Performative legislation by the party you think would do such a thing but imagine if they actually passed it. What happens when it's illegal to buy the only cars that are available for sale?
Definitely performative, just like the similar legislation by nation states and US states trying to make internal combustion cars illegal.
California has the infrastructure and population all squeezed into valleys/coastlines combined with very temperate climate making it perfect for EVs. Wyoming has it's population spread out equally everywhere and has little EV infrastructure and terribly cold climate.
But neither of these states should be trying to pass these silly laws just to highlight their respective situations.
I very much doubt this will happen. Toyota announced it will continue to produce ICE cars, and other major manufacturers will walk back their vague "goals" once the utopian goals are revealed to be impractical. Or perhaps the goals will just keep getting pushed forward and there will be lip service paid to them during the annual Davos conferences.
Several US automakers may not make it, though. They are long past their sell by date anyways, and will probably go out of business after abandoning ICE production.
Scroll down to the part of my below citation where each jurisdiction is identified with new combustion vehicle sales bans. This forces auto supply chains to reconfigure or die.
Some jurisdictions might walk their bans back, but you only require a critical mass of the total addressable market to stick to it for it to remain effective. “As California goes, so goes the nation.” and all the jazz.
Scroll down to the part where something was actually enacted as opposed to being promised to be enacted long after the legislators leave office. These "plans", "pledges" are about as reliable as carbon net zero promises. It is purely performative. You may not have noticed, but carbon emissions keep going up. As does coal use [https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-s-coal-consumption-is-set...].
But lets have another pledge, it will all be phased out in 2040!
Also, the part about California leading the nation has stopped being true a long time ago. California is an object lesson in government dysfunction, wacky ideas, a crazy, utopian electorate that is disconnected from reality and a shrinking population as people flee to more sane jurisdictions where things actually work. It is by far the most hated state in the nation, and is generally used as a slur.
California is the world’s fourth largest economy and has 12% of the US population (39 million compared to the 600k folks living in Wyoming). It’ll continue to be an economic powerhouse long after people complaining online about the state are gone. If complaining makes you feel better, do so, but it doesn’t change the facts. It’s certainly not going to hurt California [1].
Nothing hurts some Californians' feelings than the simple fact that the rest of the nation no longer looks to them for guidance.
Yes, California is still big. But it's no longer a leader. The idea "but California did this" is no longer an argument in favor of something. It's often an argument against doing something.
I am sorry if this triggers you, but it's reality.
It has a broad reputation for dysfunction in basically every area. Energy -- it imports 20% of its electricity from the rest of the nation's grid to get around wacky anti-carbon rules for domestically produced energy, and as a result has the highest energy costs in the nation as well as suffering from rolling blackouts. It is the state of constant fires because of forest mismanagement due to a politically influential "don't chop down our precious trees" faction. (California's chronic fires are also blamed on global warming). It has one of the worst education systems and a truly insane educational policy ("we will create 5 million Galois' by eliminating math classes!"). Terrible homeless problem. Terrible crime problem. A shrinking population. Massively dysfunctional housing market. And one of the highest tax burdens. Massive infrastructure problems.
Etc.
It's really hard to think of any area of public policy - from tax policy to education to energy or crime -- and say "Hey, what California is doing is working really well, we should emulate that". Just compare how California stood in areas like test scores, crime, housing affordability, energy prices in 1970 versus 1990 versus today. You see a peak and then a decline followed by collapse.
Choosing a 13 year old clearly reblogged article from an organization known as “24/7 Wall St.” (with a dot and all) as your source is an interesting way to provide a credible source showing the current opinion of everyone in the US regarding California. It’s not even a survey, which would have been obvious had you spent the time to actually look at it rather than cherry-pick the first result off Google which lined up with your opinion.
It’s especially ridiculous since that’s literally just one organization’s opinion on California.
And their opinion is solely based on 4 key indicators and nothing else. I’m not a data scientist but even I know that you can pretty easily find 4 key metrics which allow you to rank states in any way you choose.
