We all know that to combat climate change sacrifices will need to be made like fewer cars and smaller houses (for compact, accessible cities).
I can't see the US ever being willing to make these sacrifices though. If you compare the $/sqft for housing in the US vs. Europe the difference is shocking (even in big cities like Seattle vs. London), same for gasoline prices, etc.
The US has become accustomed to unparalleled comfort and luxury, with central air conditioning and multiple cars practically the norm. If anything, I imagine they'll try to enforce strict emissions controls on developing nations to have the pretence of doing something.
We all know that to combat climate change sacrifices will need to be made like fewer cars and smaller houses (for compact, accessible cities).
Is this really a sacrifice?
I can't see the US ever being willing to make these sacrifices though. If you compare the $/sqft for housing in the US vs. Europe the difference is shocking (even in big cities like Seattle vs. London), same for gasoline prices, etc.
I would be more concerned with urban design and zoning than square footage. Bigger house means more maintenance, and bigger lot means more mowing. I for one, hate mowing.
The US has become accustomed to unparalleled comfort and luxury, with central air conditioning and multiple cars practically the norm. If anything, I imagine they'll try to enforce strict emissions controls on developing nations to have the pretence of doing something.
A car is not a luxury. It is an unfortunate and out of control necessity that helps increases the cost of living and make societies less egalitarian, because it is a requirement to use car to do anything of note.
I live in a suburb of a medium sized city. It’s not particularly dense, probably slightly lower density than the median American lives in.
My generation Z neighbors (I have two) are very happy to live without a car. They live within three miles of their jobs and use electric scooters for commuting. They have their food and consumer goods shipped to their house. They say that they don’t need to drive anywhere, and the occasion that they want to go somewhere Uber is available. Meanwhile they are saving hundreds to thousands of dollars a month by not having two cars.
I personally (a millennial) have put less than five thousand miles on my car in the last 5 years. People say cars are a requirement for American life, but I find that’s becoming less true for more and more Americans.
What is the real estate square foot cost where you live?
Maybe more media-visible Americans are living in such areas now, but supply is extremely tight. A lot of these neighborhoods tend to be older, being poor in previous decades, and now those poor people are getting pushed out to the suburbs where cars are a great required expense.
Where are you living? Sounds like you and your neighbors are shut ins who just stream twitch all night. That’s fine but I wouldn’t consider that the norm for gen z or even millennials. (Even if it is popular)
If you go out a few times a week, not having a car in most American cities is quite difficult/burdensome/expensive. Uber alone would be $100 round trip if I wanted to go into the city from where I live. Public transit? Isn’t available past 11pm.
That's really sidestepping the issue, isn't it? It's not just about respect and freedom. It's about the externalities created by many people living in large homes.
Not really possible to make much choices, when zoning laws made many things illegal, such as mandating minimum lot size and banning higher density development and so forth.
The externalities don’t come from living in large homes. They come from the use of non-renewable resources. Focus on that dude. Stop trying to make everyone live in an SRO.
You can easily give everyone a McMansion and live in some sub 1.5C utopia as long as we focus on where we get our energy and resources from. Stop focusing on consumption quantity because it just sounds like envy.
Come on, "you're just jealous" is the best argument you can come up with? You'd be closer to home if you called me a hypocrite but these are just ways to sidestep the question at hand by attacking me personally. Heat pumps are much more efficient, let's grant, but there's no answer with zero waste heat. I think there's a real question whether, no matter how much everything's electrified, a model where everyone rides a single-occupant car nearly everywhere they go is really sustainable.
I never said you were jealous. I said you sound like you're envious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPhrTOg1RUk - maybe watch this (it is quite enjoyable!) and it could change your mind about how you think of envy.
Heat pumps just move heat around... They do not create heat. If they did - we'd have some violations of laws. All they're doing is going to transfer geothermal, solar, wind, etc. power into heat transfer - which is transferring heat from outdoors into your home... Which then goes back outdoors at some point. There isn't any "heat" creation here.
What model are you speaking of where they claim electric cars are not viable for the future? (Assuming renewable energy sources and sustainable use of natural resources, etc.)
I'm not watching a 2-hour video to figure out what you think the distinction between jealousy and envy is. The point is, I'm living the same lifestyle as many other Americans but I'm not sure we can do it forever.
I'm not going to dispute the point about heat pumps more because I don't know enough about them to argue credibly about it. Maybe you're right and it's a perfect solution to the problem.
> What model are you speaking of where they claim electric cars are not viable for the future? (Assuming renewable energy sources and sustainable use of natural resources, etc.)
That assumes away the problem I think. Is it really inconceivable that we're going to start hitting limits to resources, especially if we're doubling down on cars which all have their own large batteries, sprawling asphalt, and all the rest of it? It seems really hard to imagine to me that we're going to chance on technology that makes it just as sustainable for everyone to live in a McMansion and drive an F-150 an hour to work as for people to ride trains or bicycles and live in denser housing. Certainly we could do much better than now before we started to nip at that stuff but I feel like there have to be limits. If it's so easy and we have all the answers I have to wonder why all the kicking and screaming to get there.
It doesn't assume away the problem. It is the problem. The issue isn't the lifestyle. The issue is how the resources are gathered and how the power is produced. Those are the issues - the lifestyle isn't the issue.
You have been sucked into believing by corporations that you are the issue but it's the corporations who are the issue. They want you to take personal responsibility for their issues. Everything is pushed onto the end user and the individual as responsibility rather than a corporation to do things in a manner that is best for us all. You know why? Cause that's good for the corporations! They can do horrible things and not have to deal with any of the externalities that they're creating and rake in the profit! These strategies have been mainstream for well over 50 years now.
Keep believing that personal responsibility is really the key to solving climate change but it will continue to do nothing and mean nothing. The responsibility is within your governmental body to take over how corporations are producing their products, harvesting resources, generating power, and the externalities that their products create.
It's true that "personal responsibility" is a bad framework that lets the corporations off the hook. But it's also true that when people say "the top 100 corporations do 80% of emissions," or whatever the number is, that they're washing their hands of a problem they contribute to, pretending like the corporations are extracting oil and natural gas for the hell of it and not because we're all buying these products to support our lifestyles.
> to, pretending like the corporations are extracting oil and natural gas for the hell of it and not because we're all buying these products to support our lifestyles.
Do you really think it's a coincidence that the products sold to you are not environmentally-friendly/sustainable/whatever? It's not because consumers demand them... Consumers just want something cheap... But consumers aren't paying for externalities upfront... neither are corps... No one pays. Thus, cheaper. You offer two comparable products but one is cheaper - people choose the cheaper one! On top of that, our world and economy is built on these natural resources. Imagine if oil became $0 or $1000/barrel. It'd wreck certain parts of the economy either way - there is a heavy investment and lobbying infrastructure built upon maintaining the status quo.
