California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Quadruple VANOS

People fixated on renewable energy also seem to demand everything be recyclable. Why would something that makes renewable energy be exempt from this goal?

I'm not suggesting it be exempt, but the difficulty in recycling something that helps capture renewable energy that only accounts for a fraction of waste, isn't a reason to dismiss wind power. I do hope they find a way to recycle more blades. Maybe the solution is to make more durable blades that last longer, or are repairable. I'm no chemist, but what if we recycle the material into making new blades?

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

skip to 5:40 in the video, it's going to be an 1/8th of the plastic waste per year.

Creating waste to save the planet and the air is kind of, wasteful. And the solution to get rid of that waste? burn it.

Again, the better solution is to find more ways to recycle rather than declare wind power a wasteful endeavour. The waste from burning fossil fuels still seems to not be an issue for many, but for some reason recycling blades is. I can only speculate confirmation bias, in many cases political, in some emotional.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Again, the better solution is to find more ways to recycle rather than declare wind power a wasteful endeavour. The waste from burning fossil fuels still seems to not be an issue for many, but for some reason recycling blades is. I can only speculate confirmation bias, in many cases political, in some emotional.

Switching form one form of environmental bad to another environmental bad and calling it a quantum leap in good is problematic to put it nicely. All the better solutions seem to be "some day soon". Until then? Lets call it what is is...

We should continue to move in this direction, but lay off the false advertising.

We have all these people running around in EV's thinking the are carbon free, while they charge their cars at night with carbon power because off-peak is cheaper power. They are fooling themselves. Again, we should continue to move in this direction, but lay off the false advertising.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Switching form one form of environmental bad to another environmental bad and calling it a quantum leap in good is problematic to put it nicely. All the better solutions seem to be "some day soon". Until then? Lets call it what is is...

We should continue to move in this direction, but lay off the false advertising.

Personally, I never called it "a quantum leap in good", but I will call it "better" and I might even call it the lesser of two evils.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

We have all these people running around in EV's thinking the are carbon free, while they charge their cars at night with carbon power because off-peak is cheaper power. They are fooling themselves. Again, we should continue to move in this direction, but lay off the false advertising.

I think that has been an incorrect assumption by EV detractorrs. Yes, some people have no clue what the true carbon footprint of an EV really is, but there are actually rational people who drive EVs that are making educated decisions. False advertising is a real problem, and I've always been wary of false dichotomies. Just because I happen to support the EV doesn't mean I need to accept that the EV will solve all our problems and is without pratfalls. It won't, and it's not, but it has one thing going for it: flexibility.


An ICE has pretty much one source of energy: fossil fuels.

An EV has multiple sources: wind, solar, coal, nuclear etc...

So it really depends on how we source our electricity. With the EV with have choices, some better than others. With the ICE, we really only have one choice.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You mean like the pre-human climate change that created the Great Eastern Salt Basin and the Salina Formation of halite Some 419 million years ago?

Modern human influenced climate change isn't measured solely by the degree of change, but the rate of change over time.

The Salina Formation was formed during the Silurian period that spans 24 million years. How long did it take for the Salina Formation to form, and how much has it changed in the 400 million years since?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You mean like the pre-human climate change that created the Great Eastern Salt Basin and the Salina Formation of halite Some 419 million years ago?

I think it's also worth mentioning that humans live in a very narrow band of time compared to the timeline of Earth. And the Earth has seen a diversity of climate, both hospitable and inhospitable to native life.

So climate change is natural. But the problem is that we are changing it towards a environment that is less hospitable to us. While this might have happened naturally over the course of thousands or millions of years, we are doing it at a faster rate. Now, the rate at which we reach inhospitable levels is debated by both sides of the argument. Inexplicably the line is drawn on political parties, which should tell us, no matter your affiliation or stance on the issue, that political ideals have taken priority over objective facts in this case. That's pretty foolish of us IMHO. There is something fundamentally wrong here.

Regardless, if we can influence climate change, regardless of how small, why are we okay with making it less hospitable instead of more hospitable? Economy? Convenience? Denial? Difficulty? I think the answer is a personal one.

