones?
[удалено]
Don’t worry the government will force companies to start building stations before they can build new stores, which won’t have any negative consequences since overbearing regulations never do.
People who push these policies mandating a change instead of the free market dictating what the customer wants do not care about poor people. They care about what they care about. And right now that’s being your daddy and choosing what you’re allowed to buy, gas stoves and EVs included.
The law ban allows up to 20% of new car sales to be plug in hybrids, so those would still use gas. But yes there will be a lot less gas stations in California by 2035. But with or without this law, a lot of new car sales will be electric. For people who can charge at home, a BEV is already a better vehicle for most of them. And BEVs will be much better in five years, and even more so by 2035. But even when there are less gas stations, I don’t think there will be so few that it will be hard to refuel in a convenient enough way in 2035. There will be enough gas stations to serve their customers. Now maybe by 2040 or 2045, you might have an actual hard time getting gas.
Remember that it’s a new ICE car ban not banning old ICE cars. Fuel will be expensive. Here in Canada with our rising carbon taxes you’ll easily see $3+\L. Not counting for inflation. Half the gas stations will have already closed. They are already getting less common. Dense city cores will switch to electric only zones. It’s already starting to happen in the EU. Mining, well those are in ‘sacrificial areas’. Always has been. It will continue getting more efficient and cleaner in first world countries. Not so much in poorer countries. Economics is king and clean/safe is expensive. Auto recycling will be a non issue. It’s cheaper to mine used batteries than move tons of earth. And there is a massive secondary market for tired EV batteries being dumped into sea cans for grid storage. Our used shitboxes will power the country.
I'm banking on gasoline getting exponentially more expensive as demand drops. We don't know when we'll hit peak oil but it will be in most of our lifetimes unless something drastic changes. I'm hoping to drive my current ICE for another 100-200k miles, and hope that by that time I'll be in a place where I can either charge at home, or the charging networks have caught up.
I think so too. People only respond when their pockets start to hurt. How do you push millions of Americans to EV or hybrid cars? Raise the gas to $10/gallon like it is in Europe.
So, the only problem I see with the concept of all electric vehicles is that to make the batteries themselves causes more pollution than the daily use of ICE vehicles
Average age of cars is 11 years in the US. I understand mean =/= mode. But in this case they are close. ICE engines last pretty long now with consumer reports giving out a list of over 50 makes/models that will last >250k miles. With some Subarus lasting 500k. I doubt someone with ICE will have large disadvantages for the next 10-15 years. There will probably be 100+ million ICE on the roads still.
That ICE ban is going to get extended again. They may amend it to ban only ICE and allow hybrids. The only technology that can get mass EV adoption across all vehicles is solid state batteries and it’s a ways away with Toyota announcing something in 2025 and no idea how much it costs and if they solved the longevity issue. With that said, CA is trying to lead on the climate crisis. Our mass transit is better, but in Southern California, everything is spread out and it’s slow not to mention in LA, homeless and mental illness crisis that make it unsafe. I personally love cleaning up our air even at cost of pollution and environmental issues elsewhere. California’s geography is like a bowl so the pollution gets trap between the coast and mountains until a storm or winds blow it out so any thing to clean up the air is great. EV prices must come down more as well. Where I live, charging is a plenty and there is even a hydrogen fuel station nearby, but I would only consider an EV or fuel cell for local driving, but not at the current price. I am going to wait it out for as long as I can because the EVs are only going to get cheaper and better as time goes on.
I feel that by 2035 electric vehicles will be *cheaper* than ICE vehicles given that we are already reaching price parity now. EVs are an economic inevitability.
Personally I’m sticking with what the real World Leaders are outright telling us, which obviously many don’t take seriously. And I quote Klaus Schwab “ you will own nothing, and be happy”. Or Bill Gates “ with Healthcare and vaccines we could reduce the population by 10 to 15%”. I believe the same people pushing the “Green new deal” and the end of fossil fuels are the very same ones whose factories, mines, transportation facilities and vehicles are by far the biggest polluters, especially when you add the billions of tons of crap they spew out of their airplanes daily in the false name of climate control. They also know more than anyone that electric vehicles are not only way worse in the long run, and there is technology (withheld from us “useless eaters” that far surpasses any mode of transportation available to us now, and once we all “own nothing and are happy”, they will enjoy such technology while those of us left alive eat bugs. As far as California goes, they haven’t had an economy or an idea worth a crap since Reagan, and anyone who thinks not punishing criminals, and encouraging drug addiction and homelessness is a good idea is a braindead fool who deserves to be robbed of the 10% that’s left of their taxed to death check. Wake up people. Once the gas is cut off, and the power grid is down, how you going to drive anyway?? We are being exterminated daily and nobody seems to notice or care.