You really are using the personal responsibility framework to a high extent. Corps are the biggest issue. Most issues of CO2 generators and other such things - people are very happy to use their replacements because there is very little difference in quality of life (sometimes it's even improved). The things people most want that create CO2 and there's no way around it ever are very low contributors to CO2 overall. You could easily wipe out over half of CO2 emissions in USA by just converting everything to renewable energy resources. (electric cars + electricity production + using heat pumps)
> We all know that to combat climate change sacrifices will need to be made like fewer cars and smaller houses (for compact, accessible cities).
This statement is tinged with the idea of sacrifice and loss that is unfortunately one of the hallmarks of the environmental movement. How about this? We can have an emissions-free future that is much more awesome than now with the same size cars and homes. Rewiring America explains how (hint: electrify everything):
Of course, it's also a good idea to reduce our overall consumption, but if you tell people they're going to have to live "worse" lives for the sake of the climate — well I don't think that's true or helpful.
It would be great if you were right. But even assuming it's the case, people will have to adjust to the electrical appliances. People in this very community say that they simply cannot learn to cook on an electric stove, or rent a car for the infrequent occasions when they want to travel hundreds of miles, and therefore fossil fuel usage must be continued unabated. Even this level of very small sacrifice is unimaginable. Never mind the kind of more radical change the person you're replying to is talking about.
Aren't stoves unique among gas appliances in that people prefer them over their electric counterparts for reasons other than cost to operate? Couldn't we reduce residential natural gas use by like 90% just by replacing all of the gas water heaters, clothes dryers, and furnaces with electric equivalents?
(Note: I personally like induction stoves the best. I'm not arguing that gas stoves are a good thing, just that we can get 90% of the benefit for only like 10% of the whining by leaving them alone for now.)
Well, maybe, but maybe not. Seems like they've been seized on as a wedge issue for natural gas, and if people "must" have them then we "must" maintain a whole natural gas infrastructure for them and can't limit its use for new construction. According to this article, a fair amount of effort goes into astroturfing the cause: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/06/how-the-foss...
> Even this level of very small sacrifice is unimaginable.
Unimaginable to who? I can easily imagine this. The negatives you list are real, but they'll get rapidly better in the next 20 years (longer range cars, more charging stations for example). But in focusing on the negatives you (and the people you say you're speaking for) forget the positives:
- Electric cars already have the lowest cost of ownership of any cars and are often more fun to drive. The electric Ford pickup is basically just a better version of the fossil pickup.
- Heat pumps can both heat and cool homes meaning there's no need for separate AC/heaters. They're also often installed with mini splits meaning that families have finer-grained control over the temperature in various rooms.
- Induction stoves boil water in under a minute and are way easier to clean than gas or even electric resistance stoves. Plus gas stoves actually cause respiratory issues in homes.
- Without emissions, our air becomes a lot more pleasant to breathe, kills fewer people, and thus overall health improves. Cities in particular will have noticeably better air quality.
- Installing and maintaining electrified machines will create millions of new jobs in every zip code in the country and help distribute wealth.
- All of this will be cheaper to run than fossil fuels due to the inherent efficiency of electrification. The average US household will actually save hundreds of dollars a year on energy bills.
One of the tricks that will help make this all doable is to make emissions-free technologies up-front cheaper than the alternatives. So the thing that's the best for the climate is also best for the consumer's wallet. Government rebates would work great here and there's a bill being worked on right now for this: https://twitter.com/USRepKCastor/status/1426230666857959428
I agree with you and do not intend to represent them. Rather I mean it's "unimaginable" to the complainers who are ready to shoot holes in absolutely everything but don't have any plan of their own to address the problem.
We're talking about people unwilling to do so much as wear a small piece of cloth on their face during a global pandemic. You think they can be counted on to make these actual costly sacrifices to help combat climate change? I think that's very optimistic!
I don't think you can reasonably compare "European" house sizes using London as an example. The UK is small and ancient. We literally don't have the land necessary for building big houses in cities. There wasn't much land to start with, and changing the use of land that's had buildings on it for 1000 years is incredibly hard. The same is true, with less of a supply limitation, for most cities across Europe. Houses were built many hundreds of years ago, and replacing one with a bigger one requires knocking down the whole neighborhood.
By comparison the US is brand new and has abundant land. Add to that the fact that many houses in the US are timber-framed things that are easy to change and extend, and you have a recipe for big homes.
The issue in America is that a lot of zoning has minimum lot sizes that are fairly large. If the minimum parcel size is 460 sq m and the parcel can legally only have one house on it, the house might as well be built to take advantage.
Where they are legal (very small percentage of land area), America's tight housing markets see smaller townhomes and apartments sprout like weeds.
> The UK is small and ancient. We literally don't have the land necessary for building big houses in cities.
British cities like London would have plenty more space if they built up, even slightly. Comparable European cities have 4-8 story apartment buildings in the inner city; London quickly becomes single houses.
> There wasn't much land to start with, and changing the use of land that's had buildings on it for 1000 years is incredibly hard.
Most of London is much, much younger than that. London expanded in the late 19th century, as railways and metro lines were built.
The general level of craftsmanship is lackluster, agreed.
> Americans are the least-informed people history has ever known
Both this and your prior statement are reflections regarding the diversity of the United States: we have a lot of good stuff and a lot of bad stuff. You can find either in abundance and pretend it's the only option, or you can look at it and see a nuanced perspective.
What an ignorant and ironically completely uninformed statement of your own. Keep you biases, stereotypes, and outright bigotry off this site please. Travel to a favela, travel throughout Africa, even look at the building quality of houses in Japan…there’s no comparison.
Yes, that standard American rebuttal. We have better houses than in a favela. We have better health care than Eritrea. Our transportation is better than Kazakhstan … oh shoot, wait, they have more high speed rail than the USA. Scratch that.
I’ve lived in Japan and their housing is far superior. It is newer in general, well-built, quiet, warm, efficient, comfortable, functional, and cheap. American housing stock is none of those things, at twice the price.
> I’ve lived in Japan and their housing is far superior. It is newer in general, well-built, quiet, warm, efficient, comfortable, functional, and cheap. American housing stock is none of those things, at twice the price.
Don't houses in Japan only last 20-30 years? Isn't the only reason they're newer in general that they have to be rebuilt so often? Houses in America last way longer than twice that, so only paying twice as much seems like a bargain in comparison.
When you say that they "last longer" what you mean is that Americans are tolerating the deterioration for longer. Yes, the median American dwelling is 40 years old. No, that's not because they are built to last. Only someone with zero experience abroad thinks a 1980-model American house was built well.