If you were to actually look up the organization, you would see it’s just a random blog (not that it is at all surprising considering their name), and that their 2021 rankings had California solidly in the middle of the pack, not that it makes a difference considering how limited their methodology is.
I gave multiple examples related to energy, education, environmental policy, crime, etc, and urged you to learn how to use a search engine to look up surveys. You fixated maniacally on not liking that the word "wall st" appeared in a blog title.
FYI, California students have among the lowest reading comprehension scores (and math scores) in the nation.
I fixated on the provenance and methodology of the single source you provided.
Your opinions are, once again, just that. They’re not facts, regardless how convincing you try sounding. I’m not going to respond to them because I made my thoughts on them clear already. You’re entitled to them, but they’re not anything except that.
> You wouldn't happen to be from California, by any chance? I can see the ninja-like reading comprehension and reasoning skills are strong here.
I’m not, but nice ad hominem you tried there. Not that my words would be worth more or less based on where I live, but that clearly matters a lot to you.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of CA, but you're clearly suffering from an advanced case of Murdoch brain worms. Please show us on the doll where CA touched you ;)
> you only require a critical mass of the total addressable market to stick to it for it to remain effective.
I think that's backwards. Instead, for it's still to be practical to buy new ICE cars in states where they are legal you just need those states to cover enough population that it's worth it for some manufacturer to keep producing the cars. I would expect that to happen even if we were only talking about 5% of the population living in those states if those states continue to have strong demand for ICE vehicles (and so the remaining manufacturer could sell a lot of whatever they kept producing).
It will take several decades to upgrade the grid to handle EVs. Look at places like California where the grid can’t even keep up with air conditioners, and they want to charge tens of millions of cars with it?
Building power plants and electric infrastructure takes decades. And if electricity is less reliable and more expensive than gasoline (which is what will inevitably happen in any market where demand is greater than supply), then there’s no economic incentive for anyone to buy EVs.
The funny part is that Wyoming is too small a market to change automakers strategy. If they enacted this,
It would result in their citizens just not being able to buy new cars in 15 years.
Combustion emissions are terrible in California due to them being held over population centers, caused by mountain geography and prevailing winds. It makes sense for them to encourage EV uptake and outlaw new combustion vehicle sales. Air pollution kills, this science is settled. They also, on average, generate roughly half of their daily electrical demands from solar (per CAISO and ElectricityMap.org).
Wyoming has no excuse. It’s willful ignorance attempting to protect a dying industry. They’re attempting the same with their coal industry, so it’s not unexpected, just disappointing.
The situations are quite different. For one, California's laws do actually influence the auto manufacturing sector. They're typically the tip of the spear when it comes to things like emissions standards. Because the state represents such a big part of the auto buying market, it's usually easier for manufacturers to go along with the regulations (rather than introducing separate supply chains for vehicles sold in various states).
> What happens when it's illegal to buy the only cars that are available for sale?
Wyoming will start to look like Cuba: people will drive antiques, and local machinists will crop up to reproduce out-of-stock parts. They've got oil, so presumably they could even maintain their own gasoline supply through corporate welfare. As the second least-populous (people per square mile) state in the union, I think they could even pull it off.
Richer Wyomingians will be able to buy electric cars out of state, but if it gets that far, I suspect such a choice would bear substantial physical risk even driving around in one (which is already a nuisance in some places).
I would expect Wyoming residents to have problems with electric cars anyway, due to a lack of charging stations (and I wouldn't be surprised to see vandalism). I don't live in Wyoming, but I used to live in Idaho, and the mentality is similar.
I am sure that will work, a state with a population less than a tiny neighborhood in New York City thinking this will make an impact, good luck with that :)
Also I do not know how they can stop the creation of charging stations. IIRC, Biden wants to pepper Interstate highways with charging stations. So at the very least, there will still be stations in WY no matter what that bill says.
Yeah. So what? Wyoming is a state with a shrinking population, whose 581,000 residents represent 0.17% of the US population. Laws passed there will have a vanishingly small impact on the manufacturing decisions of any major auto company.