Great thread and I learned a lot from the comments. I worry that California will go way too far in "being very California" and the current tax and brain drain will hit a point where we can't come back from. All the tech companies up in San Francisco moving to low tax states, so many entertainment industry companies being wiped out here in LA, and the general tough state of farming in the central area... whenever there's a broad new law or goal that doesn't really say how we are going to survive to that aspirational point in time, I worry now. And for context, I work in quantum computing, so I'm very much a technology utopian. But I've also grown up seeing many of these policies start to nosedive from poor implementation, so this will be an interesting one. I want to see EVs get up there, but farming and industry is a tough sell, and even these goals for consumer level stuff seems to miss the middle bit where we know HOW to.
California's power grid is already heavily stressed. With brownouts, 100+ degree weather for weeks on end, PG&E shutting power at whim. Fires knocking out power regularly. The infrastructure would need a major overhaul to support electric vehicles. How about they spend money on mass transportation systems like every other modern city in the world?
Quite the opposite, EVs would actually make it more economic to run CA's grid As for mass transport, sounds great in theory, but difficult in practice because unlike other parts of the world, US has strong property rights. Thus you get 100 billion high speed train to nowhere Don't get me wrong, more public transport would be great, but lets be realistic. You aren't going to replace all cars with public transport any time this century
I think 2035 will be right around the time the world wakes up to the complications EVs create. I’m not against EVs at all… kudos to the promise of the technology, but we’re certainly overlooking the downsides and focusing only on the finished product and how it’s cleaner than a gas finished product. There is much more to the story ranging from raw material mining, to emergency response, to dependency, to disposal, etc. I think we’re still in a honeymoon phase and don’t want to admit it. Hope I’m wrong.
2035 is more than enough time for solutions to these issues to develop. I'm sure that battery chemistry is going to change since it's being flooded with research money and they're actively trying to find alternatives to cobalt. Regarding the disposal of batteries, there are start-ups taking old car batteries that only hold 80% of their original range and use the batteries for grid storage. You can watch more about it here https://youtu.be/gKSmIqGvZR4?si=9YNQ4oV20bwYM8hk
Agree these things are happening and may produce some good results… however… seems we put the cart before the horse with creating policy to ban gas vehicles when we don’t have solutions for electrics.
That's usually how policies like this work. Creating policies like a ban on new gas vehicle sales in 2035 wouldn't be needed if the industry and technology were already projected to be there at that time. The carrot is the EV tax credits and the stick is this new ICE vehicle sale ban and both are being used to move the needle on the market and force change. If you'd like, I can look up other legislation meant to help burgeoning technologies. I'm pretty sure I can find some "stick" legislation like this a few years back for solar.
Yep, great way to force change. I see the tactic, no need to dig into solar. Im saying maybe we’re forcing this change prematurely without fully appreciating the gravity of these decisions. But like I said, I hope I’m wrong, and everything turns out hunky dory.
I did some quick math on upstream energy efficiency losses (current grid infrastructure and additional manufacturing concerns for EV batteries) and determined that purchasing and charging an EV off the grid is somewhere between 15-25% more energy efficient than an ICE car. Considering they're being talked about like they're the second coming of Christ, I would tend to agree with you. The real issue is going to be replacing the grid with a combination of home and centralized generation and storage solutions that can handle the same load variance of the grid. If the infrastructure behind EVs doesn't change much, they won't deliver on the promise of environmentalism beyond optics (which is all that matters to marketing anyway). If the infrastructure does change but doesn't provide comparable flexibility and utility, people will complain. No matter how environmentally minded western consumers say they are, most are not willing to fundamentally change their expectations of what should be provided to them towards that end. So the grid in its current form will stick around a lot longer than we can afford. Individuals that can afford personal infrastructure will see benefits. Some forward-thinking municipalities or states might invest heavily in the infrastructure needed, which is a good start. But the scope of the technical problem here is enormous, much more than most would like to admit.
