Almost all major industrial countries plan to ban ICE car sales by mid-2030s, some as early as 2025 (Norway). California's plan is not particularly ambitious.
Yes, the city I'm living in is planning to do so also, it's one of the biggest french cities.
My biggest issue with it is there is no plan to help poor people who will need to buy a new car or they won't be able to drive anymore in the city. Those policies must happen fast, but we should not sacrifice poor people to do so.
Sales of EVs will continue, old gasoline cars will still exist. Then there's biking, walking, public transit, and living closer to your day-to-day needs. If anything this will help the poor.
Here's a better thing to think about: why do we as a society in various countries require poor people to buy a car in order to participate in society? Maybe instead of doing that, we should treat cars as luxury objects and an after-thought and instead actually build correctly and in a equitable and afforable way?
>"why do we as a society in various countries require poor people to buy a car in order to participate in society?"
I believe this framing is wrong. "Participating in society" is a loaded term because it is so ambiguous. I believe the truth of the matter is the owning a vehicle enables so much more movement and activity.
>"Maybe instead of doing that, we should treat cars as luxury objects and an after-thought and instead actually build correctly and in a equitable and affordable way?"
I get the sentiment, but I find it to be glib because it glosses over why this would be so hard to implement, and how we got to this situation in the first place. In a way, it seems like "Instead of things being bad, why don't we make things good?"
I don't think it's too ambiguous. If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. There is no alternative whatsoever. That's how our cities in America are designed and how a huge number of people live their day to day lives.
> why this would be so hard to implement
I definitely agree that it's hard to implement, but that's because of design and special interests in not implementing it. It would be cheaper for sure. You can think through it yourself because cities a long time ago (which were less complex and had less access to technology) built this way, and then as they "progressed" they built more difficult to build and more complex highways, cars, and roads. So it's easier to implement walkable cities and neighborhoods almost by definition because that's what was built first.
>"If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. If I want to do anything related to society in the physical world I have to own a car and drive somewhere. There is no alternative whatsoever. "
I take challenge with this because it is hyperbolic. It is one thing to say mass transit is insufficient, but to claim there are no alternatives whatsoever is flat-out wrong. And, the claim that someone has to own a car in order to "do anything related to society in the physical world" is just as bad. People absolutely manage without this, and it also discounts all the mass transit options you already support and want to see expand.
Part of what upsets me so much about the car-critical movement is how fast and loose people play with words.
I live in the suburbs in Lewis Center, Ohio. If I want to get a coffee? I have to get in my car and drive somewhere. Groceries? Same. Gym? Well I built one in my garage, but same thing. Doctor? Off and away I go in a car. I can walk over to this pizza place, but doing so is dangerous because I have to cross a high-traffic road with a 45 mph speed limit. Very few people do it, though I do see teenagers cross the highway from time to time with skateboards and such like it's Frogger.
There isn't just no mass transit, there isn't any transit at all. There aren't any bus stops, there are no bike lanes, there's no train (and never will be) you are stuck in suburban islands where the primary way of getting from one to the other involves a rather ridiculous walk or just literally running multiple lanes of traffic.
So please don't suggest that I'm being hyperbolic or loose and fast with words here. This is what reality looks like for where I live and for many millions of Americans.
Your clarification is helpful and if you had mentioned the context of your location I would not have considered it hyperbolic. You do indeed live in an area where what you mentioned is true. Without mentioning a specific locale the context seemed as if you were making an assertion at-large.
Of course every square inch of America isn't like this, but I think enough of it is that it's a pretty substantial problem - at least from what I've visited.
> I believe the truth of the matter is the owning a vehicle enables so much more movement and activity.
So it's then fair to say that our society is built around motor vehicle ownership and that an inability to afford one excludes you from all that our society has to offer?
Sibling comment points out Chevy Bolt MSRP $25,600.
Legislation (Inflation Reduction Act) passed this month allows the full federal EV tax credit on the Bolt again as of Jan 1 2023, so subtract $7,500.
California EV tax credit of an additional $2000 (income under $135K single, $200K joint)
There are additional regional EV credits in certain California metro areas that can further discount the price by hundreds or thousands.
So, price for any low to mid income Californian will be a maximum of $16,100.
And, there is an additional program for low income folks in California that provides grants toward EV purchases (new and used). This program is severely underfunded and (temporarily) closed to new applicants since March 2022.
Purchase price after incentives is roughly at parity with an equivalent ICE vehicle.
Current lack of charging infrastructure for apartment renters who park on the street seems a bigger hurdle, to me.
No, the joke is taxing poor people (and everyone, frankly) with mandatory car purchases.
If you can't walk or bike to work, your society has failed to build affordable housing relative to low to moderate incomes, or it has failed in urban planning. It's certainly one of those two.
Obviously there exclusings for people such as farmers or if you actively choose to live far away from your job, but in doing so you should directly feel that cost with high purchase prices for a vehicle (which means you'll also repair it, right to repair and all right?), high fuel tax, and extreme inconvenience if you are driving to a city.
Ultimately economic physics will dictate this reality, no new technology will "save us" in time before costs become too extreme for this car-centric lifestyle to continue. I'm just hoping there isn't too much damage done to human civilization via resource conflicts and that we survive our stupidity.
And the irony here is that you're complaining about taxing the poor while living in an affluent suburb. Unless you still live with your parents, you chose to live in a part of the city with expensive housing and no public transportation.
Move to Franklinton and you'll have buses and scooters and no need to own a car. Most of my neighbors have cars but they don't use them most days. I bike to the gym and all of downtown. I do take my car grocery shopping (carry bags on bus or scooter sucks) and to work (when I go) but that's it. I enjoy cars but I avoid driving out of obligation.
The lifestyle you chose is car-centric but you chose it, and I think that's a very important detail.
> And the irony here is that you're complaining about taxing the poor while living in an affluent suburb.
I'm not sure how this is ironic. Maybe you mean how poor voters tend to vote against their own self-interest?
> The lifestyle you chose is car-centric but you chose it, and I think that's a very important detail.
We're moving to GV next month specifically to move away from this lifestyle and we only have one car that we share. Economic freedom dictates what decisions you make at different points in time.
FWIW you can criticize something that you yourself are doing, especially when you are fighting against all societal incentives at the same time. A trivial example is an overweight physician suggesting that you need to lose weight.