Interstate highways are owned/operated/maintained by the states. The federal government can (attempt to) influence what happens along them, but it's not going to build anything itself.
The reason we had a standardized 55 mph speed limit and 21 as the drinking age was via federal interstate highway funding being made contingent on those things.
Right, "the federal government can (attempt to) influence what happens along them." Of course, that particular brand of influence has waned in recent decades for obvious reasons.
It's a hilarious and performative fall from grace from those who idolize free markets, say the government should not "pick winners", and rail against the nanny state.
Or rather, they correctly determined that their opponents were totalitarians who fully intend to use their support for liberty to destroy them, and are acting accordingly.
This is kind of like finding someone who supports non-violence, physically choking him, and then sneering at him for going against his principles when he tries to fight back.
Maybe try listening to and understanding people instead of sneering at them.
Don't worry, at this rate there is a point where the height of stupidity will fall back to zero, in good part caused by the height of stupidity reached in the previous decades.
Lithium, cobalt and other related metals don’t come from the sky, entire ecosystems (mostly from the 3rd world) are destroyed so that those metals can make their way into batteries for EVs.
Accusing the oil industry for destroying the world while cheering for EVs reminds me of that meme with two Spider-Man characters pointing at each other.
Oh, that's interesting. Rather a chicken and egg situation then.
"The median ratio across the US is 14.2 EVs to ports, with Wyoming having the best (lowest) ratio at 4.2 to 1 and New Jersey had the worst (highest) at 41.7 to 1."
Gotta keep in mind though that Wyoming has a population of about 600,000 people, or roughly the population of the city of Milwaukee--for those unfamiliar, that's not an especially big city either.
Yeah, that is not going to happen. The momentum that EVs have at the moment, I would be surprised if there even is a mainstream ICE car available in 2035.
There are still very serious concerns with Used Market values, and the ablity for people to not buy a ticking time bomb that is a battery replacement on the used market
Unless that is solved EV;s will never break 20-30% of sales
Used cars are already ticking time bombs because of the engine, transmissions, etc…being able to measure battery wear definitively without hiring an mechanic to closely go over it actually makes an EV a much safer used car buy than an ICE.
That is the problem right there, I do not believe they can do that that definitively, and there are more than a few horror stories already where a person buys a Used EV, the battery tested fine on purchase, but then just a few months later a cell goes out... and since you can not just replace a single cell well now they have a $20,000 bill often more than the car is worth
>>Used cars are already ticking time bombs because of the engine, transmissions, etc
this is a known risk already assimilated into the market, with network of repair options and 3rd party parts dealers to lower the cost of repairs
EV manufacturers are trying (often successfully) at blocking these 3rd party repair options and making the cost to repair an EV $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I agree that a definitive measure of battery health is not available (in two senses: the ones available are not conclusive and they are easily tampered with).
I disagree that the batteries are not serviceable. My car has had a module replacement which served to restore battery and vehicle
capacity after a single module (mostly) failed. That was done at a dealer under warranty, but there are many aftermarket suppliers capable of doing the same (and I’d have DIY’d it in my driveway if it wasn’t covered under warranty).
Under the guise of safety most manufacturers have or in the process of blocking 3rd party batteries. Electrify America also at one point in time only allowed "certified manufacturers" to charge on their network, blocking "homemade" EV's and repaired EV;s
Tesla Famously have blocked their supercharger network from rebuilds as well
It is not a technical limitation it is an economic and political one.
>That was done at a dealer under warranty
And most likely with out that warranty your car would have been economically totaled. Which is normally any repair that costs 55-60% of the current market value.
> and since you can not just replace a single cell well now they have a $20,000 bill often more than the car is worth
If you are referring to the conservative-popular meme that I think you are, that wasn’t even for an BEV, but an old PHEV whose (fairly small) battery was out of production.
> EV manufacturers are trying (often successfully) at blocking these 3rd party repair options and making the cost to repair an EV $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Mechanics are expensive these days, even for ICEs. Yes, repairing an EV is expensive, but so is repairing a newer ICE.