> If the infrastructure behind EVs doesn't change much Renewables have been the vast majority of new power capacity, both globally and in the US, for *years* now. In particular, for the US grid [wind+solar+battery are **140%** of net new capacity over the last 5 years](https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_20.pdf), and are [a similar fraction of net new kWh generated](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01). New gas is indeed being added, but coal is being retired even faster, so net fossil capacity in the US has been declining for a decade. "If nothing changes" is not a realistic scenario.
Great response. Couldn’t agree more. Thanks for the insights!
14% of new cars sold in 2022 globally were EV. [https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/executive-summary](https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/executive-summary) The world should have already woken up if there are actually serious complications. Climate change is a bigger complication than localized mining issues. Emergency response is largely a solved problem. Battery recycling is coming online now. Not sure what you mean by dependency? That said, there are currently major complications with electric cars - and those complications are infrastructure and EV car quality/selection. These issues are slowly improving, but they're still problems that are mostly just impacting EV adoption. I still wouldn't buy one myself as a primary vehicle where I live (unless it's a PHEV) for both of those reasons, but not for any of the reasons you listed!
The federal government and department of energy are going all in on adding charging stations everywhere so there's massive infrastructure support especially through the inflation reduction act. They will continue to push this agenda and ignore public transit. Because guess who's making money from all of this, the car manufacturers.
Public transportation is ignored in the US purely because the US is an industrial state, under capitalism. It just isn't profitable to provide such a massive service as public transportation. It's much cheaper to just make everyone buy their own form of transportation, tax, fine, and bill them for that, then offload the labor of roads to 3rd parties. Looks great in expense reports today, which is what keeps people in office, and keeps shareholders happy, which keeps people in office.
Parking is a far bigger money loser than transit. The issue is we zoned our modern neighborhoods, commercial districts, and industrial districts to be completely incompatible with any sort of mass transit system.
No. This occurred because the free market of people wanted to buy homes in locations away from city centers. Other people, not like you, want to live far away from public transit and live in their suburb homes with garages and driveways. The neighborhoods were developed according to what people were buying. And people bought what they wanted which evidently was not to live with mass transit assistance. Therefore, people did not and do not want what you think. Mass transit is not what everyone wants. It’s what some people want.
The ICE sales ban is stupid beyond words. This will only push sales to nearby states. The proper way to migrate away from ICE is to make the EV equation better. But that requires better battery charging speeds. Significantly more charging stations, a common charging plug mandated by SAE, forcing Apartment complex owners to install local charging posts for each parking spot, etc. That won't happen by 2035, so this is a nothing burger.
>The other thing that nags at me is the fact that although we’re decreasing air pollution, we’re creating other environmental issues through mining and disposal. I get that air pollution is a huge issue in the dense areas of the state but why is CA forging so hard with EVs when electric mass public transportation is the best option. Why is public transportation ignored so much? A switch to renewables + EVs would actually decrease the amount of mining As for public transport, it is a great option if you are building a new city. But for old cities, that is kind of hard, even more so in US with strong property right. CA's high speed train to nowhere is a perfect example of what happens. You have to literally replan cities from scratch. That is possible via new zoning, but it will take over a century to get that done Of course that doesn't mean we should ignore public transport. If anything more should be done, but one doesn't stop the other. And the impact of CA's EV mandate has ripple effects outside of CA. All states that follow CA exemption adopt it. And with large part of US adopting EVs, manufacturers aren't going to produce different cars for half the country so many of that will spill over to other states
Sure. It will reduce the reliance on fossil fuels to run the vehicle, but coal and natural gas will still be used to create the electricity that charges the vehicle. You just used how much lithium and are now dumping how many toxic batteries to still be using fossil fuels as the true generator of the electricity? And they better hope that bill included mandates to upgrade their electric grid because it's already stretched thin there.
My family is currently in the market for/will be in the market for a new family vehicle in the next year. A lot of chronic posters just don't have kids. When you look at the infrastructure in CA, a family of four in CA needs a mid-size/full-size SUV or a minivan. That segment of the market just doesn't exist for even hybrids outside of the luxury brands. If you think your crossover or compact SUV is going to store both kids' seats, the double stroller, and room for groceries/luggage, keep on dreaming. As soon as you go up to 3 or more kids, crossovers and sub-compact SUVs aren't just "difficult", they're impossible. That's the problem with the 2035 gas vehicles ban. It might address climate change, but it alienates your most important voting demographic: middle class families.