If we're still talking Columbus, almost all incentives for housing are geared only toward a car-centric lifestyle. I'm not going to criticize people for choosing that. I am going to raise awareness that continuing to push those incentives is a bad idea and highlight the continued unnecessary costs for doing so.
You are arguing for the perfect over the good. Transitioning from gas to electric fuel in cars is hard but achievable in 15 years. Reconfiguring the built environment for the entire country is unachievable.
You can do all of those at once. For example, you can just transition ICE to EV. Set that aside.
Reconfiguring the built environment is not only achievable but has been done in the past. You can take a look at Amsterdam as an example. Look at pictures from the 70s or so and then look at it today.
You also don't have to "reconfigure" the environment. We could just stop building new highways and eliminate minimum parking spot requirements. We can change our zoning laws to allow for more medium-density. In Columbus, where I live we have a street called High Street that runs north/south and connects all of the walkable areas of the city and Ohio State University. It's relatively easy to just run a tram right down the road there and displace car traffic. There are low-hanging fruit. It's way cheaper than rebuilding highways which we do all the time, and if we can do that we can reconfigure whatever we want.
There are a lot of things we can do.
Starting from a point of defeatism is not something that's compatible with how I personally operate.
Example of an "extremely nice new ICE for significantly less than" the $25-27k others have mentioned in this thread?
The cheapest new cars I can find (in the US) are $16k for the Mitsubishi Mirage G4 and $20k for the Toyota Corolla. I certainly don't think the Mirage qualifies as "extremely nice". I think Toyota makes fantastic cars and the Corolla is all the vehicle most people could ever really need, but honestly, I still think "extremely nice" might be pushing it.
By the way, what are the consequences for these unrealistic timelines? Some people like to pretend like the sky is falling and we'll have hundreds of thousands of people walking along the side of highways to get to work like some post-apocalyptic wasteland. But the reality is, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Timelines get changed all the time. It's a step. A best effort.
Also, it’s not like new(ish) ICE cars won’t make it into the California market after this change goes into effect. Arizona is right next door, and cars can be imported between states (assuming that they do not prevent this from happening). Plus, over 10 years a used car market will develop in EVs, along with supporting industries like battery reconditioning and replacement.
With averagenew car price being $48k as of 2022 according to Kelly Blue Book, that is just how much new cars cost these days, EV or otherwise. The same report says average price of an EV is $66k, but my point is that new cars got expensive at some point.
So bottom of the barrel compact style cars that you can buy new as ICE for like 12-15k with far more range.
I know because my wife owns one, it gets 40mpg. Like I said, I'm excited for these new offerings. But acting like they are competitive on pricing or will be soon is just not realistic.
"Bottom of the barrel" is a bit of a stretch. These cars have more chips in them than nearly any car on the road, with things like touch screens and Apple CarPlay to boot. It's important to remember the discussion context here: new cars. Does your wife's 40 mpg car have Apple CarPlay and a touch screen? And was it $12-15k brand new? If so, I'd like to buy one.
"Well new EVs cost 40-60k"
You've now been presented with information that shows otherwise.
Walking is free. A bike is like a couple hundred bucks max. Sidewalks and bike lanes are way cheaper on your taxes than major highways, associated traffic fatalities (all the young people dying before they can contribute to society), insurance, maintenance, and all of that. There's simply no cost argument to be had.
You're talking about comparing EVs to ICE on cost when neither are cost effective. They're both the wrong answer.
And if you can't walk or bike? There are people who don't have that option; but, they can operate a motor vehicle -- do they just stay home?
I'm all for walking and biking. I didn't own a car for 19 years and that's how I got around. Now, having lost my right leg, I can't conceive of walking a couple of miles, which was never an issue. Riding a bike doesn't seem likely, although I haven't ruled it out. A car with modified controls is an option; but, those costs add to the cost of a vehicle.
> A car with modified controls is an option; but, those costs add to the cost of a vehicle.
How is that any different than today?
> And if you can't walk or bike? There are people who don't have that option; but, they can operate a motor vehicle -- do they just stay home?
Sorry you lost a leg, but I think you could understand that I would maintain what I'm advocating for which would be that you using a motor vehicle for legitimate needs doesn't mean everyone should have to use one for their day-to-day needs.
While I don't have any sort of clear statistics here, if you can't walk or bike I'd imagine many also can't or shouldn't be driving. There are solutions here, including mobility services. Leaping toward "well I have a physical condition that mostly requires me to use a car therefore everyone should have to use a car for their needs as well" doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
To add, I think as we're talking about people for whom walking and biking is difficult we also forget people for whom driving is difficult or unrealistic. The elderly in particular, those with other medical conditions, etc. You might say, yes we should solve that problem too. And I agree, but what I'd say is that society right now is 100% car-first everything and does not even attempt to address the concerns of these people either. Should they just stay home too?
On a lighter note, I've heard many people who have experienced the loss of a limb do well on bikes. I hope that's something you could try and find enjoyment out of if you so choose. Best of luck there. Sincerely.
The way I read your initial comment, it was advocating just getting rid of most cars. It's an anti-car attitude I've seen a lot, especially among hardcore cyclists. I've never understood it, even as I spent 19 years dodging traffic in Washington, DC. If I misread your tone, I apologize.
>On a lighter note, I've heard many people who have experienced the loss of a limb do well on bikes. I hope that's something you could try and find enjoyment out of if you so choose. Best of luck there. Sincerely.
Although I've gotten rid of several, I still have four bikes. I would like to ride again; but, I don't know if it's going to happen. If I do, it's for transportation; so, a prosthetic foot that clips in might not be practical if I am riding to the store or running errands. I may need a socket more suitable to riding than walking. More than anything, though, I worry that I won't be able to keel down and change a tire, out on the road. We'll see, it has not been a year yet.
Avoid Necrotizing Fasciitis and Sepsis, nothing good can come out of that combo. (Losing my leg was not the worst thing that happened that day.)
> The way I read your initial comment, it was advocating just getting rid of most cars. It's an anti-car attitude I've seen a lot, especially among hardcore cyclists. I've never understood it, even as I spent 19 years dodging traffic in Washington, DC. If I misread your tone, I apologize.