I would love to hear criticisms against EVs that didn’t apply to cars in general.
While it's true that you can't replace one cell, you also don't need to because the pack is designed to lose individual cells without significantly impacting the range. It's not like they're not all in series or something. They're paralleled in medium groups (72 on original model S) with individual fuses, so a single lost cell cuts the capacity of that one group by 1/72. Active rebalancing can transfer charge between groups, so it's hardly noticeable.
That’s a little more than 10 years. The charger networks, battery issues in the cold, availability of the raw materials, etc won’t scale that quickly. It’ll probably take closer to 20 years for the tipping point to be reached.
> I would be surprised if there even is a mainstream ICE car available in 2035.
I'd be happy to bet on that!
There's no state in the US where electric cars are a majority of what are sold today, with the highest fraction being CA at 18%. [1]. Naive extrapolation gives you 57% of CA in 2030 and 30% of US. [2] The combination of "some people are going to still prefer gas cars" and "those people are concentrated in some states" means I'd expect many ICE options available in 2035.
>The proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will have deleterious impacts on … the ability for the country to efficiently engage in commerce.
Literal nonsense. Surely countries efficiently engaging in commerce don’t need artificial controls on which products they can and can’t sell
Maybe you could say double standards, but... hypocrisy? The side making pro-EV laws has never claimed love for unfettered free markets so where's the hypocrisy?
It's not hypocrisy, the other side isn't now saying "we need freedom of choice" they're still fine with the principle of banning things, they just want the other thing banned, simple disagreement.
Another example, politician A makes a personal attack, politician B says personal attacks are wrong and then makes one themselves = hypocrisy. If they just reply with another personal attack without the moral objection = not hypocrisy.
It’s exactly as absurd as the alternative legislation to “phase out” (what a bizarre turn of phrase) ICE vehicles. And I say this as an EV owner.
The concept of banning one tech or another in this way is backwards thinking and stems from ignorance of the power and beauty of market economics.
People (in the aggregate) will buy the products that work best for them at the price they can afford.
Now it’s true those products often have externalities, sometimes even directly harmful to the people that are buying them! (e.g. fast food)
Except in the gravest product safety sense, these products should be left to compete with each other in the great world marketplace.
The aim of government should be to subsidize the innovations that make products with the best externalities safer, cleaner, faster, better, cheaper, etc. to the point where they can stand alone and win in the open market.
In the case of EVs, what we need is not bans on ICE vehicles in some ever closer looming date. What we’ll need is massive infrastructure improvements to support the intrinsic demand for the truly better/cheaper/faster/safer product.
The initial round of subsidies have more than achieved the boost up the learning curve to make these products ultra competitive.
We are rapidly approaching the point where the only reason someone wouldn’t by an EV is because either it’s truly inappropriate for their use case (see: plows in NYC) or they simply don’t have a convenient way to charge it.
Or they don't wish to buy an EV. The choice should remain. Someone supporting a ban on gas vehicles because it is harmful to the environment, should also be ready to support similar bans on cigarettes, alcohol and fast food, because they are directly harmful to us.
The difference is that your consumption of fast food and liquor doesn't hurt anyone else. Secondhand cigarette smoke does, and guess what, that's exactly why there's laws against smoking inside so many places now. Similarly, I don't care for you using my air for a garbage dump for the waste products from your car.
> The concept of banning one tech or another in this way is backwards thinking and stems from ignorance of the power and beauty of market economics.
This is a one-sided view of markets. One can both recognize the power of the market which can be a force for both great good and extreme evil. You may be right that banning extant technology is not the best approach to dealing with the failings of government and the market (which cannot ever be cleanly separated) but that doesn't mean that it is backward thinking to consider that perhaps we might be better off if we eliminated or transitioned to a different technology.
There shouldn't be a ban on ICE vehicles; there should just be a ban on emitting waste products into the air from vehicles. If you can figure out a way to use ICE cars without blasting me with air pollution, then by all means keep using them.
Misleading headline. "A group of state legislators propose a law" != "State ABC wants to XYZ"
This is a law proposed by a small group of state legislators. Of course, all laws start as bills like this. But most bills never become law.
