11 years to get the technology to a place where it can reasonably replace gas.
I have my doubts that we’ll have the range and capability by then, perhaps if automakers are smart we’ll see more series hybrids and range extender models.
It won't happen. There is not enough money to subsidize upgrades to residential power so every household can have 200A service, plus all the urban homes that lack a secure place to plug in, plus all the rural homes where people have extended commutes to work. People aren't going to settle for a shit sandwich just because some have a god complex.
To clarify, 60 amp for the entire (apartment) unit. Obviously the 110 was, well, 110 so not many amps at all. And two cars shared one outlet, plugging in one car at a time as needed. It was a kitchen outlet so on the high side of amperage for 110, though I don’t know the number.
You don't have to have 200A service. 100A can charge a car and it doesn't have to be annoying if you have a smart electrical panel which can prioritize charging with clothes dryer and stove usage. If the car is charging and you decide to dry clothes, it will switch off the car's circuit until the dryer shuts off. If you decide to cook dinner, it will shut off the car or the dryer until you turn the stove off again.
Charging speed is still increasing. Lucid Air peaks at 300kW, or 200mi in 12 minutes. The Hyundai Ioniq 6 is similar. But in China, there are 500kW EVs and chargers already being sold/installed. The Zeekr 001 does 300mi in 11 minutes. Here in the US, Gravity is installing 500kW chargers.
I don't know if the infrastructure for home charging will be ready by 2035... but as charging times decrease, replacing gas stations with charging stations becomes more viable.
I am confident the technology issues will be solved having studied the market for many years. What you see now for products does not represent the state of the art which is mostly coming out of China.
Most automakers are currently redesigning and retooling for the new reality of very cheap BEVs with lots of range and very fast charging. The largest shift currently underway is a major change over to LFP packs with cell-to-pack technology and large format prismatic cells like the BYD blade and CATL qilin. We also inch closer to solid state and sodium batteries which is likely the enablers for the next wave of innovative products at all price points in 5 years.
I don’t think 500-600 mile range BEVs with 500kW+ charging will be that rare in 11 years. We already have some current examples like the 2024 Zeeker 001. Based on those figures recharging is on par with refueling an ICE car.
How do you think about bans vs incentives when it comes to a situation like this one? I'm generally inclined to believe that making the alternatives so much better that people feel compelled to switch is the best approach, but maybe that's unrealistic for the gas powered car domain.
Not that I have any particular affinity or love for gas powered cars in particular. It's weird to imagine that some day we might end up in a world where gas stations aren't common anymore and you need to go to the Hardware Store or some specialty shop to buy gas.
My other immediate question is: what stops people from buying a car in the next state over and driving it in? At which point this ban might be meant as more of an increased barrier rather than a full ban.
I think bans are a pretty terrible idea. It implies that the alternatives aren't good enough. But due to the bans people will be forced to use them anyway.
It's great if you're an EV manufacturer though because you can rack up your price and customers won't have much of an alternative. Bonus points if the government also bans imports of EVs from certain other countries.
Even if this isn't the objective, it nevertheless is a way people will see the whole situation as.
Could you give me a description of said subsidies? It's just that the last time I saw a serious study measuring them, the study was pretty much a study on the ways to torture the semantics of the word subsidy.
Most countries in the world also implement significant excise taxes on petroleum fuels. The American one is about 5%, while in Europe they can go to 40% excluding VAT.
That's absurd. Practically every industry gets some form of subsidies, and some much more than others.
You're just regurgitating some O&G spin talking point that was put out to counter a recent report that may or may not have over estimated the amount of subsidies to O&G depending on your interpretation of the statistics.
But that doesn't mean that O&G subsidies don't exist.
How do I know? My salary comes from those subsidies.
> Automobiles in general are insanely subsidized in the form of state funded road infrastructure.
EVs are automobiles too, using the same roads.
Even if you're suggesting everyone should move to something non-automobile (bikes?) you still need the roads because society needs things like ambulances, fire trucks, garbage trucks, etc. You can't have a society without roads, they have existed for millenia before cars.
Gas taxes are a direct mechanism to price the negative externalities. Yes, gas taxes also cover road infrastructure, but the amount of gas purchased (and therefore taxed) is directly proportional to the negative externality of CO2 emissions.
> the amount of gas purchased (and therefore taxed) is directly proportional to the negative externality of CO2 emissions.
This doesn't mean the gas taxes are big enough to correct the market failure. Your comment would be true even if we multiply gas taxes by 0.01, 0.1 or 10.0.