No need to apologize, just having a fun discussion :)
I'd say my stance is more so removing the need to have a car for most of your day-to-day activities. Instead of having to drive literally everywhere as many (most?) Americans do, being able to walk, bike, or use another transit option to do 90% or so of your day-to-day routine tasks. Cars aren't going anywhere, but we could design and build cities better such that we don't focus on cars at the expense of everything else. I'm also worried about this because the economic physics of using a 2,000lb vehicle to drive a mile down the road for a loaf of bread (which I am guilty of) simply will not make sense in the future. We might get away with it at a higher cost if we are mostly EV and have substantial cheap nuclear energy (pending a new technology breakthrough), but as things stand today it's incredibly wasteful and won't last.
> Avoid Necrotizing Fasciitis
I have recent (last couple of months) personal experience with this with an immediate family member. I am incredibly sorry that you had to experience this disease.
That's a great fantasy you have there. The reality is that is not how the U.S. is built, nor will it be for a century or more. In fact the poor have to drive more because they can't afford to live close to work.
Personally I work from home but make a good living. My poor relative has to drive 90 minutes to his minimum wage job in the city. It's really unfortunate.
It means different things to different people, but what I mean by it is building cities and designing transit in a way that provides opportunities for people of different income levels, careers, and capabilities. If you're a WFH mom you should also be able to walk your kids to school. If you're a painter you should be able to hop on a tram or ride your bike over to your studio. If you're a white-collar software engineer and you make a ton of money, you probably have a larger house but you live in the same neighborhood and you go the same coffee shop as someone who works at a warehouse or helps take care of older people.
One of the contributing factors to racism and bigotry in America at least that we have stratified society and locked everyone into homes out in the suburbs where they don't interact with people from other socioeconomic classes, different ideas, or different life stages. It's easy to hate people when you read about them on the Internet. It's nearly impossible to do so when you see them at the park with their children living the American dream just like you.
Others may have different interpretations and such, but that's what it means to me in an over-simplified nut shell.
No, not at all. Just building more housing and a variety (single family homes, townhomes, etc.) of it (no need for skyscraper condos) and not building highways and focusing on car-first infrastructure at all costs. You don't need any mandates. Things like removing mandatory parking minimums for a building would be an example. No new highway construction would be another.
I wonder if this will end up being like the "Yank Tank" phenomenon in Cuba. If purchasing a replacement ICE automobile is out of the question, people will go to great lengths to keep the grandfathered ones in working condition.
The old Yank Tanks are simple and easy to service with some basic mechanical skill and tools. Spare parts can even be fabricated if necessary. But ICE vehicles built in the last couple decades have become exponentially more complex. They're more reliable, but also more fragile and harder to repair. This is particularly a problem for proprietary electronic parts such as control modules. Once replacement parts are no longer available from the manufacturer it will become impractical to keep those ICE cars running.
Given that electric cars are already cheaper to run than ICE cars, especially older and less efficient ICE cars, the transition should be net positive for poorer people. I'm being somewhat panglossian here of course, but lower fuelling and maintenance costs have the potential to help, not hinder. We just have to get there.
No policy should make it easier to buy a car, even an EV. We want to get rid of cars in cities.
People who can't afford an EV can get a bicycle (electric even). Actually that's what those cities want most people to do, even those who can afford an EV. The government doesn't owe a car to anyone.
> “California will now be the only government in the world that mandates zero-emission vehicles. It is unique.”
Yeah, I found this suspicious, too. I watch plenty of UK motoring shows and I thought new ICE vehicles were banned as of 2030 or 2035 already.
EDIT: Nevermind, found it much further down in the article.
>The governments of Canada, Britain and at least nine other European countries — including France, Spain and Denmark — have set goals of phasing out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles between 2030 and 2040. But none have concrete mandates or regulations like the California rule.
>If anything, America is lagging behind the trend.
America is in the unenviable position of having banked their entire postwar modern infrastructure on cheap oil, miles of superhighways, and the internal combustion engine.
but how will they deal with the additional surge on the already stressed grid and no water?
this is national virtue signaling and there's no way that ICE cars are going away. I know several people who sold their electric cars and are back to ICE because these electric cars struggle during cold weather, snow, and uphills. Not everybody lives in a flat terrain
ICE cars are not going away unless they are able to suddenly produce EV in such massive numbers that it will become cheaper than ICE AND handle the load on the grid.
EVs struggle in mountainous and cold weather regions which Japan and South Korea regularly go through. On top of that there is a growing water shortage which means the nuclear power plants being built will be capped.
All of this weird wokeness and virtue signaling is only making the world a worse place. The bulk of the co2 production comes from countries that make cheap goods for Californians and in wealthy nations. But you won't give up your goods now for a better world right? It has to be the talking points by ESG lobbyist and corporate interest.
What a sad pathetic world. At this rate MIT is dead on money about society collapsing.
> this is national virtue signaling and there's no way that ICE cars are going away.
Germany is planning to ban new ICE sales by 2030. Japan and South Korea, 2035. You can keep saying "they are not going away," but the truth is that they are going away, whether California bans them or not. Sooner or later, there will be no BMW, no Toyota, and no Hyundai that's running on gas. You may be able to buy a Ford a bit longer, but in a world where your potential ICE car market is dwindling year by year, production of an ICE vehicle will increasingly look like... "virtue signaling." Companies won't be able to make money from that, so they'll stop.
So, in the grand scheme of things, California is not in a position to make an independent decision anyway. But I'd say California is still right in making these decisions now, even from a purely economical point of view, because when the whole industry shifts you want your country to be on the right side of it.
Thermal power plants require water for cooling. We're probably going to need additional nuclear plants to meet base load demand since there's no realistic prospect of building enough grid storage capacity to fill that need with solar and wind power. If we can't rely on water flows in the major rivers then that limits our options for nuclear plant sites.
This is aspirational virtue signaling and everyone knows it won't happen by the deadline.
If the state government was serious about this, they would be installing chargers all over the place.
I think there is a significant chance that a backlash against this kind of coercion will reduce support for climate policy as a whole and will ultimately be counterproductive for efforts to reduce emissions.
> If the state government was serious about this, they would be installing chargers all over the place.