A more responsible and less sensationalistic story would talk about the level of support for such a bill, its chances of becoming actual law, its constitutionality, and so on.
This is newsworthy, but not when reported like this.
Can we penalize sites that provide misleading headlines? I’m so sick of sites twisting the facts like this, if we could build a list of sites that don’t manipulate the facts and just present things straight I would love it.
Well as the OP on this one, I contemplated changing the headline (which was too long in any case)... but in other circumstances we get in trouble with a community for changing a headline to opine.
I err on the side of "just report what the publication says" and let others (appropriately) criticize bad headline-writing.
Changing the headline is not encouraged/allowed on HN; the mods will usually (always?) change it to reflect the actual one.
The issue here is that you linked to a low quality source. As I said, this is newsworthy IMO. But surely there was a better quality source you might have chosen.
If you are willing to share some controversial or questionable piece of news on HN, it might be worth looking for alternative sources. Is it that hard to do a couple of searches rather than submitting the low-quality one with zero extra effort? Do you not want to be better informed yourself anyways?
While the headline was imperfect, the article had the key piece up-front: someone submitted a bill with this premise. That was enough for my needs.
If the community is interested in the topic, typically the comments point to more germane information, backstory, and other data that supports/refutes what an article says. That's a healthy behavior, and it's why online communities remain popular.
Wyoming is 70 % Republican, the legislators proposing it are Republican and these are not just created on a whim. The conversations ensuring support already happened.
It's about protectionism by the sounds of it. You can't produce what others don't want so this really won't go anywhere in the long run. Just a vote grabber in the short term.
WRT ICE vehicles no longer being manufactured: ain’t happening. Purchasing or licensing an ICE vehicle may become a reality in some (wealthy) countries. It is not happening in third-world countries, eg. Mexico. Simple fact is that the utilities infrastructure is not there.
Walking through any working-class neighbourhood shows it, even in relatively modern cities like Puerto Vallarta, let alone looking at any of the small towns scattered across the nation. As’ anyone living in a small town along the popular Costa Alegre: brown-outs and black-outs are common. There is no capacity whatsoever to start hooking up charging stations for the population.
I’m not sure what your point is. Working lower-class Mexicans can’t afford a new vehicle, much less a bunch of solar panels as well. They are not going to transition to EVs within your lifetime.
Well if they can't afford a new gasoline powered one it's not a defect of electric vehicles that they can't afford one of those either. But that said the total cost of ownership of an EV is less. Which is actually important for lower income people.
Again, what is your point? My claim is that ICE vehicles will continue to be used for many decades in countries with large impoverished populations, because the electrical infrastructure will not support EVs. They don’t even have reliable electricity for their homes; they are not going to be able to charge their vehicles. Further, poor citizens in poor countries can’t even afford to keep their old, used vehicles in good repair, let alone purchase expensive new vehicles.
No idea what counterpoint you’re trying to make. Whatever it is, it certainly isn’t applicable to the lives of people living in poor third-world communities.
One of the problems with the power grid in third would communities is the need to constantly import coal, oil, and gas to run the power plants. And constantly import oil to run vehicles as well. So it's not like they aren't spending money already. And solar + electrified transport is cheaper then what they have now.
Electric cars are fundamentally better because developing country could just use some of the excise tax they charge on cars to buy solar panels. And the power from solar isn't subject to price shocks and interruptions like oil and gas are.
It is dead obvious that you have never travelled. The problem with the power grid is that it barely exists. The problem is that the final mile is a fucked-up mess of barely-functioning hacks. The problem is that it is utterly unreliable. The problem is that there isn’t even capacity for everyone in the neighbourhood to run all their kettles simultaneously, so good fucking luck plugging in cars. You are utterly clueless about conditions on the ground. Good day, I’m done trying to get you to understand what it’s like in rural/small town/poor neighbourhoods in poor countries.
I, for one, am thrilled that a state will finally experiment with making a completely car-free state (because no one is going to produce ICE cars for a market the size of Wyoming).