Ok, let's take "climate change" out of the equation then, because we can't even agree if that is real or not for some reason (ahem, political). Let's just go with something tangible and immediate. I can start my EV in a closed garage and not worry about dying from the exhaust fumes. I can't say the same about an ICE. Doesn't it make sense, then, that we should probably not be pumping it into the air? We live in a closed ecosystem after all. This stuff doesn't just drift off into space, out of sight and out of mind. If we can power EVs with renewable energy without relying on coal, isn't that overall just better for our lungs?

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by jmg

I think it's also worth mentioning that humans live in a very narrow band of time compared to the timeline of Earth. And the Earth has seen a diversity of climate, both hospitable and inhospitable to native life.

So climate change is natural. But the problem is that we are changing it towards a environment that is less hospitable to us. While this might have happened naturally over the course of thousands or millions of years, we are doing it at a faster rate. Now, the rate at which we reach inhospitable levels is debated by both sides of the argument. Inexplicably the line is drawn on political parties, which should tell us, no matter your affiliation or stance on the issue, that political ideals have taken priority over objective facts in this case. That's pretty foolish of us IMHO. There is something fundamentally wrong here.

Regardless, if we can influence climate change, regardless of how small, why are we okay with making it less hospitable instead of more hospitable? Economy? Convenience? Denial? Difficulty? I think the answer is a personal one.

Ok, let's take "climate change" out of the equation then, because we can't even agree if that is real or not for some reason (ahem, political). Let's just go with something tangible and immediate. I can start my EV in a closed garage and not worry about dying from the exhaust fumes. I can't say the same about an ICE. Doesn't it make sense, then, that we should probably not be pumping it into the air? We live in a closed ecosystem after all. This stuff doesn't just drift off into space, out of sight and out of mind. If we can power EVs with renewable energy without relying on coal, isn't that overall just better for our lungs?

And within this narrow time span we have lived, we have flourished in a much more narrow band of climate variability. While hominids are a couple of million years old, Homo sapiens is relatively recent, and our expansion across the globe is even more recent. This has happened during a relatively VERY stable period.

And look what Toba did.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

I might even call it the lesser of two evils.

I could live with that, if we put very high efficiency ICE's and plug in hybrids in the same category. Legislators don't seem to want to do that.

Originally Posted by jmg

I think that has been an incorrect assumption by EV detractorrs. Yes, some people have no clue what the true carbon footprint of an EV really is, but there are actually rational people who drive EVs that are making educated decisions.

Here is ain interesting source for info :

https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-off...ar-calculator/

given the high percentage of EV's charged at night (over 90% in many studies), they are potentially worse than ICE's. They certainly aren't hitting the target many aim for. There was a recent article on the new Hummer EV< it produces more c02 per mile driven than a standard ICE chevy malibu. That is not progress at all

Originally Posted by jmg

False advertising is a real problem, and I've always been wary of false dichotomies. Just because I happen to support the EV doesn't mean I need to accept that the EV will solve all our problems and is without pratfalls. It won't, and it's not, but it has one thing going for it: flexibility.


An ICE has pretty much one source of energy: fossil fuels.

An EV has multiple sources: wind, solar, coal, nuclear etc...

So it really depends on how we source our electricity. With the EV with have choices, some better than others. With the ICE, we really only have one choice.

As I said, it's a step in the right direction, but the flexibility you speak of comes at a cost to the grid and generation sources. People just assume "somebody" will take care of that problem. It's not as simple as they think, and few want to hear what that "somebody" says about making that work in the time frame proposed.

We can regulate ourselves into compliance, but we can't cheat the laws of physics. It will get ugly if we don't align these great ideas.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I could live with that, if we put high efficiency ICE's and plug in hybrids in the same category. Legislators don't seem to want to do that.

I honestly think there will be a shift to allow for that within the legislature.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Here is ain interesting source for info :

https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-off...ar-calculator/

given the high percentage of EV's charged at night (over 90% in many studies), they are potentially worse than ICE's. They certainly aren't hitting the target many aim for.