Japanese houses usually lasts at least 40 years unless serious disaster (not earthquake, but like heavy typhoon or tsunami), maybe over 60 years if properly maintenanced. Any house won't last 20 years must be blamed. But just people may don't want to live in 40 years used old house but want only the land.
Then you didn’t really understand how Japan’s houses are built. They’re not built to last at all because new homebuyers buy the property and tear down the house and build a new one. Knowing that, home builders only build them to last 10-20 years and house maintenance is an after thought to most people. Contrast that with American homes, where you can homes in Detroit and Chicago and Boston and thousands of other towns that have been continually lived in for over 100 years. But feel free to keep ranting about things you don’t know about.
And to address your other anti-American points…the world’s rich come here for health care, and it’s the best in the world for cutting edge care. Our highway system is one of the best in the world and we don’t care about high speed rail because of that. Your heavy biases can’t really cover up the facts.
> The US has become accustomed to unparalleled comfort and luxury, with central air conditioning…
Heat pumps are probably the most efficient way we have to both cool AND heat a house. This is especially true when combined with solar panels and smart thermostats.
Yeah, but like most advances in efficiency, it's not used to take less, it's used to take more. Heat pumps could be used in combination with good insulation and good practices to keep houses more comfortable. A few degrees warmer in the winter, a few degrees cooler in the summer. But that's not what happens. Americans use air conditioning to keep their houses cold. People who aren't used to it end up wearing jumpers inside in the summer. No doubt in the winter the heat pump would be used to keep the house warm enough to be naked at all times. Add to that bad insulation and no amount of heat pump efficiency is going to stop the wasted energy.
Stuff like telling people that stopping global warming means they need to be uncomfortably hot all summer and uncomfortably cold all winter is why so many people don't care about stopping it. Our goal for this should be to get heat pumps and renewable electricity rolled out everywhere, and then let people keep their houses at whatever temperatures they want without contributing to global warming.
Lots of towns have already done this. Berkeley did it years ago. It doesn't matter at all. The fact that Berkeley bans certain land uses means that the town next door, Emeryville, falls prey to fiscalization and simply makes their whole urban strategy be making money off of encouraging all the things Berkeley bans. The effect is that there are probably more gas stations than Emeryville than there would otherwise be in both Emeryville and Berkeley. The same goes for big box stores which Berkeley also banned. Emeryville is just a long endless chain of box stores and gas stations right next to Berkeley.
Santa Cruz, CA—no new "big box" national retail chains allowed since the early 2000s (or maybe even 90s, I forgot). So they're all in Capitola, 5 miles away, creating incredible traffic on Highway 1.
You must be joking. Berkeley loves its gas stations. There is nothing more Berkeley than a Volvo 240 getting 5MPG and spewing smoke all over town. When someone tried to develop apartments at 3000 Shattuck on the site of "Smog and Gas" -- a quite ironic name indeed -- the city's grey NIBMYs went to war, writing the zoning board that "Berkeley Smog & Gas better serves the needs of the working class of my neighborhood than the proposed speculation housing." The ZAB agreed, disapproving the project! It is on-the-record that the people of Berkeley prefer gas stations over housing.
Also I have no idea what you are talking about with Emeryville. They have three gas stations, all on Powell St. Berkeley has at least 20.
That's not true: it will cause an inconvenience to Berkeley residents using gas-powered vehicles. It's not definitive, but it has an effect on stimulating energy transition.
I'm sure the gas stations in Emeryville are very happy that the residents of Berkeley have to burn all that extra gas to drive to the big box stores outside of town.
I can understand your point about marginal inconvenience having a marginal benefit, but I think that car use may be so inflexible (I know that I literally need my car and would be willing to put up with any conceivable inconvenience law because I have to) that inconvenience laws, especially ones with direct gas-burning effects on anyone who keeps their car, can easily be net negative even for small increases in fuel consumption.
Right now, even if you only ever travel short distances and an electric car would be totally suitable for you, the path of least resistance is to buy a gas car. It seems smart to try and shift that calculus.
Car use (as measured by Vehicle Miles Traveled) is more elastic than you may think. There were pronounced dips during the oil price spikes of 1974, 1979, and 2008, showing that the price at the pump has a direct effect on how much people drive.[0] Last year we obviously saw an even more significant decline as many people stayed home during the pandemic.[1] There's also more positive, lasting ways of reducing VMT like improving alternatives, introducing congestion charges, or replacing gas taxes with cost per mile fees.[2]
I drove a fully electric car over the weekend within 100 kilometres of Stockholm.
No. The tide is not turning. The vast majority of charging stations are inside the city. And the vast majority of places in those stations a slow, 3kW ones, with a sprinkle of 11kW in between. There are maybe ten 50kW ones in the entire Stockholm area.
If the only thing you do is commuting, and you have a place to charge your car overnight at/near your home, then you can drive an electric car. For anything else? Good luck.
Charging station availability is a bit of a red herring though. Like you said, it's really dependent on charging overnight/when you're not using the vehicle. Obviously the viability will vary from person to person, but considering that a huge portion of car owners don't need more than 100 miles a day, just charging at home is a viable option. For those people, EVs provide a better overall experience.
I agree we need to improve charging station availability. With a few exceptions, EVs are generally not well-suited to long-distance travel.
> Charging station availability is a bit of a red herring though.
How is it a red herring? It's a real need that has to be addressed to make EVs viable.
On Saturday we drove to a popular destination just 70 kilometres away from Stockholm (that is, 140 kilometres both ways). That popular destination has a total of 6 charging places with may be three of them with 22kW chargers, and the rest of them 7kW and 3kW.
To ensure we wouldn't get stuck, on Saturday morning I drove into the city to one of the 50kW chargers hoping they wouldn't be occupied, and spent an hour waiting at a cafe while the car was charging.
On Sunday we went for a longer trip. An unimaginable 135 km from Stockholm. I hoped to once again charge the car in the morning, but the 50kW charging spot was taken, so I had to contend with a 43kW one. It didn't charge as fast. We only had 260 km worth of charge in the car, and had to make a 1-hour-long stop at a McDonalds on the highway that had a total of 4 quick chargers that were miraculously unoccupied.
> For those people, EVs provide a better overall experience.
Somehow you assume that's the only experience "those people" are ever going to have.
> just charging at home is a viable option.
Ah yes. "Just". It's simple. Just charge at home. You only have to provide charging infrastructure at home. And provide that infrastructure for all homes (because the end goal is to make all cars electric, isn't it?).
Right now I live in an apartment complex with 154 apartments. It's one of the Stockholm's suburbs that is basically a village with a commuter train passing through it. Surely, you can get to the city, and public transportation is still excellent, but you do end up driving significantly more than you would in a city (if for the sole reason that all distances are increased compared to the city).