Seen the charger network in California lately? They’re… quite widespread. And the state is definitely helping with infill to keep adding more. The state is even adding them to rest stops, which is unusual in California since rest stops here are normally very nearly free of any services or amenities.
So yes, they’re serious, and yes, they’re doing exactly what you suggested they’d be doing if they were, and have been for years now.
I live in California and the charger network is barely adequate for the current number of electric cars. If everyone had them, there would be hours-long lines for chargers.
Electric cars are still a luxury for people who have dedicated parking spaces with chargers at home, and the voters all know it.
By the way, I am not against electric cars. I own one. I'm just being realistic about their practicality for the general population.
It is not cheap for them to build. It requires a lot of capacity to put a charger in every space. It often requires upgrading the entire electrical system for the property, trenching across parking lots, etc.
Also, many of the current residents in an HOA will oppose the project because it will cost them money but they themselves would not benefit because they don't have electric cars.
I think the common misconception here is that chargers are often compared to gas pumps. Do you visit the gas pump every day with your car? Most people don't. Most EV owners charge at home, often during night hours, to take advantage of cheaper TOU electricity rates.
The clear difference here is that with an EV, you can wake up every morning with a "full tank". That eliminates the need to use a public charger unless you 1) forgot to charge 2) are on a road trip or 3) drive a lot. The average commute is ~15 miles the last I checked, so I think #3 will happen, but it won't be very common.
tldr: You can't really leave for your destination in an ICE with a full tank. With an EV, you can.
I guess that’s one way to label a goal. If they can’t make the deadline, should this be backed off or canceled? FWIW it does seem like chargers are showing up all over the place.
I’m not sure I understand why, can you elaborate? Laws set standards and protect us, and we know they work even when they’re a blunt instrument. Seat belts took mandated action when lawmakers recognized that safety was more important than choice. Emissions and fuel economy standards are valuable. These are all things I agree with as a citizen and I’m glad that the government demands it of car companies. History is as likely to show this new one is as good an idea as the previous laws, and future generations will have the luxury of believing it was inevitable.
Basically laws should be followed, they should be serious, they should be real. A law shouldn't be aspirational and people shouldn't go well that is a good goal to set.
All emissions and pollution and environmental laws are both aspirational and serious/real, so I still don’t understand your point. Why shouldn’t laws be aspirational? I disagree with that notion. Setting goals and standards is one of the biggest reasons laws exist.
>If the state government was serious about this, they would be installing chargers all over the place.
Just a reminder for everyone, the average car on the road is over a decade old. Since this ban only applies to new cars, electric cars are unlikely to be a majority on the road until the 2040s possibly even the 2050s as maintaining old gasoline cars will become more desirable the harder they are to purchase new. There is plenty of time to build out the charging infrastructure and chargers will naturally be built in larger numbers as demand for them increases.
I have no idea why you'd be this cynical. New cars only 13 years from now is not an ambitious goal at all and totally doable. They did pretty well with toxic emissions. When I was a kid, it was a pretty regular thing to see recess and outdoor sports canceled and children not allowed to play outside because of "smog days" where the air wasn't even safe to breathe. You don't see that kind of thing happen any more and it really didn't take that long.
Perhaps, but they are not banning gas stations or driving gasoline cars. So, the infrastructure does not all have to be in place for all drivers by then. Question is, will EVs actually be affordable by then. The vehicle repair market for gasoline vehicles might get a decent boost.
The first target seems reasonable, as an extension of the current ZEV percentage trend. Setting targets also helps alleviate market uncertainty around large transitions like this.
The state is taking steps to develop and expand charging infrastructure, both through extensive funding of utility-side upgrades, building standards and codes, as well as grants and tax incentives. <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ELEC?state=CA">Here</a> is an overview if you are interested.
We don't live in a technocratic dictatorship. The fact that a technology exists does not give government the right to shove it down everyone's throats.
This is going to result in a voter backlash if they really try to force it through. And that backlash could very easily result in a backlash against climate policy in general, especially if the left follows their normal habit of responding with even more strident moralizing rather than compromising with a more incremental approach.
I'd argue that the technology isn't the problem; the costs are currently the problem.
We're now starting to see affordable EVs (e.g. Bolt EV/EUV) but one of the ways they keep costs down is making a trade-off for slower charging making road trips painful (and limiting their mass appeal).
And while costs are coming down, demand is also shooting up as multiple countries/areas roll out EV mandates and incentives. The high[er] demand is offsetting low[er] costs.
Whatever governments decide, you will not be able to buy a gasoline car after 2030 because the car manufacturers do not want to make them.
A gasoline car will not be able to compete with an electric car in terms of performance and cost. The only reason electric cars are more expensive than gasoline cars is because of the lower production volumes at the moment + the car manufacturers can charge a premium for an electric car at the moment.
Charging stations will be available everywhere. It's fairly easy and cheap to install and consumers will require it from the restaurants, stores, municipalities etc. It's a selling point and also a source of additional income.
(I'm talking consumer cars here, not some heavy duty vehicles or other special vehicles which might still benefit from a combustion engine).
> The only reason electric cars are more expensive than gasoline cars is because of the lower production volumes at the moment
This is not true, it is because the battery costs 10's of thousands of dollars. It costs Tesla around $200/kwh to build a battery, and it's batteries go between 50kwh ($10,000) and 100kwh ($20,000). This is the estimated cost to manufacture just the battery. Meanwhile you can buy a Chevy Spark for $15,000 retail.
The truth is that the only reason there are any substantial sales of electric cars is huge government subsidies. In the long run this will change, battery cost will go down, but also the subsidies will go away. It is likely that if there is no fundamental cost floor to the batteries that prevents it, electric cars will end up cheaper to manufacture in the long run because they are simpler and have less parts. They are certainly going to be cheaper to maintain and more reliable. However, that is in the long run, the things you are saying are not true yet and there's no reliable way to know when they are likely to become true.
As the charging time for EV batteries has gone down dramatically ( currently fast charging to 80% capacity in 20-30 minutes), there is no need to have such big batteries anymore. They could be reduced in half for many use cases.
In addition, the motors are often way too powerful and can be made smaller.
And then if there would be further issues with cost, the size of the car could easily be reduced. It's quite ridiculous to make big SUV's which don't fit more people and load than a more traditional car. It will regulate itself, based on cost of raw materials. And hopefully governments will at least provide incentives to steer it towards smaller cars (for example more tax on big and heavy vehicles).