101 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 27.8 ms ] threadCalifornia has the infrastructure and population all squeezed into valleys/coastlines combined with very temperate climate making it perfect for EVs. Wyoming has it's population spread out equally everywhere and has little EV infrastructure and terribly cold climate.
But neither of these states should be trying to pass these silly laws just to highlight their respective situations.
Doesn't mean it illegal to own old ICE vehicles so, just that there won't any new ones being sold anymore.
Several US automakers may not make it, though. They are long past their sell by date anyways, and will probably go out of business after abandoning ICE production.
Some jurisdictions might walk their bans back, but you only require a critical mass of the total addressable market to stick to it for it to remain effective. “As California goes, so goes the nation.” and all the jazz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...
But lets have another pledge, it will all be phased out in 2040!
Also, the part about California leading the nation has stopped being true a long time ago. California is an object lesson in government dysfunction, wacky ideas, a crazy, utopian electorate that is disconnected from reality and a shrinking population as people flee to more sane jurisdictions where things actually work. It is by far the most hated state in the nation, and is generally used as a slur.
Edit: I have never lived in California.
[1] https://youtu.be/LlOSdRMSG_k
Yes, California is still big. But it's no longer a leader. The idea "but California did this" is no longer an argument in favor of something. It's often an argument against doing something.
I am sorry if this triggers you, but it's reality.
For example, https://www.cagrocers.com/california-repeats-worst-run-state...
It has a broad reputation for dysfunction in basically every area. Energy -- it imports 20% of its electricity from the rest of the nation's grid to get around wacky anti-carbon rules for domestically produced energy, and as a result has the highest energy costs in the nation as well as suffering from rolling blackouts. It is the state of constant fires because of forest mismanagement due to a politically influential "don't chop down our precious trees" faction. (California's chronic fires are also blamed on global warming). It has one of the worst education systems and a truly insane educational policy ("we will create 5 million Galois' by eliminating math classes!"). Terrible homeless problem. Terrible crime problem. A shrinking population. Massively dysfunctional housing market. And one of the highest tax burdens. Massive infrastructure problems.
Etc.
It's really hard to think of any area of public policy - from tax policy to education to energy or crime -- and say "Hey, what California is doing is working really well, we should emulate that". Just compare how California stood in areas like test scores, crime, housing affordability, energy prices in 1970 versus 1990 versus today. You see a peak and then a decline followed by collapse.
It’s especially ridiculous since that’s literally just one organization’s opinion on California.
And their opinion is solely based on 4 key indicators and nothing else. I’m not a data scientist but even I know that you can pretty easily find 4 key metrics which allow you to rank states in any way you choose.
If you were to actually look up the organization, you would see it’s just a random blog (not that it is at all surprising considering their name), and that their 2021 rankings had California solidly in the middle of the pack, not that it makes a difference considering how limited their methodology is.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/05/19/the-states-w...
Finally, just because you can’t think of any areas does not mean any don’t exist. You’ve made your opinions clear already.
FYI, California students have among the lowest reading comprehension scores (and math scores) in the nation.
Your opinions are, once again, just that. They’re not facts, regardless how convincing you try sounding. I’m not going to respond to them because I made my thoughts on them clear already. You’re entitled to them, but they’re not anything except that.
> You wouldn't happen to be from California, by any chance? I can see the ninja-like reading comprehension and reasoning skills are strong here.
I’m not, but nice ad hominem you tried there. Not that my words would be worth more or less based on where I live, but that clearly matters a lot to you.
I think that's backwards. Instead, for it's still to be practical to buy new ICE cars in states where they are legal you just need those states to cover enough population that it's worth it for some manufacturer to keep producing the cars. I would expect that to happen even if we were only talking about 5% of the population living in those states if those states continue to have strong demand for ICE vehicles (and so the remaining manufacturer could sell a lot of whatever they kept producing).
Building power plants and electric infrastructure takes decades. And if electricity is less reliable and more expensive than gasoline (which is what will inevitably happen in any market where demand is greater than supply), then there’s no economic incentive for anyone to buy EVs.