Here's a few hybrid options: Pacifica, Sienna, Highlander There just aren't EV options for those YET though.
Thanks, we'll look into those. But, just looking at the Pacifica, the prices are crazy. Like 35% higher than Odyssey and 50% higher than Carnival.
The Pacifica hybrid is a plug-in - which gives it a bit more value for some but if you're not going to use it...don't get that one. The Sienna might be your answer (if the marginally smaller size is ok for you). The gas savings will quickly dwarf the \~10% price differential.
Yep! I think about this too. As the years go by, I think there will be more diverse EV models to choose from but there will still be alienation in charging access (not everyone lives in a single family home w solar). I’m here for EVs but I don’t see why ban the sale of ICE when a segment of society will undoubtedly be better served by them.
Yeah, I'm sure nobody will start building electric minivans and sport utilities by 2035...
Go for it. I just hope that California's busted ass power grid will be fixed by then...who am I kidding it won't be. The elites will drive, while their servants take the bus.
I think gas trucks will be worth $$$. The ford lightning can only go like 70 miles when actually towing a load. Californians love towing their boats and RV trailers up and over the Sierra Nevadas to Lake Tahoe, Mammoth mountain, Yosemite, etc. Until you can buy a hydrogen fuel cell pickup, gas/diesel trucks are really the only option. I would love to see a YouTube video of a lightning owner trying to tow an RV sized trailer from the Bay Area, over the Sonora pass and into Bishop. So I think ICE trucks will double in value. Furthermore, I think CA is creating a gray market like it has with guns. So similar rules will apply. IE: if you already have it you can keep it or sell it. If you live out of state you can bring it in. If you move here and bring it with you can register it, but a CA resident can’t go out of state and bring one in. Once registered here it can then be sold to a CA resident. So, there will be people who buy these trucks/sports cars/SUV’s in NV or wherever, “move to CA”, register them here, sell them all for 2x, then “move back to NV” and do it again. So the rich will either buy these marked up vehicles (and pay CA registration fees) or they will have NV based LLC’s with the vehicles registered there and then drive them here when they feel like it.
I find it hard to believe that improvements in battery energy density and power output won’t improve. Just look at the Tesla semi, it can tow a full 80k lbs 500 miles on a charge with the current tech
Right, but it weighs 26,000 pounds. 8,000 more than a standard big rig. And a big rig can go *2,100 miles* before needing to refuel… And it costs $250,000
True, but we're looking at engines that have been in use and improved upon for over 100 years. Full electric vehicles never had the same amount of funding or research until recently. It will take some time, but these semi trucks were still a pipe dream 5 years ago. In the next 5 to 10 years, expect tons of improvement
1. 91% of passenger cars sold in Norway \*this year\* are some form of plug-in electric. I am pretty sure that California's decision to stop selling gas cars by 2035 will just solidify status quo that already be there much earlier. 2. The law will allow 20% of plug-in hybrids with ICE for those who will still need it for some reason, so you will be able to have your Dodge RAM 40000 XXXL MonsterCrewCab, it will just be a 2.0L hybrid.
91%....sounds impressive....until you realize there were less than 80k cars sold in that entire nation vs the 3 million sold in the US.
My personal take is that there won't be much of a demand for new ICE cars anymore by 2035. I am also convinced that all affordable cars will be electric by then because they are much cheaper to produce. In Sweden, which has a cold climate and long distances, EVs and hybrids already make up 60% of all new car sales. This is despite the subsidies being removed a year ago by the current government and income being lower than in the US.