The subsidies do not change the cost of the car for the buyer. With subsidies, it just allows the car manufacturers to charge a higher price. If the subsidies would be taken away, the car manufacturers would decrease their prices.
> As the charging time for EV batteries has gone down dramatically ( currently fast charging to 80% capacity in 20-30 minutes), there is no need to have such big batteries anymore. They could be reduced in half for many use cases.
Good luck selling a car with a 50 mile range. You won't sell many.
> In addition, the motors are often way too powerful and can be made smaller.
Ok this is the comment that made me realize you literally have no idea what you are talking about. The motors are used to capture energy while breaking, if you can't capture energy because you are maxing out the smaller motors you lose that energy. That's why the motors are the size they are, the high performance is just a benefit of that requirement.
> And then if there would be further issues with cost, the size of the car could easily be reduced.
This is irrelevant.
> The subsidies do not change the cost of the car for the buyer. With subsidies, it just allows the car manufacturers to charge a higher price.
Again this is false, that is not how pricing of goods works. You have to price your widget to sell on the market, not just to hit some hypothetical price you think it is worth. The subsidies don't let them raise prices because they are competing with other cars, not just with their own hypothetical price.
> Good luck selling a car with a 50 mile range. You won't sell many.
Where did you get that 50 mile range from?
> Again this is false, that is not how pricing of goods works. You have to price your widget to sell on the market, not just to hit some hypothetical price you think it is worth. The subsidies don't let them raise prices because they are competing with other cars, not just with their own hypothetical price.
When the market is balanced you might be right, but when there if higher demand than supply, which is the case at the moment, then there is no need for the suppliers to lower the prices. They can keep the subsidies in their pocket without passing it on as they cannot sell/produce enough cars anyway.
What is so bad about a neologism that captures an observable behavior in fewer words than a winded description? If you were to describe what appears to be an instance of 'virtue signalling' using existing a term like 'insincerity', 'grandstanding', or 'hypocrisy', you would probably get a lot of agreement.
>If you were to describe what appears to be an instance of 'virtue signalling' using existing a term like 'insincerity', 'grandstanding', or 'hypocrisy', you would probably get a lot of agreement.
Setting goals with timelines is not insincere, grandstanding, or hypocritical.
Nor is wearing clean clothes and brushing your hair.
But both setting goals and wearing clean clothes can be described as "virtue signaling".
>"Setting goals with timelines is not insincere, grandstanding, or hypocritical."
Having a timeline is not the main issue, the issue is that the timeline seems aggressive and the perception is that there isn't enough to enable this transition. It is like how a politician campaigns on reducing the deficit or 'reforming education' but there is little substance or viability with their stance.
>"Nor is wearing clean clothes and brushing your hair."
I do not know how this entered the comparison but no one would consider this virtue signalling.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of municipalities around the world which have all set the virtually identical targets.
>I do not know how this entered the comparison but no one would consider this virtue signalling.
They are literally, in the literal sense of the word literal, definition-matching actions to the phrase "virtue signaling".
>the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
Clean clothes: I can afford to, have the time to, and the will to bathe and wash which are morally correct things to do and which reflect my good character when it comes to cleanliness in society.
>"They are literally, in the literal sense of the word literal, definition-matching actions to the phrase "virtue signaling".
And this is the definition you shared:
"the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue."
Emphasis mine, wearing clean clothes and grooming is not publicly expressing opinions and sentiments about one's own good character.
The term "virtue signaling" has always confused me. Doing anything is better than doing nothing. I suppose you think California is doing nothing though.
Regardless, I prefer seeing "virtue signaling" over "vice signaling" — for example: "Drill Baby Drill".
Not if it distracts from accomplishing things that actually matter. Think about plastic straw madness. They take up very little room in landfills. By volume they make up very little of ocean waste. And if you get a plastic straw at a restaurant that isn't on the beach, it is hard to even imagine how it would get in the ocean. Yet society moved mountains to stop using plastic straws. What is the cost of creating these mostly-unnecessary alternatives? What could people have done with their time that would have been more productive?
That was not a virtue signal nor demand. Media picked up cute kid asking to do good, companies found away to reduce costs for their profits. Most states and cities banned plastic bags, but the straw was corporate greenwashing
Virtue signaling is typically used to mean one of a few things. These are my own rough definitions:
"Saying virtuous sounding things without any intention of acting in accordance with those virtues."
(I don't think that's what's happening here)
"Saying virtuous sounding things that are so in line with the virtues of the zeitgeist that they take no moral fortitude to say."
I think that this is closer to what they meant. It's not necessarily a valid criticism in this case, but I hope you understand how people could find it off-putting when people signal their virtue in the couple of ways I mentioned.
Right. The claim of "virtue signalling" makes a pejorative from an activity that is virtuous of all things.
If the point is to question the reasoning behind the act, the act is still virtuous regardless. If the problem is it won't work well or well enough, how strange that typically no plausible better path is never suggested. Well other the implied - do nothing.
To go with the quintessential virtue signaling example: If someone says "black lives matter," what are people meant to make of that? I know the snarky response is to say that it means that "black lives matter," but what does that really mean?
Decoupled from any course of actions being prescribed, for the majority of people that statement is synonymous with saying "I'm a good person." This is why many people, irrespective of political affiliation, are somewhat disgusted by others publicly signalling their support for Latest Thing™. If the context in which you say something is virtually consequence-free, you're saying something so in line with the moral zeitgeist of the time, and virtually nothing will change as a consequence of you saying it, people will be often be disgusted.
To get to the equally important part of what you said, though, is that
> the act is still virtuous regardless. If the problem is it won't work well or well enough, how strange that typically no plausible better path is never suggested
There are a few things wrong with this statement. If a guy goes to a "pussy hat" march with the intention of getting girls, are you confident in calling that "virtuous regardless?" The virtue of a thing is often inextricably linked to the motive, and you're dismissing motive out of hand.