So, you need to provide electric outlets to all ~154 parking places near the complex. And to ~200 outlets to the neighboring complex. And to the next one. And to the next one... Who is going to pay for that, I wonder? Though I know. The "revolution" will happen at the expense of people who are told they will benefit from it.
The old saw has been "then you take the train", which only works for folks who are comfortable on trains, and whose type of travel fits with train schedules. I like having my own car, and I like roadtrips without schedules.
For me, an EV needs about 8 miles of range for commuting, and about 1000 for vacation, and it's just silly to own 992 extra miles of battery the other 355 days a year.
Which is to say, I think we're rushing prematurely into completely ending gasoline vehicles. They should be phased out, but "phased" is the operative word -- let some linger in applications where they're still better suited. I currently drive a hybrid and I plan to replace it with a PHEV, not a BEV, for that reason.
But you write as though that privilege is an inalienable right?
No-one is going to confiscate all gasoline vehicles, but they need to pay for the externalities in air pollution, CO2 emissions and noise pollution, etc.
If the US paid $6+ a gallon like most of Europe does, I think the tide would change pretty soon.
In the US having access to a car is much more of a necessity for work, shopping, and travel than it is in Europe due to suburban sprawl and lack of public transportation. I can't say it's a right, but it is a need for practically everyone outside of dense urban centers.
The average EV costs $19k more than the average gas-powered car. This gap is closing but for the time being only upper-middle to upper class Americans can switch to EVs, so making gas artificially scarce/expensive will disproportionately affect those who can't afford to make the switch.
Electric cars are expensive. You need to have money to buy one. By punishing petrol car owners, you are essentially rewarding rich people for having money.
I would like to believe that but i think their numbers as a % of the population will make them less and less relevant. More people are adopting technology than giving it up.
Maybe I live in a poor blue collar town and have a warped view of the world but quite a few people I have known who are low income don't have a credit card.
Many don't even have a driver's license they get a "voluntary ID" card, government issued. At best they'd get a pre-paid credit card or maybe a debit card. But most often it's cash only. All those payday loan stores exist for a reason!
Most level 2 public chargers are free. For level 3 chargers, it depends on the car and the network. For example, with Tesla Superchargers, you just plug the car into one, and the charging bill gets sent to the car's owner automatically. On other charging networks, you often do need a card or phone, but the plug-and-charge standard should take care of that once it rolls out.
The "punishment" is what here? Only the same amount of gas stations?
As for expense, the total cost of ownership for electric vehicles is often less than equivalent gas vehicles, even if the purchase price is slightly higher.
When a car is paid for by a loan, this lower total cost of ownership is directly realized in the monthly payment. If a person is paying up front with cash on a car, they are making their own value judgement about the time value of money, and can choose to finance whatever portion the prefer in order to realize this lower TCO.
I don't see the problem with rewarding people for CO2 reductions so your argument has a weird and abrupt end to it. Especially since the low end EV and used EV market is growing so your argument is losing its strength with every single year.
The argument should have been that it takes time to transition off petrol cars and poor people need more time to transition so hasty decisions like banning gas stations should only be done in conjunction with policy that speeds up the transition.
So make a major push towards electric scooters and bikes in urban centres. Electric cars are an expensive joke at the moment. They can't compare to a diesel.
When it comes to city planning, changes aren't made unless there's already a trend. A town isn't going to just decide out of the blue to ban new gas station construction unless there was already a trend away from ICE vehicles.
Deciding to ban something you don't like and then actually going through with it because you're rich enough to afford to shoot yourself in the foot or the people negatively affected are small/powerless enough is "wealthy suburb chock-full-o'-busybodies" 101.
Banning gas stations is just the California equivalent of a suburb in North Carolina banning a litany of alcohol related businesses.
I wasn't saying it's right or wrong, in fact, I think outright banning new gas stations may make life difficult for the working poor, who do not buy new vehicles, and are less likely to be able to switch to an electric, but that's not really what I'm talking about here.
I'm just saying that the trend has to already exist for a municipality to change something.
And, since every trend must begin with a single data point, maybe it is a new trend. We just won't know anything about the direction until we accumulate more data points.
as someone who rides a motorcycle this sort of legislation is infuriating. gas stations are food, rest, and a chance to get my bearings with a map.
Frankly California's more gilded counties like
Sonoma have a perverse incentive to reduce gas stations: it reduces congregation and attendance by the homeless. This feels like the "cashless" argument playing out all over again. Sure, its perhaps easier and more efficient for the business to simply refuse to accept cash but at the end of the day its a poor people ban.
I frankly have become very suspicious of arguments that go "poor people who are not me also happen to like this thing I like, so any attempt to curtail it is discriminatory." Is there something about a gas pump that makes poor people more likely to congregate than a similar facility without? An electric charging station, for instance, would presumably be similar and might even be more likely to have places where you can hang out since it takes longer.
Probably that people getting out of their cars is an easy opportunity to ask for cash. Happens all the time to me in LA. It isn't a good reason to keep gas stations arpund, though. (however, i do think there aren't many good reasons besides if America actually embraced clean energy)
A high turnover rate of strangers handling their wallets. Also a ginormous sunshade and legal occupation can be obtained for a $1 soda or lotto ticket.
Superchargers have nothing to do with financial transactions. You can't buy a soda or lotto ticket and claim to belong there.
In a world where electric cars were the most common means of transportation wouldn't there be a need for chargers about as widespread as gas stations now? I am having a hard time seeing why it wouldn't take a similar form. Perhaps there would be somewhat fewer because you can fit some in restaurants, stores, and other places, but I don't really imagine them eliminating the category.
the difference is EV owners only really use chargers when they are road tripping. 95%+ of their charge comes from home so the charging infrastructure can be 95% smaller than gas infrastructure and still basically function.
Don't worry. Most of the Tesla superchargers in my area are located on the back side of gas stations. Pumps in the front, store in the middle, chargers in the back.
I believe in 10 years they will be building gas stations with the chargers in the front, store in the middle, pumps in the back.
EV drivers have even more need for someplace to hang out/browse for 10-20 minutes or so. Not everyone wants to sit in their car while charging.
Gas stations in general are very polluting, for both the ground and noxious fumes. Because of this, in CA they are already banned 300 ft (~90m) from any sensitive uses like schools or playgrounds, and even then there is evidence that this perimeter is not enough.
Without society there would be no motorcycles, no gas and no roads. You have to work with society if you want nice things. When change happens, sometimes you benefit disproportionately and sometimes you suffer. It's just the way it is.
You don't actually need to fill up with gas in order to stop and eat. This doesn't seem as bad as you seem to think. It's just change.