I would prefer it if we just used properly calibrated (larger) gas taxes as the single mechanism. But voters hate that, so we're left with second best solutions.
Working in software and fraud, I believe it is better to make it easier for good people to do good things than for bad people to not do bad things. think of Netflix with password sharing and how successful they have been while allowing it
A far in the future ban (2035 in this case) is just an incentive for manufacturers to invest in EVs. Moreover, it will add a little bit of encouragement today for people to buy EVs. The increased demand of EVs will further make EVs more profitable vs ICVs.
Also we literally ban all sorts of technologies whenever they have negative consequences. For DDT to asbestos, to chemical-dumping in rivers, to low quality fuels, etc. This is nothing new.
I think a ban could make sense in very specific areas. I live in salt lake which has horrendous pollution problems. There are many causes for the pollution and we'll have to work through them all, but it wont be solved without pretty much getting rid of gas cars. A ban on selling gas cars specifically in the salt lake valley would show all the residents how serious we are about solving the problem, and people who really want one can still go get one somewhere else.
Explicit bans seem so counter-productive to me when implicit bans are so easy. Why explicitly ban ICE vehicles and gas stations when sensible pollution laws would accomplish the same thing?
It's a lot harder to argue against something like NOx emission limits than ICE bans.
As time goes on I feel more confidently that the auto industry messed up by trying to "leapfrog" plugin hybrids and go straight to EVs. Yes, that may be the final destination, but in the interim I think pulling back on plugin hybrids slowed the transition.
I've heard some people say plugin hybrids are the worst of both worlds ("You need to maintain an electric powertrain and an ICE!") but as a Chevy Volt owner, I think they are the best of both worlds:
1. The vast, vast majority of people drive less than 40-50 miles a day.
2. With a plugin hybrid, there is never range anxiety. If you run out of battery, you just can go on gas for that extra few miles you may need.
3. Going on a road trip currently is generally a PITA with an EV, especially if you don't have access to the Supercharger network. God forbid you plan things out and then pull up to an Electrify America site where none of the chargers work...
4. The batteries in plugin hybrids are much smaller, meaning they're cheaper, weigh less, and require much less mined metals to produce.
5. Since the battery is much smaller, you don't need a big expensive home charger/electrician upgrade. With my Volt, I'd just plug the portable charger into a normal 120V outlet and it would charge overnight.
6. Still has what in my mind are some of the biggest driving benefits of EVs, namely quick acceleration and 1-pedal driving.
This article says some plugin hybrids qualify as 0-emission vehicles, but it's not clear to me if that's in all states. I hope so, as I think a lot more people who would be reticent to get a pure EV would love a plugin hybrid if they tried it.
> This article says some plugin hybrids qualify as 0-emission vehicles, but it’s not clear to me if that’s in all states.
Its true under the “Advanced Clean Cars II” as adopted in CA, which a number of other states have adopted directly (including some states that have modified it by only adopting the timeline through 2032, stopping just short of a total phase-out of non-ZEVs, probably specifically to avoid the headline of “banning sales of gas-powered cars”.)
Zero-emission vehicles (ZEV), in the context of the Zero-emission Vehicle regulation, include battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles.
BEVs are likely already cheaper to produce than ICE/PHEV and that trend is going to continue. In automotive there is a pretty long lag between what is happening in new product development/the supply chain and what is reflected in products and prices in the current market. As an automaker you have to skate to where the puck is going.
Particularly the Chinese have mastered the truly low cost BEV which is being copied all over the globe (yes with North American crash standards). So many interesting things are happening in China in the EV/battery space.
Road tripping an EV in America is actually not that bad in a lot of regions. With NACS rolling out everyone will have access to Superchargers. I’m in the Northeast and fast charging is very dense here.
I think the price has always been the reason why PHEV never took off, especially in Australia.
My last three cars have all been Hybrids and I'm still not comfortable with EV and range anxiety etc.
I'd happily swap to a PHEV if I had a decent option (in australia) but the range of options is very few and very pricey and with poor options/capabilities in the ranges.
If you actually use the batttery for daily driving, smaller battery means you have many more battery cycles for a given distance, meaning the battery degrades faster.
I’ve been in favour of EVs or plugins with small batteries myself. But in the long term I’m wondering if it’s a bad idea if the battery doesn’t last as long as the car. Replacing them is very expensive.
Maybe with it’s more responsible with modern LFP battery packs. They should handle many charging cycles fairly well
Wouldn't the faster degradation be offset by the fact that the battery is smaller, and hence cheaper, to replace?