Secondly, you're saying that no better paths are suggested. Let's go back to BLM and try to map that onto a suggested course of action. When the subset of people who say those words mean something beyond "I'm a good person," they will often say them to mean "defund the police, adjust all systems so that they produce outcomes proportional to racial populations (irrespective of inputs), bring race to the forefront of all interactions and identities." You seem perfectly content to write that off as just a universally virtuous course of actions. You also seem perfectly content suggesting that no alternative has been suggested. Well here is my alternative: "Equip all police with mandatory use body cameras, remove loopholes through which they're not held accountable for breaking the law, remove race as a parameter for any decision making process, de-emphasize race as much as possible for all interactions and identities." It's the near polar opposite.
TL;DR
1. Virtue is linked to motive in many (most) peoples' analyses.
2. Actions are rarely, if ever, universally regarded as virtuous, or the proper course of action
> If someone says "black lives matter," what are people meant to make of that? I know the snarky response is to say that it means that "black lives matter," but what does that really mean?
That shouldn't really need explaining, but since you ask, in many scenarios black people are treated as if they matter less than other people. In the justice system. By the police. Education. Employment opportunities. It's a declaration that black people matter as much as anybody else.
There is more to it than that. I can't claim to be an expert. In principal the idea seems pretty simple though.
> Decoupled from any course of actions being prescribed, for the majority of ....
I'm not sure what any of that means. The zeitgeist you say? The latest thing (TM)? You seem to think "Black Live Matters" is some kind of unknowable thing, but now your using terms that super nebulous and hardly likely to be broadly agreed upon.
> There are a few things wrong with this statement. If a guy goes to a "pussy hat" march with the intention of getting girls, are you confident in calling that "virtuous regardless?" The virtue of a thing is often inextricably linked to the motive, and you're dismissing motive out of hand.
It is arguably less virtuous. But the guy still did a virtuous thing in helping the people on the march at least in the eyes of the people on the march presumably.
> Secondly, you're saying that no better paths are suggested.
Yes. Generally speaking.
> Let's go back to BLM and try to map that onto a suggested course of action.
No lets not.
The article is about electric vehicles. So now is an opportunity for you to suggest a better path. You have not.
Moreover the example you use BLM? I mean you claim to not to really know what it means. If you don't know what it means it's hard to take the rest of it very seriously.
> 1. Virtue is linked to motive in many (most) peoples' analyses.
Therein lies part of the rub with "virtual signaling" concept. To invoke it assumes you know what the motivation is.
> 2. Actions are rarely, if ever, universally regarded as virtuous, or the proper course of action
FWIW I just got an EV - Chevy Bolt. The car is quiet and performant. It probably costs $12 to "fill up". And I realize how little I actually drive- the range of 260+ miles is more than enough unless I'm going to take a large road trip.
I've wanted an EV for a while. The Bolt is very competitively priced right now.
I hope more people hop on the EV train. Every little bit counts. While I do not like regulation, I see more and more giant cars on the road, and it kindof makes me sad that this is the direction people seem to continue to be going.
In SoCal I pay, at most, 28¢/kWh, but usually ~20¢/kWh with Time of Use [1]. You configure the car and/or EVSE to only charge at night when electricity is cheapest.
For the past year, we've had a PG&E time of use plan, which is cheaper after 9pm, when we charge our car.
According to PG&E's online tool, we save about $20/year on our bill compared with the regular tariff. But we could save an additional $35/year if we were to switch to the plan that's specifically for EV owners.
I haven't verified these numbers myself, but I was surprised they're so low. Perhaps it's because we don't drive a lot.
Short answer is yes, current grid is capable of handling demand of everyone getting electric cars. It will add around 10% extra demand during off peak hours so no new generation/transmission capacity is necessary.
Obviously there could be local needs (like old apartment building with original electric wires from 1930) but nothing major.
When do most people charge their cars? If it's when they get home from work, they'd be adding to grid load at peak times. Although maybe cars are smart enough to wait until 5am to start charging
Demand response EV charging is already widespread.
The general rule for most people with EVs and a place to charge at home is just to always plug it in when they get home, with charge settings (battery charge limit, scheduled departure time etc.) set on the car or using the car's app.
In addition, utilities in almost every grid that has capacity issues - Texas, California, downstate NY - offer heavily subsidized or free 240v Level 2 smart chargers that are enrolled in demand response programs.
So you get home at 5pm in July, plugin to your utility provided charger. Demand response will prevent charging until 7pm when the peak passes. You can override it, but if you observe the curtailment you receive either a credit on your bill or a reduced rate for off-peak charging.
Cars are smart enough. My 2022 Mini Cooper SE lets you set or schedule departure time. Most new electric cars let you set desired charge level as well, and will delay charging until it's needed.
Most vehicles/chargers have the ability to optimize for using off-peak hours (and if a utility financially incentivizes using power in those hours, users tend to use that capability).
There are options to set your charge time in the cars so you can choose your times. They can also do it intelligently too, like start charging at a time so that it's full by 7AM.
Almost all EVs come with built in charging schedule settings and people use them because the alternative is throwing money at your utility company to charge during peak hours for no reason. You just plug it in and wake up charged in the morning.
This study [0] suggests that depending on adoption rates, the induced demand from commuting alone would be closer to 35-45%. The authors don't address how challenging scaling generation by that much would be, however.
Another article [1] suggests that it's not actually raw generation that will be the constraining factor, but actually power quality -- the authors suggest that cleaning and converting the power for high-voltage DC charging could be a much bigger task than scaling generation.
You think Europe is setup to handle this? Have you seen the electricity prices in Germany??? They are barely able to keep the street lights on, and struggling with the current EV usage. Not only that most Europeans are not rich and they would struggle with even more power being spent on EV charging.
Short answer is yes, current grid is capable of handling demand of everyone getting electric cars.
Horseshit. At current adoption rates states will have no troubles expanding power generation to keep up but instantly transforming every vehicle into a BeV would require nearly 50% more generational capability than we currently have.
A lot of these replies certainly amaze me. The infrastructure for gasoline is under constant maintenance and construction: rail cars spill oil, trucks have to be driven by humans, pipelines take maintenance, gasoline has to be refined at a small number of places, gas pumps at stations have to be constantly inspected etc. etc. Electricity also has maintenance, but the grid already exists and will continue to, and access exists almost everywhere. High speed car chargers require a fair amount of investment, but for apartment dwellers etc. slower speed chargers where parking exists would be fairly easy to add. Cars are also interesting in that they store power in a battery, so can be charged whenever electricity is most available or cheapest.