I skimmed the article. Was there a mention of how night charging affects the efficacy of EVs?

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

There was a recent article on the new Hummer EV< it produces more c02 per mile driven than a standard ICE chevy malibu. That is not progress at all

There will certainly be some vehicles that will be more efficient than others, ICE or EV. What the Hummer is saying is that EVs can still be fun and extreme lifestyle expressions and these types of vehicles will be available even after the ICE ban. There will be much more EV cars similar to the Malibu, then large SUVs like the Hummer. So while the Hummer will still be awful for the environment, we need to compare it to the ICE Hummer and take into consideration that there will be less of them then Chevy Bolts.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

As I said, it's a step in the right direction, but the flexibility you speak of comes at a cost to the grid and generation sources. People just assume "somebody" will take care of that problem. It's not as simple as they think, and few want to hear what that "somebody" says about making that work in the time frame proposed.

We can regulate ourselves into compliance, but we can't cheat the laws of physics. It will get ugly if we don't align these great ideas.

I hear this all the time, but the answer is quite simple if you consider the relationship of supply and demand.

What comes first, supply or demand?

Demand comes first, then supply. That's Economics 101.

If the demand for electricity increases, "someone" will make it because it will be profitable. On the other hand, if there was no ICE ban, then there will likely not be an increase in demand. Why would anyone bank a billion dollar industry on supply, if there is no demand? You need something more concrete. The ICE ban is a pretty concrete way to increase demand.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

I hear this all the time, but the answer is quite simple if you consider the relationship of supply and demand.

What comes first, supply or demand?

Demand comes first, then supply. That's Economics 101.

If the demand for electricity increases, "someone" will make it because it will be profitable. On the other hand, if there was no ICE ban, then there will likely not be an increase in demand. Why would anyone bank a billion dollar industry on supply, if there is no demand? You need something more concrete. The ICE ban is a pretty concrete way to increase demand.

I work on the supply side of this simple equation, there will be a shortage in a lot of areas if we move forward with all these plans as proposed. Shortage = profits to the supplier, and high cost and chaos on the buyer side. That's Economics 102. It's quite simple when the supplier can't ramp up supply as fast as demand rises, and rates increase = higher profits, there is little motive to increase supply as they see diminishing returns when they try to ease shortfalls. These relationships aren't always linear. Will it equalize? probably. How long? I'd hate to guess and I don't want to see what it looks like. Anyone that watches gas process rise and fall understands these simple facts. Even Enron got in on some of that action in the power industry a few decades ago.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

I skimmed the article. Was there a mention of how night charging affects the efficacy of EVs?

The bar charts on that page showed 3 different EV C02 footprints based on 3 different power supply scenarios.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I work on the supply side of this simple equation, there will be a shortage in a lot of areas if we move forward with all these plans as proposed. Shortage = profits to the supplier, and high cost and chaos on the buyer side. That's Economics 102. It's quite simple when the supplier can't ramp up supply as fast as demand rises, and rates increase = higher profits, there is little motive to increase supply as they see diminishing returns when they try to ease shortfalls. These relationships aren't always linear. Will it equalize? probably. How long? I'd hate to guess and I don't want to see what it looks like. Anyone that watches gas process rise and fall understands these simple facts. Even Enron got in on some of that action in the power industry a few decades ago.

Basically what you described is just another economic mechanism that ultimately causes stability, given accurate CVP analysis. The threat of low supply driven high prices affecting total sales must be tangible to maintain a balance of sales, volume, and ultimately profit.

Regardless, this doesn't negate the rule that demand (or the confidence of the future existence of demand) must exist to incentivize production of supply. While high demand and short supply will drive up prices and profit per unit, we all know from history that net profits increase with higher volume, even with smaller margins because high prices limit access/sales.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

The bar charts on that page showed 3 different EV C02 footprints based on 3 different power supply scenarios.