That leaves the fixed cost of labour for the replacement, but if the battery is designed as a planned-replacement item, that can be reduced to a minimum. It's a lot easier to swap out a few cells or battery modules than a full frame-integrated battery. And Tesla demonstrated doing the latter in under 60 seconds.
Again, the upside is not having a huge, and for once a correct usage of the term, massive battery pack you're lugging with you, accelerating, braking, and tire-wearing all the time.
Tesla batteries are so large and massive (~ 0.5 -- 1 tonne) that they're integrated into the frame as the entire floor of the automobile. This, incidentally, makes for a very low centre of gravity and high stability of the vehicle, though also a high kerb weight. Replacement is possible, and quickly, though requiring specialised equipment.
On hybrid petrol-battery EVs, the cells are included as modules, typically located under the rear seats (where the fuel tank of a conventional petroleum-fueled passenger car would be), which can be slid out in a matter of minutes as a DIY proccedure.
The batteries themselves weigh about 100 kilos and are rated for 100k -- 150k miles, which makes audunw's argument specious.
A BYD Seagull is $10K, a Dacia Spring is €15K, an MG4 £27k, a Model 3 $33k (after rebate). Why would anybody spend more on Prius Prime? It's less car for more money.
Battery prices are predicted to drop below $70/kWh this year. Electric drive trains are cheaper to build than ICE, HEV or PHEV equivalents even if you include a massive 60kWh battery.
BYD and Tesla both just released horrible Q1 numbers. Both companies have shown they'd rather lower prices than cut production. EV prices are going to drop significantly over the next few months.
non-plugin HEV's make sense. If you can't plug in at home, electric cars are inconvenient and you'd probably run a PHEV on mostly gas anyways, so you might as well save the PHEV premium and just get a standard HEV.
Niche PHEV's make sense. The Ramcharger makes a lot of sense for rural use.
To address your points:
2. An electric car is very good at knowing at knowing what level your battery will be at when you reach your destination. Range anxiety is not a lack of knowledge.
3. Superchargers are now available to Ford & Rivian owners, and will be available to everybody else within the next few months. I've done tens of thousands of kilometers of road trips in an EV, and our EV is a far better road trip vehicle than our gasoline car.
4. The engines and complexity of PHEV's make them cost more then BEV's in 2024.
5. If you don't need >120V to run almost fully electric on a PHEV, you don't need >120V for a BEV either. With 120V you can add 5 miles of range per hour of charging, so can easily cover daily driving with a night of charging. Sure, you can't charge from 0-100 overnight, but how often do you do 300 mile road trips on subsequent days? 120V will let you do 40 miles/day every weekday and 300 miles every weekend with overnight charging. If you every need more than that you can use a supercharger.
2. An electric car is very good at knowing at knowing what level your battery will be at when you reach your destination. Range anxiety is not a lack of knowledge.
The EV cannot predict the future like unexpected detours, sudden change of plans, traffic jams on a hot/cold day where you need to keep the AC/heater running for long periods, and so on. A whole state is a big place and many areas have very sparse charger coverage - it took a hundred years to build up all the gas stations we have now. And its not enough to just build charging stations because the electric generation capacity in many area will also eventually need to be increased (not cheap or easy) as thousands and then millions more EV tap into them for power. This is a very big infrastructure issue and it is a bad idea to increase the EV population faster than the its supporting infrastructure can handle.
Sure, but you know what your margin is for the unexpected. If it says you will have 100km of range at your destination, that's how much range you have for detours etc.
120V plugs are everywhere and far more common than gas stations and work great for those once in a decade type experiences. The infrastructure already exists.
I wonder if this will spur more people to buy and register cars in neighboring states. I also hope that the grid will be able to handle that load -- with the rising demand of AI driven power load and electric cars being a double whammy.
Legally they almost always have to be registered in the state the driver resides. Only exception I can think of is a business registering the car.
But if you are only asking if it's possible, sure. Look at the phenomenon of 'snowbirds' registering Florida plates on cars mostly driven in the NYC metro. Used to be much cheaper insurance premiums a decade or two ago, now not so much. (Just to be clear, this is insurance fraud and highly discouraged)
I love when governments decide to get tough and righteous. Look at us, we are banning a something more than an decade in the future when, most likely, no natural market for the product will exist.
Actually, this is a good thing for auto manufacturers. We all know that fossil fuel powered vehicles aren't the future. Setting a cut off date gives certainty to the market, enables them to plan more effectively, and for third party suppliers to also plan accordingly.