I suppose there are people who regularly drive more than the long-range vehicles currently available, but last time I took a long road trip I rented a car instead of taking one of my ICE vehicles. For me the future is definitely electric, and I'll have a charger at my house, and probably solar.
The interesting point will be when gasoline is less available, as a kid I lived in BFE and my parents had like a 300 gallon gas tank they had to buy and maintain and get refilled from a tanker truck. Places where selling gas already has thin or negative margins will no doubt stop at some point, and ICE will become even more expensive in a lot of places.
Even the very smallest Tesla Solar (21 KW/day) setup can generate x3 times more electricity than needed by a moderate commute. Most EVs use roughly 3 miles per KW. So, 7 KW would allow you to travel 20 miles per day 7 days a week or about 45 miles per day 3 days a week.
there's more than enough electricity to go around.
That doesn’t seem very far. My commute is 20 miles per day and I live quite close to where I work by most standards. How are the people that commute for 45 minutes each way going to fair? There are a good number of people that drive further than that too.
California already mandates that all new home construction include solar. This both increases power generation and reduces stress on the grid since power is used where it is generated.
Because California has a "great" track record with energy management?
The infrastructure needs to be ensured before the mandate kicks in. Could be conditional on infrastructure targets, like X charging station within Y miles for all Californians
Tangential to the article: i've never understood how the EV transition will work for renters and high-density livers (high rises,etc).
If you are in an apartment complex, how will charging look? Is it realistic to have charging ports at every (or even a majority of) reserved parking spots? It feels like there are some obvious logistical concerns for condo parking garages.
It's a capital expense to make the upgrade, and a political question of what should be done to require/encourage it.
All you really need is a standard 120V outdoor outlet at each spot. Consider that for every one or two cars that need a single outlet (even if you put it on a dedicated circut), there is an entire apartment with about a dozen circuts, multiple outlets per circut, likely a mixture of 120 and 240 outlets, and several appliances that switch between 0 and 100% load unpredictably.
If we can figure out the electrical engineering to make that work, I don't see the problem with wiring a garage for charging.
> All you really need is a standard 120V outdoor outlet at each spot.
1) While that does technically work, it will be pretty slow. My Tesla Model Y charges 3-5 miles of range per hours on a 120V outlet. Perhaps fast enough for most though.
2) I was just in the Canadian Rockies (with said Tesla) and all outdoor parking spaces had outlets. AFAIK they were for the block heaters for harsh winters. It made charged over night slow but nice. Any parking space had them. Cold climates accidentally made it super convenient to park and charge for long stops.
Installing a 240V or 208V outlet should be just as simple, although the result will be less convenient for anything someone might want to do with a power outlet in a parking lot.
Although, if you are wiring a 240/208 circut, you should be able to use the same wiring to drive a 120V receptical.
My prediction is that there'll be a growing business of vulchers putting in pay-per-use chargers in large apartment buildings that the landlord gets a kickback on, much like overpriced washer/dryers.
Combined with the recent news item that at least one bank in Australia will cease offering loans for gasoline/diesel vehicles, the trend toward electric seems to be getting more coercive and less up to the consumer.
Saving the planet shouldn't be up to the consumer.
Until we can accurately build in negative externalities (probably never) it will always be cheaper to pour industrial waste in the river, spew sulphur dioxide into the air, chop down ancient forests, overfish the oceans, and drive cars based on cheap fossil fuels that warm the planet.
We endow the government with the right to make long-term decisions that are good for society, even if they are less profitable to us in the short-term. (Not that the government always does a good job of it, but that is one of its mandates.)
That's what they told you and you believed it. Hope you enjoy the crickets they're gonna make you eat while you charge your car. All in order to 'save the planet' I'm sure.
This has always been the plan. We are migrating to electric because of the harm gas does to the environment, not consumer preference. Just like the migration away from leaded gassoline, or chlorofluorocarbons was done by regulation, not preference.
No one ever said it's up to the consumer, it's up to the market. Granted, California banning them isn't the market, but the bank not offering loans is.
Consumer demand -- or lack thereof -- drives the market. There have been massive product flops in the past... no level of supply or price cuts could get consumers to buy items they didn't want. I'm not saying that's the case with electric cars, only that consumers have to want them before it can succeed.
Consumer demand is shaped by credit availability. Regardless, the issue with electric cars right now is almost entirely supply constraints, not demand. You have to wait months or even over a year depending on which particular car you want.
No, this was a bank who said they would stop offering loans for gas/diesel cars because of their corporate stand on environmental issues. It's only one bank for now.
I think there is a significant chance that a backlash against this kind of coercion will reduce support for climate policy as a whole and will ultimately be counterproductive for efforts to reduce emissions.
Hard to be counterproductive when the current support for and ability to implement climate policy is already so low. What are consumers are going to do, slow the already far too slow pace of combatting this existential threat down? Oh no, impending doom still equals impending doom.
When you compare the places worldwide and in the US where governments are pushing and where governments deny change and intentionally do nothing, there is a stark difference in progress. There can be no doubt that current levels of government effort basically perfectly correlate with the amount of progress done. California's government is the only reason the United States has any competitiveness on electric cars, lithium batteries, solar panels, and without CA, the other 49 aren't in the same universe as China or Europe in this space.
Ultimately, I don't think there is any future for human civilization as we know it if climate policy is purely a grass roots, bottom up, consumer and market oriented change. I believe the government-minimum scenario is the billions die when breadbasket regions fail and mass famine hits scenario
State governments like the one in California try to ban gas car sales. This will not be popular. Right-wing politicians scream "they are taking away our cars and our freedom". Many people secretly agree, resulting in the election of politicians who roll back many climate policy provisions. End result: fewer good climate policy laws than what we could have ended up with if the left wing had been more incremental and less strident.
This ban is scheduled over a decade from now, and is probably too late to effect change. This is incremental change and it is not enough change to solve the problem. Really I find this whole line of reasoning very strange. It's well-documented what we need to do to minimize climate change. We're already overdue to take action. An incremental plan is fine but the increments must be large enough to solve the problem (and this is actually an example of the increment being too small, yet you suggest it is too large and we should be more cautious.)