Ahh gotcha. I don't see how night charging affects footprint, but I see what you are saying regarding fuel production for coal and mixed based electricity, which have higher CO2 emissions than an ICE. However, that only emphasizes the use of renewable energy, which, according to the graph, results in less CO2 emissions in fuel production. When taking vehicle production AND disposal, is about even, but less than HALF overall CO2 production through the life cycle of the vehicle including disposal.

Again, I'd like to emphasize the flexibility of the EV, which has 3 options on this graph, while each ICE variation is limited to one each.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The "rate of change" argument came in recently when people like me pointed to facts that the climate changes without influence from human activity.

I don't think rate of change is a "recent" development. Wasn't it always in the essence of what climate change is all along, even if it wasn't expressly said or defined?

Regardless, for argument's sake let's say it is a new argument and we changed what "climate change" means in response to debate. The function of debate and progress is change. Changing ideas to get closer to the "truth". If we never changed our theories, we would still have the same theories we had thousands of years ago. As understanding changes, so do our ideas, and that is the backbone of progress. I can see how some people think that is "back pedalling", and an indication of a weak theory. On the contrary, Science is largely about admitting when we were wrong or not completely right, and then correcting ourselves. That is progress.

After all, once we assume we are 100% right, we are no longer able to learn on that subject. Rigidity is death in more than one sense of the word.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

As with climate models that are devised to predict what the climate will be in 100, 1,000, or 1M years they are no more accurate at predicting the rate of change. All of it is unproven theory. And more of the same "the sky is falling". Using an event like a "historic level of inner land water levels" is compared to what? Geologists believe now the Grand Canyon was formed relatively quickly in geological time.

If we think in broadly without considering the causes, yes, I can see how what you say can makes sense. However:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If there were great rains that flooded Lake Meade and broke the Hoover Dam in the span of 20 years, it would also be blamed on anthropogenic climate change. Anthropogenic climate change and the rate of change causred by it are unknowns because there is not enough imperial data to make such judgments.

Anthropogenic is a complicated term. For instance, let's say we never built the Hoover Dam. Then the "great rains" wouldn't flood Lake Mead since, first of all, Lake Mead is a man-made reservoir, and the water would simply flow down into the Gulf of California instead of building up behind the Dam and being released when it breaks, causing geographical changes from the resulting flooding. So while the rain itself isn't anthropogenic, Lake Mead is, and so would any flood from the Hoover bursting.

Essentially, you overlooked how anthropogenic such an event actually is because you only questioned if the rain itself was anthropogenic, instead of all the components involved in the scenario you described.

So isn't there here is a chance, no matter how small, that there is something that we have possibly overlooked when considering if events are anthropogenic or not, including climate change?

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Ahh gotcha. I don't see how night charging affects footprint, but I see what you are saying regarding fuel production for coal and mixed based electricity, which have higher CO2 emissions than an ICE. However, that only emphasizes the use of renewable energy, which, according to the graph, results in less CO2 emissions in fuel production. When taking vehicle production AND disposal, is about even, but less than HALF overall CO2 production through the life cycle of the vehicle including disposal.

Again, I'd like to emphasize the flexibility of the EV, which has 3 options on this graph, while each ICE variation is limited to one each.

There are different ICE options too, lots of them. They all use petroleum based fuel, but not all are equal in C02 per mile. If California mandated all EV's -or- MPG over 45, then there would be some potential C02 parity but more choice for consumers, and less load/stress on the grid.

Night charging = no solar, which is where most of California's renewable energy comes from. Night charging = not very green energy - mostly carbon. Look at the caliso link I posted a page or so ago and you can see the power mix by the minute in that market.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

There are different ICE options too, lots of them. They all use petroleum based fuel, but not all are equal in C02 per mile. If California mandated all EV's -or- MPG over 45, then there would be some potential C02 parity but more choice for consumers, and less load/stress on the grid.

Lol, I think people would be rioting in the streets if there were hard lined MPG regulations per model as opposed to fuel economy credits!

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Night charging = no solar, which is where most of California's renewable energy comes from. Night charging = not very green energy - mostly carbon. Look at the caliso link I posted a page or so ago and you can see the power mix by the minute in that market.