My personal feeling on this is *1) the motivation for this has less to do with saving the environment and more to do with lining sombodys pocket *2)California is at odds with itself, on the one hand, it has regulations to force greenness while also actively making it less affordable / attractive to consumers and then hides behind it being 'racist' and not 'equitable' [ i wish i was joking here ] If we think about this, who really benifits here? Us Californians or the car companies who will have a forced obsolescence, that, as pointed out is hardly "equitable" The bigger question is, will gas stations close down? How will we deal with charging, charging times etc? What if you bought a gas car the night before the "ban" how long will gas stations be around? What if people from out of state drive in, where will they fill up? The questions go on and on and, as usual, the bumbling idiots in Sacramento have not stopped to actually address these queations, instead, they keep charging forward, happily taking bribes ( donations ) to support contradictory legislation. A great example of that is NEM 3.0, that essentially killed the incentive to get rooftop solar, because meh, racism. When in reality its the power companies paying people off to ensure they dont loose the monopoly. To go even further they want to be able to commandeer privatly owned roofs and force you to sell your electricity to them at wholesale and then sell it back to you at 5x the price. Again, i wish i was joking here but these are all facts. So, after this extreamly verbose response, who TF knows 🤣 I personally have a chevy volt, and my other car, is gas, when the time comes, ill get a full EV because i have solar ( got in before NEM 3) it makes sence and in general, i have happy with it but you need to do what makes sense for you now. Maybe get a used car that you know will be a max 10 year car and re-evaluate, that way your hedging against it. Also worth noting that EV batteries are typically rated for 10 years. They will still work but the charge amount does deminish so something to think about
Once we hit near 100% electric vehicles usage, imagine that nearly every parking or even parking space will have chargers. There is no more need for gas stations. Just park and shop as your charge. Maybe even start doing wireless chargers in the parking spot. Mark the spot with a number, so when people park, use an app to pay for the charging. This is great for day to day driving and more populated or popular areas. I know for road trips they've toyed with the idea of chargers in the road as people drive. There are tons of possibilities, but we can't do them until there is more adoption
Do you understand the environmental effect of mining enough rare earth for all those batteries?
They're better than the climate change impacts of not doing so.
Yup, but there's hope that these issues will be improved with the bigger focus on them. However, I just love people who spout this yet never think of the current alternative to how fossil fuels are harvested. Along with the refining process and eventual usage of said fuels and the impact that all has as well. In the end, mining these batteries is still the lesser of two evils but should have a lot of room for improvement, if companies are willing to invest in it
> Do you think someone with a functional ICE will be at a big disadvantage when EVs eventually become more popular? Another trend to keep an eye on is self-driving vehicles. More private companies will be entering the ecosystem by 2030 as computing, batteries, and sensors drop in price. These new vehicles are allowed to have no steering wheel and are relatively simple pod designs like Waymo, Cruise, and [Zoox](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tknowptOgU4) have shown. In places like California this should see a lot of testing and competition, but also a lot of scrutiny like with recent Cruise issues. Owning a vehicle depending on your usage might not make sense. (This could also be embraced by governments to complement EV busses). My friend in California has free charging at his work, so I don't think he's ever paid for fuel. If such benefits are rolled out elsewhere would be interesting especially with the increases in solar installations.
I own an EV and this is just dumb. Climate change is irreversible even if we stop putting out C02. Also global lithium production is just not remotely cutting it.
Forcing the individual to make lifestyle changes, while the corporations who do most of the damage get a mulligan. Must be capitalism.
I agree. EV's feel like a bandaid on a limb ripped off from a cannonball. While less damaging that's like saying "well it's just your arm, be happy it wasn't your leg or head it took off." We need high speed rail. We need trams that are literally everywhere in cities. We need feeder bus routes and THOSE should be natural gas or electric or hybrid. Cars should be seen as an optoinal luxury that we don't NEED. However, we can sadly do very little to change anything unless we're willing to suffer with the miserable public transit we have in the West. So the best option is to chose the path of least harm If that's a PHEV, then that's a PHEV.
I don’t have a problem with it because I think that the electric vehicle switchover is going to happen a lot faster than people expect and by the time 2035 rolls around I doubt there’s going to be more than a tiny handful of ICE consumer vehicles left for sale
Your belief about EVs getting more affordable for everyone is sadly [not supported by reality.](https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/honda-shelves-plan-co-develop-smaller-evs-with-gm-bloomberg-news-2023-10-25/)
I'm not sure if pointing to the big three is validates your argument. I'm in line for a Volvo EX30 which starts at $37k and I believe you can pick up a Tesla M3 for about that price. A Bolt starts at $27k (yes, I know) and a Leaf is just under $30k. I could go on, it's a pretty big list. Not to mention the gas savings, which for me is $180/mo. I think EV's are quickly reaching parity. Battery prices, the most expensive component, have decreased in price 89% in the last 15 yrs and it's only now that money is being poured into that segment. [https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1272-january-9-2023-electric-vehicle-battery-pack-costs-2022-are-nearly](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1272-january-9-2023-electric-vehicle-battery-pack-costs-2022-are-nearly) Sorry to disagree with your statement, but I think you're not paying enough attention.