Wyoming has no excuse. It’s willful ignorance attempting to protect a dying industry. They’re attempting the same with their coal industry, so it’s not unexpected, just disappointing.
https://trib.com/business/energy/demand-for-wyoming-coal-is-...
Wyoming will start to look like Cuba: people will drive antiques, and local machinists will crop up to reproduce out-of-stock parts. They've got oil, so presumably they could even maintain their own gasoline supply through corporate welfare. As the second least-populous (people per square mile) state in the union, I think they could even pull it off.
Richer Wyomingians will be able to buy electric cars out of state, but if it gets that far, I suspect such a choice would bear substantial physical risk even driving around in one (which is already a nuisance in some places).
Also I do not know how they can stop the creation of charging stations. IIRC, Biden wants to pepper Interstate highways with charging stations. So at the very least, there will still be stations in WY no matter what that bill says.
Humankind's ability to reach new heights of stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
> those who idolize free markets, say the government should not "pick winners", and rail against the nanny state.
...but then act in the opposite way to the beliefs they say they hold.
The comment you are replying to adds that the group of people that behave like this likely has an overlap with people that...
> use the Bible as a weapon without embodying the values of Jesus.
So to me that would be a group of people I'd readily label as hypocrites, self-dealing populists or straight up liars.
This is kind of like finding someone who supports non-violence, physically choking him, and then sneering at him for going against his principles when he tries to fight back.
Maybe try listening to and understanding people instead of sneering at them.
Accusing the oil industry for destroying the world while cheering for EVs reminds me of that meme with two Spider-Man characters pointing at each other.
Most EVs in the state are visitors and the highways are going to be electrified anyway. This is going to do nothing to save the oil and gas industry.
"The median ratio across the US is 14.2 EVs to ports, with Wyoming having the best (lowest) ratio at 4.2 to 1 and New Jersey had the worst (highest) at 41.7 to 1."
https://evadoption.com/ev-charging-stations-statistics/charg...
Would be nice to factor in population, too.
Unless that is solved EV;s will never break 20-30% of sales
That is the problem right there, I do not believe they can do that that definitively, and there are more than a few horror stories already where a person buys a Used EV, the battery tested fine on purchase, but then just a few months later a cell goes out... and since you can not just replace a single cell well now they have a $20,000 bill often more than the car is worth
>>Used cars are already ticking time bombs because of the engine, transmissions, etc
this is a known risk already assimilated into the market, with network of repair options and 3rd party parts dealers to lower the cost of repairs
EV manufacturers are trying (often successfully) at blocking these 3rd party repair options and making the cost to repair an EV $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I disagree that the batteries are not serviceable. My car has had a module replacement which served to restore battery and vehicle capacity after a single module (mostly) failed. That was done at a dealer under warranty, but there are many aftermarket suppliers capable of doing the same (and I’d have DIY’d it in my driveway if it wasn’t covered under warranty).
Tesla Famously have blocked their supercharger network from rebuilds as well
It is not a technical limitation it is an economic and political one.
>That was done at a dealer under warranty
And most likely with out that warranty your car would have been economically totaled. Which is normally any repair that costs 55-60% of the current market value.
If it happened again now (outside the warranty period), it would cost me ~6-8 hours and around $70 for the module.
If you are referring to the conservative-popular meme that I think you are, that wasn’t even for an BEV, but an old PHEV whose (fairly small) battery was out of production.
> EV manufacturers are trying (often successfully) at blocking these 3rd party repair options and making the cost to repair an EV $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Mechanics are expensive these days, even for ICEs. Yes, repairing an EV is expensive, but so is repairing a newer ICE.
I would love to hear criticisms against EVs that didn’t apply to cars in general.
I'd be happy to bet on that!
There's no state in the US where electric cars are a majority of what are sold today, with the highest fraction being CA at 18%. [1]. Naive extrapolation gives you 57% of CA in 2030 and 30% of US. [2] The combination of "some people are going to still prefer gas cars" and "those people are concentrated in some states" means I'd expect many ICE options available in 2035.