More and more new residential constructions are already adding solar panels and batteries to their homes. I think in the future, this will be as common as AC units.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Basically what you described is just another economic mechanism that ultimately causes stability, given accurate CVP analysis. The threat of low supply driven high prices affecting total sales must be tangible to maintain a balance of sales, volume, and ultimately profit.

Regardless, this doesn't negate the rule that demand (or the confidence of the future existence of demand) must exist to incentivize production of supply. While high demand and short supply will drive up prices and profit per unit, we all know from history that net profits increase with higher volume, even with smaller margins because high prices limit access/sales.

Recent record profits with record low inventory in the new and used car market seems to be a good example of what happens in the short term. Besides those selling, has anyone else benefited from this market imbalance?

^ this was caused by an inability to produce, not unwillingness. Same will happen in the power industry if we move too much load onto the system too quickly. Scaling such operations takes decades. Will stability ever return? some day. Until then? brownouts and "market adjustment" pricing.

The question is, is it worth it, and if so, does it (demand) have to change that quickly?

[chris719]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Night charging = no solar, which is where most of California's renewable energy comes from. Night charging = not very green energy - mostly carbon. Look at the caliso link I posted a page or so ago and you can see the power mix by the minute in that market.

This is true for the moment, but already Tesla charging station banks in Europe have begun popping up with Powerwall battery installations so they can capture the solar from the day. It won't be long before this is common and distributed.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

More and more new residential constructions are already adding solar panels and batteries to their homes. I think in the future, this will be as common as AC units.

And they will still charge at night, right? It's not just how many watts go into the grid, it's when...

There are times when California is a net exporter of energy, but never at night. If there were a rule that EV's can only be charged by local Solar (your home, or nearby by plant), I'd have no complaints about all cars being converted to EV, effective immediately.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

And they will still charge at night, right? It's not just how many watts go into the grid, it's when...

There are times when California is a net exporter of energy, but never at night. If there were a rule that EV's can only be charged by local Solar (your home, or nearby by plant), I'd have no complaints about all cars being converted to EV, effective immediately.

The solution to that is to buffer with batteries. Everyone with a solar installation does this and knows this. It will come to the grid.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/battery...id-11640082783

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by chris719

This is true for the moment, but already Tesla charging station banks in Europe have begun popping up with Powerwall battery installations so they can capture the solar from the day. It won't be long before this is common and distributed.

It won't be long has been going on a for a long time. When does won't be long arrive?

Before the 2035 mandate, will all Californians have solar and power walls, or is that the part "somebody else" will take care of, "later"... There are ~14 million cars registered, and 2 million new cars per year sold in California alone. That's a lot of power walls to install. They will need to install 150,000 per year, every year to get ready in 13 years. It also takes 5-10 panels per 40 miles driven per car, where will all those panels go?

I mean, we already know we are for sure doing this in 2035 in California, so surely they have all the logistics mapped out, and you guys know what the answers are to how they are going to do all stuff, right?

If not, you see why I have a problem with this plan.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

And they will still charge at night, right? It's not just how many watts go into the grid, it's when...

There are times when California is a net exporter of energy, but never at night. If there were a rule that EV's can only be charged by local Solar (your home, or nearby by plant), I'd have no complaints about all cars being converted to EV, effective immediately.

The batteries will potentially allow for energy captured during the day to be used at night.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

It won't be long has been going on a for a long time. When does won't be long arrive?

Before the 2035 mandate, will all Californians have solar and power walls, or is that the part "somebody else" will take care of, "later"... There are ~14 million cars registered, and 2 million new cars per year sold in California alone. That's a lot of power walls to install. They will need to install 150,000 per year, every year to get ready in 13 years. It also takes 5-10 panels per 40 miles driven per car, where will all those panels go?

I mean, we already know we are for sure doing this in 2035 in California, so surely they have all the logistics mapped out, and you guys know what the answers are to how they are going to do all stuff, right?

If not, you see why I have a problem with this plan.

The mandate puts a clock on the plan. That's the point.