The voters decide which increments are too big. It's pretty simple -- if they would vote to prevent or roll back a given climate policy, the increment is too big.
Small incremental improvement is better than failed attempts to force through large increments resulting in no improvement or negative improvement.
That seems like disingenuous language. Climate change is akin to an avalanche threatening our town, and we're looking to shore up the retaining wall before the avalanche gets out of control. If the incremental changes do not build a sufficiently sturdy retaining wall we might as well not bother - we will have done a lot of work and the avalanche will still destroy the town. There's no middle ground when you're talking about an existential threat.
The raft of anti-automobile measures taking place in true-blue areas are facing backlash already. People talk a big game about phasing out cars and forcing people to take public transit or ride bicycles, but once those measures start to directly affect people the backlash is significant. Losing street parking makes business owners angry, losing a lane on your commute because it was converted to a bike lane no one seems to ever use causes a lot of resentment. I can also see a lot of middle class people becoming angry about the fact that if they want an automobile they have to pay for a more expensive electric car - perhaps even making it unaffordable. Then they realize this is by design because their leaders want to force them to take public transportation.
It can be argued that these measures ultimately need to happen, but it really seems like the strategy is to make the automobile experience worse and the backlash from ordinary citizens can't be diminished or dismissed.
The arguments against EV cars is that they're too expensive. But an E-bike capable of 28mph (and seats 1) can be bought for just 800$ (i know because I bought one and use it to commute to work -> and it is fantastic!). The cheapest EV car costs 35K and can go 95mph+ (not that you would), and seats 5. Why is there nothing in between? Regulation. If we allowed the EV industries to innovate and create new products without such restrictive regulations, I think we'd see a ton of cheaper EV mobility options. I would venture to bet, you could even create 4 seaters capable of 50mph well under 10K$. You can always add more regulations later on, if you really need to, but without even allowing the innovation to take place in the first place, we'll never know what's possible.
Tangential rant: What will it take to get the major media outlets to stop referring to Federal rules / Washington, D.C. colloquially as "Washington"? I think this is one of the most jarring examples I've seen recently. Even knowing what they're trying say, it reads wrong.
> Experts said the new California rule, in both its stringency and reach, could stand alongside the Washington law as one of the world’s most important climate change policies, and could help take another significant bite out of the nation’s emissions of carbon dioxide. The new rule is also expected to influence new policies in Washington and around the world to promote electric vehicles and cut auto pollution.
The article makes it sound like all 17 other states that have similar legislation might not pass it. They are going to pass it, that's not even a question. Because just like California, if 2034 rolls around and they aren't ready, they'll just extend the deadline.
The thing that is actually worrying is the fuel economy restrictions by 2026. Most ICE cars will never get 55mpg by then. Mfgs will have to switch to selling hybrids, which most are not ready for (the pandemic pushed any such plans out by at least 3 years). If that doesn't get pulled, it could potentially damage automakers' sales and production plans.
From the article ....The decision, to take effect by 2035, will very likely speed a wider transition to electric vehicles because many other states follow California’s lead on tailpipe emissions....
The proposed regulations are pretty complex, but it appears to also have a transitional strategy where PHEVs (plug-in hybrids) can count as ZEVs for this quota. During the transition years, the rules shift in terms of requiring more battery-only range from the PHEV to count as one ZEV, with a way to have lesser range PHEVs count as a fractional ZEV in the fleet. E.g. they require 70 miles of range for full credits, and partial credits for 43 miles of range.
I can't speak to economic feasibility, but with the Toyota RAV4 being one of the most popular cars in the US and already being available as a PHEV, it doesn't seem that far-fetched to have these kinds of vehicles becoming a large portion of those sold.
it simply is not because EV cars are far out of reach for most Americans. Unless they are providing upto 95% subsidy most will not sell their ICE cars and will keep buying used ICE cars
In fact this type of virtue signaling only hurts the people on the fringes because now the ICE car market and dealers will just cite this ban to markup their cars even more on top of the supply chain excuse.
This is a "let them eat cake" moment on already widened wealth gap. The people at the top sure do care more about these things than their fellow Americans who are barely above the poverty line.
Your comment is classicist. People finance their cars and most EVs are far far above what you would get with an entry level cars. Now those market including secondary market are going to see a rise in prices.
This is not true where I live. The cheapest electric cars here are only about 20% more than the cheapest entry level cars, and loans have better terms for electric, making the monthly cost almost the same. I am not sure how true it is in California, but even if it is, it clearly doesn't have to be.
Unless there will be further subsidies or EV prices come down by a lot, I just feel like this is going to end up with 1/2 the population being priced out of owning a car.
Do they have the infrastructure in place to allow this to happen? Charging points, electricity generation capacity? Or is it just an unrealistic aspiration?
Meh, I predict there will be a rise in 3rd party OEMs, resellers and restorers of "classic" gas cars.
More annoying than the push for electric is the trend towards computers in cars. Cars used to be fairly easy to diagnose and maintain yourself. But nowadays you need more and more sophisticated troubleshooting equipment. I'll probably end up having one cool 90s car and one cool 60s car.
I'd argue that the electric cars are there today, it's the infrastructure that's lacking. If every gas station had a few EV chargers it would make all the difference. In the US yout rarely more than 50-100 miles from a gas station.
Great, now where's the regulation banning car manufacturers from charging you a recurring subscription for features with a fixed cost, which happens more often with electric cars than ICE vehicles?
Perhaps because of trucks, yes---but I've found the majority of car noise is from the tires and not the engines. Most modern ICE cars are exceptionally quiet.
True, although parking lots will be spooky. Our 2018 Tesla Model 3 (pre-external speaker) is so quiet in parking lots/neighborhoods that people don't hear it sneaking up behind them.
Really reminds me of this clip from The Office (US):
I anticipate the birth of an entire Cuba-like industry of keeping old cars running by all means necessary [1] as well as means of producing gasoline from anything organic you can get your hands on.
Reason: many people simply won't be able to buy a new electric car and will pay as they go to keep the old clunker going (especially given where the economy is headed).
Almost all major industrial countries plan to ban ICE car sales by mid-2030s, some as early as 2025 (Norway). California's plan is not particularly ambitious.
If anything, America is lagging behind the trend.