So if the gas stations go away, why wouldn't they be replaced by convenience stores/rest stops? Like how does "we're getting rid of the gas pumps" ONLY translate to "we're getting rid of all the other revenue generating facility that accompanies that gas pump"?
I could MAYBE understand the argument that the pumps help subsidize the cost of the convenience store and you'd see X% of locations close with no replacement taking over the location, but the whole point is that we have to make a choice between jobs + status quo or change + less climate impact.
TL;dr- I'm pretty sure we have enough gas stations at this point to meet demand.
You're going to spend $1M+ on all the buildings, pumps, tanks, etc. And the population of gas cars in the road is slowly decreasing today, and expected to rapidly decrease in the future. Will you really get a good return in your investment when profits on selling gas are very slim, and the risks of EPA regulations giving you huge fines for gas leaks and soil decontamination costs are so large.
It will be several decades before the vast majority of vehicles on the road are EVs. Even if all new vehicles sold were EVs starting tomorrow, the cars currently out there would account for the majority of road vehicles for at least another decade-and-a-half. There's plenty of time to recoup investment on a gas station.
Besides, most money for a "gas station" is made from the convenience store. Like you said, gas profits are slim. They make some money, but their primary purpose is to drive customers to the convenience store. When the tides do change, they'll probably just gradually swap out pumps for chargers and continue business as usual.
But if there are already enough gas stations to service all gas cars, then building another when the number of gas cars isn't going up makes little business sense.
I'd understand it in a town with regular queues at gas stations. But there aren't many of those left today.
It's not about there being "enough" gas stations. It's about location. If people are willing to go to a new gas station because it's in a more optimal location for them, then there's a market for it. People often prefer one station over another just to avoid left turns.
There may also be other factors at play with the convenience store. Is there a store like that within walking distance? That's another market opportunity. In my home state there is a gas station chain who is very popular for their pizza. They actually opened another station in my home town specifically to keep up with demand for the pizza.
I don't understand. There has been a gas shortage and waiting lines since the pandemic. Why would you go and outright ban gas stations? If we want less CO2 emissions we have to raise or introduce CO2 prices.
The gas shortage was because of a gas pipeline hack, for which more or less gas stations would not really have had an impact since the stations themselves were empty for lack of gas being transported.
This is just another example of how out-of-touch rich CA liberals are with the rest of the world. Allows them to feel morally superior and makes everything in their town more expensive (which they want anyway).
Just walk me through this: Did the gas stations all catch Covid and die?
What is the correlation between pandemic related gas shortages and a need for more fuel pumps (vs. more of the fuel to be delivered to the pumps because of pandemic related supply chain issues)?
Also, where are these constant waiting lines currently happening? I'm personally in NJ, an extremely densely populated state, and haven't seen anything other than the normal rush hour "4 pumps, 6 cars" type of lines. The larger filling stations (6+ pumps) almost never have more cars than pumps at any time I've driven past.
I believe they're talking about the Colonial pipeline hack, where there were indeed waiting lines for gas in the South, but that was because of lack of delivery of gas, not lack of gas stations. A gas station is no use if it can't get gas.
What does this accomplish? A quick search on Google Maps shows this city (Petaluma, CA) already has at least 18 gas stations. Gas stations don't cause people to consume more gas - they are built because people are already consuming the gas. People will certainly just travel a little bit further for their fuel. Nobody is going to buy a new EV because of this.
Even for the few people looking to buy a new vehicle there are few "affordable" EVs on the market, the ones which are available are relatively expensive, and plenty of other reasons to consider gas-powered alternatives. Charging is still relatively slow and charge stations are relatively hard to come by compared to gas. The batteries are also still incredibly expensive to repair or replace - in some cases seemingly by design.
I really don't understand this. If you want to stop automotive gas consumption, you need to stop people from buying gas-powered vehicles, not stop them from building gas stations.
If people just took out loans and dumped their savings into the stock market, they too could afford a trendy car with a long tail pipe that relies on lithium mined overseas and is a hassle to repair. /s
Gas stations have known environmental impacts. The storage tanks are an environmental hazard that makes redevelopment extremely expensive. The operation of the gas pump itself pollutes the air with toxic fumes, to the point where CA already bans their installation 300 ft from sensitive uses (e.g. schools and playgrounds) and even that may not be sufficient to actually prevent health hazards.
While for now they are a necessary part of the transportation system, gas stations have very obvious downsides at least from a local perspective.
> The operation of the gas pump itself pollutes the air with toxic fumes, to the point where CA already bans their installation 300 ft from sensitive uses (e.g. schools and playgrounds) and even that may not be sufficient to actually prevent health hazards.
That's another result of fuel consumption, not the construction of new gas stations. The toxic fumes aren't reduced because a driver goes an extra couple minutes out of their way to use one of the existing stations.
The goal is to reduce automotive emissions. Gas stations don't incentivize automotive emissions - it's the other way around.
No. Because it will be quite a few years before anyone even starts noticing any reduction in gas stations. I think it's more of a political posturing than an indication of an emerging trend.
Which is exactly what the tide turning analogy is supposed to convey. It's difficult to notice when the tide turns, you notice it some 3 hours later which is when it's coming in/out at its fastest rate.
So in 15 years from now someone living in a town in America will notice he can't find a gas station near him. So he will hop over to the next place for fuel.
I own several vehicles of various vintages and there is not a single one that I couldn't crank up and drive from an existing gasoline station in my home town to any other connected, accessible location on my continent. Indeed, I can actually drive the 4WD vehicles I own deep into the countryside where there are no gasoline stations and never have a single fuel supply related problem with proper planning and equipment.
The fuel tanks on my vehicles range in volume from 10.5 US gallons to 33 US gallons and fuel economy numbers range from 32 mpg down to 12 mpg. That means for any of my vehicles I have a range of more than 300 miles (10.5 * 32 = 336 miles and 33 * 12 = 396 miles).
I will encounter lots of existing gasoline stations along any route I choose.
I think the idea behind building new stations has to revolve around making it more convenient for people moving to new subdivisions to fuel their vehicles locally. If you don't build out gasoline station infrastructure near new construction then those who choose to live there are required to monitor their fuel consumption closely enough that they always know when they should gas up on the way home. They should be doing this anyway IMHO.
I don't think we need new gasoline stations in summary because I think all places are already accessible with our current infrastructure.
And I would like to expand on or clarify a statement in the article that is very important and was not stated well.
From the article about halfway down:
>>But it’s not all good news. The long-term shift to electric and a mass closures of gas stations will create toxic “brown sites” across the country. A typical gas station can spill up to 100 gallons of gasoline annually, ... ...these poisoned plots will present an environmental problem of monumental proportions.