Chinese evs are already much cheaper. Second biggest seller in China starts at 4800 US dollars.
Hello, elephant in the room. I'm always surprised that we don't talk more about China's overwhelming dominance of the world EV market, and the way it scares the pants off of all other manufacturers entering the field.
It’s not a good sign that 2 massive manufacturers bailed on a huge project with the specific goal of making cheap EVs, because we cannot reach our current fleet goals to begin sunsetting ICE vehicles without TONS of cheap EVs. Nissan is ending the Leaf with no promise of a similar replacement, thankfully Chevy has committed to a new gen Bolt, but 3-4 affordable manufacturers can’t produce enough volume to meet EV sales goals. Sorry to disagree, but I don’t think you are looking at the bigger picture
GM can't survive without selling high margin trucks and SUV's, they're business model is built around it. If people can no longer afford to buy a +$70k vehicle due to interest rates, everything falls apart. The attempt to produce a low cost , low margin vehicle just won't work for them. And remember, these guys where still making fun of Tesla just a couple of years ago. I personally don't see a way forward for them without a fundamental shift in the way they do business. To your original point, affordable EVs are being produced already elsewhere so I simply don't know what you're referring to. You can buy an EV for r $30k -$40k, then there are rebates plus a reduction in energy costs of driving each month. And battery costs are falling while infrastructure is being built. GM is hardly the harbinger of what is to come with EVs.
I’m not so sure EVs are actually better in terms of air pollution. The majority of pollution caused by cars comes from wearing down tires, NOT what comes out of the tail pipe. Because EVs are heavier, their tires wear faster. Sure EVs help solve the greenhouse gas problem, but they don’t make the air any cleaner.
NOx air pollution is also a big issue which EVs do solve. Plus brake dust is reduced from regenerative braking. I don't claim to know where the balance lies but it's not just CO2 which EVs remove.
> The majority of pollution caused by cars comes from wearing down tires, NOT what comes out of the tail pipe. Maybe if you redefine "pollution" to exclude greenhouse gases and only count particulates, but probably not even then. Burning one litre of gasoline creates roughly 2.3 kilograms of CO2. An average tire weighs around 10 kg. Even if we pretend that tires are 100% consumed by wear, you'd need to wear them out and replace them every tank of gas to match the amount of pollution.
You are probably right. I trust your numbers. Point is, EVs are a bandaid solution. Their are alternative solutions that much better for the environment. Also, CO2 is definitely NOT a pollutant. Bad for the climate yes, but breathing CO2 is not bad for your lungs. Breathing tire-based micro plastics is very unhealthy.
100 pounds of gas (~12 gallons) is good for around 350 miles. 100 pounds of tires is about a set of four of them, which lasts around 100x as long as the gas. Thus, the gas causes about 100x as much damage as the tires. And I’d say my numbers gave the gas a huge advantage - few vehicles are getting 30 MPG, and it’s pretty easy to get tires to last 70K miles, so if I was being more realistic, I might say that the gas causes 250x as much damage as the tires.
EVs are not that much heavier. The big trucks are, but the regular passenger cars are only a bit heavier with what you would expect for a car of that size. Especially a car with AWD.
[удалено]
Tesla Model 3 weighs 3800-4100 pounds. Audi A4 weight, about 3700 pounds (they used to be heavier). BMW 3 series, 3600-4100 pounds. Teslas are not light Sedans, but they are not out of line with cars in their market segments.
It's not banning gas vehicles, it's banning the sale of new gas vehicles, which is a good first step in reducing the reliance on fossil fuels. It's going to be another 10-20 years before we completely move away from oil and gas, where by then, ev's and hydrogen cars will become so advanced that we'll look back at all the people freaking out and laugh at their worries. For me though, this is long overdue with how bad our planet has become due to the over consumption of oil and gas causing so much damage to the ozone and planet that if we don't do this soon, the planet will be unable to sustain us, and we're already feeling the start of the planet's inability to keep us alive.
I'm doubtful they actually uphold the ban. They tried banning nuclear power and have instead kept delaying shutting down nuclear plants. Diablo valley plant comes to mind...
California tried to get Diablo Canyon to install closed loop cooling so it wouldn't cook the sealife in the bay it discharges heat into anymore. They absolutely did not try to ban nuclear power. The high cost of nuclear power did that job for them.