[1] https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/10/19/california-zev-sales-near-...
[2] https://evadoption.com/ev-sales/ev-sales-forecasts/
Literal nonsense. Surely countries efficiently engaging in commerce don’t need artificial controls on which products they can and can’t sell
Another example, politician A makes a personal attack, politician B says personal attacks are wrong and then makes one themselves = hypocrisy. If they just reply with another personal attack without the moral objection = not hypocrisy.
The concept of banning one tech or another in this way is backwards thinking and stems from ignorance of the power and beauty of market economics.
People (in the aggregate) will buy the products that work best for them at the price they can afford.
Now it’s true those products often have externalities, sometimes even directly harmful to the people that are buying them! (e.g. fast food)
Except in the gravest product safety sense, these products should be left to compete with each other in the great world marketplace.
The aim of government should be to subsidize the innovations that make products with the best externalities safer, cleaner, faster, better, cheaper, etc. to the point where they can stand alone and win in the open market.
In the case of EVs, what we need is not bans on ICE vehicles in some ever closer looming date. What we’ll need is massive infrastructure improvements to support the intrinsic demand for the truly better/cheaper/faster/safer product.
The initial round of subsidies have more than achieved the boost up the learning curve to make these products ultra competitive.
We are rapidly approaching the point where the only reason someone wouldn’t by an EV is because either it’s truly inappropriate for their use case (see: plows in NYC) or they simply don’t have a convenient way to charge it.
This is a one-sided view of markets. One can both recognize the power of the market which can be a force for both great good and extreme evil. You may be right that banning extant technology is not the best approach to dealing with the failings of government and the market (which cannot ever be cleanly separated) but that doesn't mean that it is backward thinking to consider that perhaps we might be better off if we eliminated or transitioned to a different technology.
This is a law proposed by a small group of state legislators. Of course, all laws start as bills like this. But most bills never become law.
A more responsible and less sensationalistic story would talk about the level of support for such a bill, its chances of becoming actual law, its constitutionality, and so on.
This is newsworthy, but not when reported like this.
Or the members that submit them
I err on the side of "just report what the publication says" and let others (appropriately) criticize bad headline-writing.
The issue here is that you linked to a low quality source. As I said, this is newsworthy IMO. But surely there was a better quality source you might have chosen.
If the community is interested in the topic, typically the comments point to more germane information, backstory, and other data that supports/refutes what an article says. That's a healthy behavior, and it's why online communities remain popular.
Submission quality is in the eye of the beholder.
A number of people have attempted to give you kind and constructive feedback. You appear immune to it.
I'll give your opinion the respect it deserves.
It seems Wyoming requires just a simple majority.
https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/SJ0004
The flagging of the article is not justified. There is more here than just a politician conversation or controversial interview.
Walking through any working-class neighbourhood shows it, even in relatively modern cities like Puerto Vallarta, let alone looking at any of the small towns scattered across the nation. As’ anyone living in a small town along the popular Costa Alegre: brown-outs and black-outs are common. There is no capacity whatsoever to start hooking up charging stations for the population.
Assume the car drives 12500 miles a year. Likely less in Puerto Vallarta unless it's used as a cab. But whatever.
Typical EV's get 3.5 to 4 miles per kwh. Call it 3.75 miles/kwh.
So need 12500/3.75 => 3333 kwh/year.
One Watt of solar produces about 2kwh/year.
So need 3333 kwh / 2kwh/Watt => 1666 Watts
Assume Mexico cost for an array is $2/Watt.
Cost is 1666 Watts X $2/Watt => $3333
That's about a 1/10 to 1/20th the cost of a new EV.
No idea what counterpoint you’re trying to make. Whatever it is, it certainly isn’t applicable to the lives of people living in poor third-world communities.
Electric cars are fundamentally better because developing country could just use some of the excise tax they charge on cars to buy solar panels. And the power from solar isn't subject to price shocks and interruptions like oil and gas are.
https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/ranks/Car-...
I say let them be an economic laboratory.