This paragraph makes it seem as if the existence of a gas station is environmentally fine until that station is closed or decommissioned at which point it becomes a brown site requiring remediation. That is not true at all. Once you fill the tanks and begin serving gasoline to customers there will always be some spillage at the pumps. The gasoline station becomes a brown site when it begins operation but you are typically only able to begin remediation when the station is shut down and no longer serves gasoline or when there is a documented leak from the underground tanks that makes it critical to shut down the station for repairs. Therefore, all existing gasoline stations are already toxic environmental sites and the problem is indeed monumental today.
I see no reason to add to the problem by building new gasoline stations.
As good as it is to see them encouraging the move to ev's. I wonder if it might be a bit premature when 47% of California's power is from natural gas (solar is 2nd at 14%), they import approximately 32% of their total power and they sometimes have rolling blackouts.
The ban would be great news to the existing gas stations as well would be interesting to know how busy they currently are.
123 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 211 ms ] threadI can't see the US ever being willing to make these sacrifices though. If you compare the $/sqft for housing in the US vs. Europe the difference is shocking (even in big cities like Seattle vs. London), same for gasoline prices, etc.
The US has become accustomed to unparalleled comfort and luxury, with central air conditioning and multiple cars practically the norm. If anything, I imagine they'll try to enforce strict emissions controls on developing nations to have the pretence of doing something.
Is this really a sacrifice?
I can't see the US ever being willing to make these sacrifices though. If you compare the $/sqft for housing in the US vs. Europe the difference is shocking (even in big cities like Seattle vs. London), same for gasoline prices, etc.
I would be more concerned with urban design and zoning than square footage. Bigger house means more maintenance, and bigger lot means more mowing. I for one, hate mowing.
The US has become accustomed to unparalleled comfort and luxury, with central air conditioning and multiple cars practically the norm. If anything, I imagine they'll try to enforce strict emissions controls on developing nations to have the pretence of doing something.
A car is not a luxury. It is an unfortunate and out of control necessity that helps increases the cost of living and make societies less egalitarian, because it is a requirement to use car to do anything of note.
My generation Z neighbors (I have two) are very happy to live without a car. They live within three miles of their jobs and use electric scooters for commuting. They have their food and consumer goods shipped to their house. They say that they don’t need to drive anywhere, and the occasion that they want to go somewhere Uber is available. Meanwhile they are saving hundreds to thousands of dollars a month by not having two cars.
I personally (a millennial) have put less than five thousand miles on my car in the last 5 years. People say cars are a requirement for American life, but I find that’s becoming less true for more and more Americans.
Maybe more media-visible Americans are living in such areas now, but supply is extremely tight. A lot of these neighborhoods tend to be older, being poor in previous decades, and now those poor people are getting pushed out to the suburbs where cars are a great required expense.
If you go out a few times a week, not having a car in most American cities is quite difficult/burdensome/expensive. Uber alone would be $100 round trip if I wanted to go into the city from where I live. Public transit? Isn’t available past 11pm.
For many people, yes.
> Bigger house means more maintenance, and bigger lot means more mowing. I for one, hate mowing.
No one is forcing you to buy a big home with a maintenance burden. Out of respect, don't force other people into buying smaller ones.
You can easily give everyone a McMansion and live in some sub 1.5C utopia as long as we focus on where we get our energy and resources from. Stop focusing on consumption quantity because it just sounds like envy.
Heat pumps just move heat around... They do not create heat. If they did - we'd have some violations of laws. All they're doing is going to transfer geothermal, solar, wind, etc. power into heat transfer - which is transferring heat from outdoors into your home... Which then goes back outdoors at some point. There isn't any "heat" creation here.
What model are you speaking of where they claim electric cars are not viable for the future? (Assuming renewable energy sources and sustainable use of natural resources, etc.)
I'm not going to dispute the point about heat pumps more because I don't know enough about them to argue credibly about it. Maybe you're right and it's a perfect solution to the problem.
> What model are you speaking of where they claim electric cars are not viable for the future? (Assuming renewable energy sources and sustainable use of natural resources, etc.)
That assumes away the problem I think. Is it really inconceivable that we're going to start hitting limits to resources, especially if we're doubling down on cars which all have their own large batteries, sprawling asphalt, and all the rest of it? It seems really hard to imagine to me that we're going to chance on technology that makes it just as sustainable for everyone to live in a McMansion and drive an F-150 an hour to work as for people to ride trains or bicycles and live in denser housing. Certainly we could do much better than now before we started to nip at that stuff but I feel like there have to be limits. If it's so easy and we have all the answers I have to wonder why all the kicking and screaming to get there.
You have been sucked into believing by corporations that you are the issue but it's the corporations who are the issue. They want you to take personal responsibility for their issues. Everything is pushed onto the end user and the individual as responsibility rather than a corporation to do things in a manner that is best for us all. You know why? Cause that's good for the corporations! They can do horrible things and not have to deal with any of the externalities that they're creating and rake in the profit! These strategies have been mainstream for well over 50 years now.
Keep believing that personal responsibility is really the key to solving climate change but it will continue to do nothing and mean nothing. The responsibility is within your governmental body to take over how corporations are producing their products, harvesting resources, generating power, and the externalities that their products create.
Do you really think it's a coincidence that the products sold to you are not environmentally-friendly/sustainable/whatever? It's not because consumers demand them... Consumers just want something cheap... But consumers aren't paying for externalities upfront... neither are corps... No one pays. Thus, cheaper. You offer two comparable products but one is cheaper - people choose the cheaper one! On top of that, our world and economy is built on these natural resources. Imagine if oil became $0 or $1000/barrel. It'd wreck certain parts of the economy either way - there is a heavy investment and lobbying infrastructure built upon maintaining the status quo.
You really are using the personal responsibility framework to a high extent. Corps are the biggest issue. Most issues of CO2 generators and other such things - people are very happy to use their replacements because there is very little difference in quality of life (sometimes it's even improved). The things people most want that create CO2 and there's no way around it ever are very low contributors to CO2 overall. You could easily wipe out over half of CO2 emissions in USA by just converting everything to renewable energy resources. (electric cars + electricity production + using heat pumps)
This statement is tinged with the idea of sacrifice and loss that is unfortunately one of the hallmarks of the environmental movement. How about this? We can have an emissions-free future that is much more awesome than now with the same size cars and homes. Rewiring America explains how (hint: electrify everything):
https://www.rewiringamerica.org/
Of course, it's also a good idea to reduce our overall consumption, but if you tell people they're going to have to live "worse" lives for the sake of the climate — well I don't think that's true or helpful.
(Note: I personally like induction stoves the best. I'm not arguing that gas stoves are a good thing, just that we can get 90% of the benefit for only like 10% of the whining by leaving them alone for now.)