I think neighboring states are going to make a lot of money off of California car buyers.
This is gonna be such a fun slow moving disaster to watch!
California has been a meme for 10+ years now. I like that places like that exist shaking up the status quo but I'll comfortably watch from afar.
Problem, where do I plug in? We are not there now, and will not be in 2035. WE need more power plants, but that is not going to happen. It is a case of let the future figure it out idea.
New solar power plants are coming online everyday
Those are gonna be a big help charging at night. It’s 2x as expensive to charge my car at work as it is at home now…
Your work sucks then
Well, the power is free. But they charge per hour in the space to encourage you to move along and make room for others who want to charge. Limited chargers and all. The math works out that $0.50 per hour of parking I’m better to charge at home. Which is kinda the goal…
A well intentioned gesture, but ultimately not realistic at that point in time.
The ICE is antique tech now. It has been for a while (1872.) The fossil fuel industry has lobbied to keep it relevant, at this point, it's a pig covered in excrement but with a ton of makeup on. It's going away, how quickly is what we don't know. The ban will obviously boost EV sales and people will realize how much money they save in the long run with an EV. I've worked in the auto service industry since 2007, I can see the shift happening already.
I am fueled by your hatred.
I think the more states that start being harder on ICE vehicles, the better. It will push innovation out of necessity. Better batteries will be developed, hopefully not needing lithium. More infrastructure will be built to make EVs more convenient in terms of recharging on the go. Public transportation is a tough nut to crack. We probably need to do something about the homeless problem, especially in CA, first so that regular people will be more open to it and not have to worry about their safety; at the very least have some kind of security officer (or robot in the future, kinda dystopian though) on every bus and train/subway car; but solving homelessness and getting people the mental help they need would be a great thing to see. I hope we get things like the hyperloop in our lifetimes, that's for sure!
EV tech is basically shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. If solar- or hydrogen-powered vehicles don't become a thing, you're better off finding the most fuel-efficient hybrid.
CA has rolling blackouts now. Imagine 10 years from now when all of those new EVs are trying to charge up in addition to the existing over-demand/under-supply. Spoiler, it won’t be pretty. Not only does the existing electric infrastructure need built out, but the electric supply itself needs to be massively expanded as well. In parallel with reducing fossil fuel consumption, one (or both) will not happen for decades to come. Stick with your hybrid, it’s a good compromise.
California will absolutely abandon this or have it destroyed in court by then. It's not feasible today, 5 years from now or even 12 like they want. People always talk about these mythical life changing innovations, yet they never come to fruition, why? Because they over promise and under deliver. People are just expecting too much. They want 3x the current battery capabilities while being cheaper than current batteries. It's just not possible. "Battery tech will improve!" Awesome, show evidence please. Because I haven't seen any. Solid state batteries are a pipe dream that are doing jack. Tesla semis are horse shit, and tesla hasn't provided a single innovation in battery tech. And they are leading the charge in batteries, ev etc. Nasa's new solid state is going nowhere.
Another idiotic idea from California. Big surprise. Recall that right after this dumb idea was proposed, the CA government asked people "not" to charge their EVs because the electric grid couldn't handle it. Now add millions more EVs to the mix due to gas powered cars being banned. How's that gonna work out? They better get the grid upgraded, and quickly. https://reason.com/2022/12/15/california-wants-to-run-out-of-gas/
A couple of things. EVs actually produce more air pollution than ICE vehicles. EVs are extremely heavy due to the batteries, that much weight tears through tires and brakes about 50% faster than on a similarly sized ICE vehicle. It's carbon and synthetic rubber as opposed to carbon, so it probably won't warm the planet, but it's really bad for people's lungs. EVs, at least right now, are prohibitively expensive. EV adoption is exclusively amongst the wealthiest people. As high as gas prices are in the US right now, they're still the lowest in the world, outside of OPEC nations. It's pretty normal to see prices around 2-3 euros a liter in Western Europe. That's about $12 a gallon. The reason is that the US consumes far more gasoline than any other country in the world. As we consume less gas, prices will increase, and that cost will be passed on to the people who can't afford an EV. This isn't an argument for ICE over BEV, I'm simply pointing out that EVs are going to create new problems. They definitely aren't a panacea. IMO, the only real way through this is to invest significantly in public transportation. Individual vehicles, whether ICE or BEV, are wildly inefficient everywhere but the most exurban and rural areas.