Unimaginable to who? I can easily imagine this. The negatives you list are real, but they'll get rapidly better in the next 20 years (longer range cars, more charging stations for example). But in focusing on the negatives you (and the people you say you're speaking for) forget the positives:
- Electric cars already have the lowest cost of ownership of any cars and are often more fun to drive. The electric Ford pickup is basically just a better version of the fossil pickup.
- Heat pumps can both heat and cool homes meaning there's no need for separate AC/heaters. They're also often installed with mini splits meaning that families have finer-grained control over the temperature in various rooms.
- Induction stoves boil water in under a minute and are way easier to clean than gas or even electric resistance stoves. Plus gas stoves actually cause respiratory issues in homes.
- Without emissions, our air becomes a lot more pleasant to breathe, kills fewer people, and thus overall health improves. Cities in particular will have noticeably better air quality.
- Installing and maintaining electrified machines will create millions of new jobs in every zip code in the country and help distribute wealth.
- All of this will be cheaper to run than fossil fuels due to the inherent efficiency of electrification. The average US household will actually save hundreds of dollars a year on energy bills.
One of the tricks that will help make this all doable is to make emissions-free technologies up-front cheaper than the alternatives. So the thing that's the best for the climate is also best for the consumer's wallet. Government rebates would work great here and there's a bill being worked on right now for this: https://twitter.com/USRepKCastor/status/1426230666857959428
By comparison the US is brand new and has abundant land. Add to that the fact that many houses in the US are timber-framed things that are easy to change and extend, and you have a recipe for big homes.
Where they are legal (very small percentage of land area), America's tight housing markets see smaller townhomes and apartments sprout like weeds.
British cities like London would have plenty more space if they built up, even slightly. Comparable European cities have 4-8 story apartment buildings in the inner city; London quickly becomes single houses.
> There wasn't much land to start with, and changing the use of land that's had buildings on it for 1000 years is incredibly hard.
Most of London is much, much younger than that. London expanded in the late 19th century, as railways and metro lines were built.
The general level of craftsmanship is lackluster, agreed.
> Americans are the least-informed people history has ever known
Both this and your prior statement are reflections regarding the diversity of the United States: we have a lot of good stuff and a lot of bad stuff. You can find either in abundance and pretend it's the only option, or you can look at it and see a nuanced perspective.
I’ve lived in Japan and their housing is far superior. It is newer in general, well-built, quiet, warm, efficient, comfortable, functional, and cheap. American housing stock is none of those things, at twice the price.
Don't houses in Japan only last 20-30 years? Isn't the only reason they're newer in general that they have to be rebuilt so often? Houses in America last way longer than twice that, so only paying twice as much seems like a bargain in comparison.
And to address your other anti-American points…the world’s rich come here for health care, and it’s the best in the world for cutting edge care. Our highway system is one of the best in the world and we don’t care about high speed rail because of that. Your heavy biases can’t really cover up the facts.
That is coming very close to personal attack, which is against the site guidelines.
Heat pumps are probably the most efficient way we have to both cool AND heat a house. This is especially true when combined with solar panels and smart thermostats.
Also I have no idea what you are talking about with Emeryville. They have three gas stations, all on Powell St. Berkeley has at least 20.
That's not true: it will cause an inconvenience to Berkeley residents using gas-powered vehicles. It's not definitive, but it has an effect on stimulating energy transition.
"We will ban gas stations when more than m out of n nearby cities have either banned gas stations or passed this law."
[0]https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10315
[1]https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/us-driving-last-year-was-l...
[2]https://www.urbanismnext.org/what-to-do/congestion-vmt-reduc...
No. The tide is not turning. The vast majority of charging stations are inside the city. And the vast majority of places in those stations a slow, 3kW ones, with a sprinkle of 11kW in between. There are maybe ten 50kW ones in the entire Stockholm area.
If the only thing you do is commuting, and you have a place to charge your car overnight at/near your home, then you can drive an electric car. For anything else? Good luck.
I agree we need to improve charging station availability. With a few exceptions, EVs are generally not well-suited to long-distance travel.
How is it a red herring? It's a real need that has to be addressed to make EVs viable.
On Saturday we drove to a popular destination just 70 kilometres away from Stockholm (that is, 140 kilometres both ways). That popular destination has a total of 6 charging places with may be three of them with 22kW chargers, and the rest of them 7kW and 3kW.
To ensure we wouldn't get stuck, on Saturday morning I drove into the city to one of the 50kW chargers hoping they wouldn't be occupied, and spent an hour waiting at a cafe while the car was charging.
On Sunday we went for a longer trip. An unimaginable 135 km from Stockholm. I hoped to once again charge the car in the morning, but the 50kW charging spot was taken, so I had to contend with a 43kW one. It didn't charge as fast. We only had 260 km worth of charge in the car, and had to make a 1-hour-long stop at a McDonalds on the highway that had a total of 4 quick chargers that were miraculously unoccupied.
> For those people, EVs provide a better overall experience.
Somehow you assume that's the only experience "those people" are ever going to have.
> just charging at home is a viable option.
Ah yes. "Just". It's simple. Just charge at home. You only have to provide charging infrastructure at home. And provide that infrastructure for all homes (because the end goal is to make all cars electric, isn't it?).
Right now I live in an apartment complex with 154 apartments. It's one of the Stockholm's suburbs that is basically a village with a commuter train passing through it. Surely, you can get to the city, and public transportation is still excellent, but you do end up driving significantly more than you would in a city (if for the sole reason that all distances are increased compared to the city).
So, you need to provide electric outlets to all ~154 parking places near the complex. And to ~200 outlets to the neighboring complex. And to the next one. And to the next one... Who is going to pay for that, I wonder? Though I know. The "revolution" will happen at the expense of people who are told they will benefit from it.
For me, an EV needs about 8 miles of range for commuting, and about 1000 for vacation, and it's just silly to own 992 extra miles of battery the other 355 days a year.
Which is to say, I think we're rushing prematurely into completely ending gasoline vehicles. They should be phased out, but "phased" is the operative word -- let some linger in applications where they're still better suited. I currently drive a hybrid and I plan to replace it with a PHEV, not a BEV, for that reason.
No-one is going to confiscate all gasoline vehicles, but they need to pay for the externalities in air pollution, CO2 emissions and noise pollution, etc.
If the US paid $6+ a gallon like most of Europe does, I think the tide would change pretty soon.
The average EV costs $19k more than the average gas-powered car. This gap is closing but for the time being only upper-middle to upper class Americans can switch to EVs, so making gas artificially scarce/expensive will disproportionately affect those who can't afford to make the switch.
However they typically live where they can get by without a car, as even a cheap car requires unexpected $700 repairs and can not be relied upon.
A lot of the car-dependent design of most of the US is to try to keep people like that out of neighborhoods.
Many don't even have a driver's license they get a "voluntary ID" card, government issued. At best they'd get a pre-paid credit card or maybe a debit card. But most often it's cash only. All those payday loan stores exist for a reason!
As for expense, the total cost of ownership for electric vehicles is often less than equivalent gas vehicles, even if the purchase price is slightly higher.
When a car is paid for by a loan, this lower total cost of ownership is directly realized in the monthly payment. If a person is paying up front with cash on a car, they are making their own value judgement about the time value of money, and can choose to finance whatever portion the prefer in order to realize this lower TCO.
The argument should have been that it takes time to transition off petrol cars and poor people need more time to transition so hasty decisions like banning gas stations should only be done in conjunction with policy that speeds up the transition.
Banning gas stations is just the California equivalent of a suburb in North Carolina banning a litany of alcohol related businesses.
I'm just saying that the trend has to already exist for a municipality to change something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXLfHJ6fIJo
And, since every trend must begin with a single data point, maybe it is a new trend. We just won't know anything about the direction until we accumulate more data points.
Frankly California's more gilded counties like Sonoma have a perverse incentive to reduce gas stations: it reduces congregation and attendance by the homeless. This feels like the "cashless" argument playing out all over again. Sure, its perhaps easier and more efficient for the business to simply refuse to accept cash but at the end of the day its a poor people ban.
You just say those words, get an emotional reaction.
Superchargers have nothing to do with financial transactions. You can't buy a soda or lotto ticket and claim to belong there.
I believe in 10 years they will be building gas stations with the chargers in the front, store in the middle, pumps in the back.
EV drivers have even more need for someplace to hang out/browse for 10-20 minutes or so. Not everyone wants to sit in their car while charging.
Gas stations in general are very polluting, for both the ground and noxious fumes. Because of this, in CA they are already banned 300 ft (~90m) from any sensitive uses like schools or playgrounds, and even then there is evidence that this perimeter is not enough.
You don't actually need to fill up with gas in order to stop and eat. This doesn't seem as bad as you seem to think. It's just change.
I could MAYBE understand the argument that the pumps help subsidize the cost of the convenience store and you'd see X% of locations close with no replacement taking over the location, but the whole point is that we have to make a choice between jobs + status quo or change + less climate impact.
TL;dr- I'm pretty sure we have enough gas stations at this point to meet demand.
You're going to spend $1M+ on all the buildings, pumps, tanks, etc. And the population of gas cars in the road is slowly decreasing today, and expected to rapidly decrease in the future. Will you really get a good return in your investment when profits on selling gas are very slim, and the risks of EPA regulations giving you huge fines for gas leaks and soil decontamination costs are so large.
Besides, most money for a "gas station" is made from the convenience store. Like you said, gas profits are slim. They make some money, but their primary purpose is to drive customers to the convenience store. When the tides do change, they'll probably just gradually swap out pumps for chargers and continue business as usual.
I'd understand it in a town with regular queues at gas stations. But there aren't many of those left today.
There may also be other factors at play with the convenience store. Is there a store like that within walking distance? That's another market opportunity. In my home state there is a gas station chain who is very popular for their pizza. They actually opened another station in my home town specifically to keep up with demand for the pizza.
What is the correlation between pandemic related gas shortages and a need for more fuel pumps (vs. more of the fuel to be delivered to the pumps because of pandemic related supply chain issues)?
Also, where are these constant waiting lines currently happening? I'm personally in NJ, an extremely densely populated state, and haven't seen anything other than the normal rush hour "4 pumps, 6 cars" type of lines. The larger filling stations (6+ pumps) almost never have more cars than pumps at any time I've driven past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
Even for the few people looking to buy a new vehicle there are few "affordable" EVs on the market, the ones which are available are relatively expensive, and plenty of other reasons to consider gas-powered alternatives. Charging is still relatively slow and charge stations are relatively hard to come by compared to gas. The batteries are also still incredibly expensive to repair or replace - in some cases seemingly by design.
I really don't understand this. If you want to stop automotive gas consumption, you need to stop people from buying gas-powered vehicles, not stop them from building gas stations.
While for now they are a necessary part of the transportation system, gas stations have very obvious downsides at least from a local perspective.
That's another result of fuel consumption, not the construction of new gas stations. The toxic fumes aren't reduced because a driver goes an extra couple minutes out of their way to use one of the existing stations.
The goal is to reduce automotive emissions. Gas stations don't incentivize automotive emissions - it's the other way around.
Local road emissions are linked to poor health conditions like asthma.
No. Because it will be quite a few years before anyone even starts noticing any reduction in gas stations. I think it's more of a political posturing than an indication of an emerging trend.
I own several vehicles of various vintages and there is not a single one that I couldn't crank up and drive from an existing gasoline station in my home town to any other connected, accessible location on my continent. Indeed, I can actually drive the 4WD vehicles I own deep into the countryside where there are no gasoline stations and never have a single fuel supply related problem with proper planning and equipment.
The fuel tanks on my vehicles range in volume from 10.5 US gallons to 33 US gallons and fuel economy numbers range from 32 mpg down to 12 mpg. That means for any of my vehicles I have a range of more than 300 miles (10.5 * 32 = 336 miles and 33 * 12 = 396 miles).
I will encounter lots of existing gasoline stations along any route I choose.
I think the idea behind building new stations has to revolve around making it more convenient for people moving to new subdivisions to fuel their vehicles locally. If you don't build out gasoline station infrastructure near new construction then those who choose to live there are required to monitor their fuel consumption closely enough that they always know when they should gas up on the way home. They should be doing this anyway IMHO.
I don't think we need new gasoline stations in summary because I think all places are already accessible with our current infrastructure.
And I would like to expand on or clarify a statement in the article that is very important and was not stated well.
From the article about halfway down:
>>But it’s not all good news. The long-term shift to electric and a mass closures of gas stations will create toxic “brown sites” across the country. A typical gas station can spill up to 100 gallons of gasoline annually, ... ...these poisoned plots will present an environmental problem of monumental proportions.
This paragraph makes it seem as if the existence of a gas station is environmentally fine until that station is closed or decommissioned at which point it becomes a brown site requiring remediation. That is not true at all. Once you fill the tanks and begin serving gasoline to customers there will always be some spillage at the pumps. The gasoline station becomes a brown site when it begins operation but you are typically only able to begin remediation when the station is shut down and no longer serves gasoline or when there is a documented leak from the underground tanks that makes it critical to shut down the station for repairs. Therefore, all existing gasoline stations are already toxic environmental sites and the problem is indeed monumental today.
I see no reason to add to the problem by building new gasoline stations.
The ban would be great news to the existing gas stations as well would be interesting to know how busy they currently are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California