That’s … not where I thought you were going. A ban will drive demand for ICE vehicles in the years before going into effect, even if it ultimately does not.
If EVs are more expensive at this time, of course it will drive demand for ICE vehicles. People will then just drive their ICE cars for longer. In this limit, it becomes like Cuba. Great work, gov.
Assume the ban happened in 1995 when EVs would not have been price competitive at all with ICE cars. A ban here just means shutting down all vehicle production and people have to find a way to keep their old cars going. CO2 emissions likely do not significantly change. People likely wouldn't be happy and would (rightfully) turf any government that did such a thing.
Run the same experiment in 2035. Are EVs still significantly more expensive and lack utility / range? If so, it is some approximation of the 1995 experiment. If EVs are cheap and awesome (which will probably be the case), then no ban is necessary as no one would bother to buy an ICE car anyway.
In short, at best a ban makes no difference and at worst makes everyone's lives suck while having no impact toward the stated goal.
> We all know that fossil fuel powered vehicles aren't the future.
Are we sure of this? Are biofuels not an option here? If you lived in California, you'd know that our pathetic grid can barely handle the load now. When everyone plugs in their Tesla at 6pm it's going to be pandemonium. Of course, Gavin is happy handing the extra business to his buds at PG&E.
No, biofuels are not an option, not at the present scale of fossil fuel consumption, or at any likely increase in net fuel consumption which would reflect the rest of the world rising to a modest fraction of US/EU per capita energy consumption.
Realise that we shifted from biofuels to fossil fuels in the 19th and early 20th centuries because the energy-fueled technologically-driven economic growth people wanted simply wasn't possible with agriculturally-based energy systems. In 1900, the US devoted a fifth of its grain supply to transportation, in the form of horse feed. Henry Ford experimented with alcohol-based automobiles. Ultimately large petroleum finds (Spindletop, the East Texas Oil Field, and Ghawar in Saudi Arabia) demonstrated that petroleum would be a reliable fuel source for the foreseeable future.
Biofuel yields vary, and some of the higher claims remain largely theoretical (grasses, pickleweed, and algae particularly). Demonstrated biofuel productivity from crops such as soybean, sunflower, and sugarcane range around 48--63, 63--90, and 700 gallons/acre (about 450--590, 590--840, and 6,550 litre/hectare).
The US consumes about 7.3 billion barrels of petroleum annually, the world about 37 billion.
Given the highest yield above, sugarcane (which has a limited growing zone), substituting for all petroleum use would require somewhat over 2 billion acres. That's ... somewhat ... less than the total present arable land on Earth, but keep in mind that fuel crops would displace food crops, that we're working from the best option (soybean or sunflower would require better than 10x as much land), and that agriculture itself is quite energy intensive, with most present crops requiring more energy input than is delivered.
Unless EVs are actually less expensive in 2035, the ban will be removed. However, they will be cheaper so no one will opt for an ICE car at that point anyway.
This ban would last exactly one political cycle and everyone knows it.
That’s why it’s suggested for 2035…politicians get to look noble and visionary while bearing none of the actual consequences of the policy actually doing anything.
I would love to hear about a serious government proposal to reduce fuel emissions which starts working before my children graduate from college.
It struck me the other day that post-apocalyptic fiction authors are going to have to really change their game in a while. Imagine rewriting, "The Walking Dead" where half (or more) of the cars were electric.
It does though bring up an interesting question: In the event of natural catastrophe and loss of critical infrastructure due to natural disaster (or brain eating contagions), how does one keep the literal wheels of industry and commerce moving?
Will preppers of the future focus on having gas cars, or having radically self-sufficient sources of electricity for their cars?
The Car Wars board game originally published in 1981 already imagined a post-apocalyptic world using mostly electric cars: "There are two kinds of engine available in 2040: gas and electric. With gasoline unavailable in many areas of the world, multiple-fuel-cell electric power plants are far more common than the old-style internal-combustion engines". That is from the 1990 rulebook. The original rulebook had the year 2031 instead of 2040 (because "Car Wars is set 50 years in the future").
Gasoline fuel infrastructure is heavily reliant on the electric grid to operate. It wouldn’t operate at any significant scale without it.
EVs can be paired with solar panels to be completely independent of the grid for many years.
“Radical” self sufficiency for EV cars isn’t exactly radical. Many have already achieved full energy self-sufficiency for their homes with solar panels and battery packs. And this is true long term self sufficiency, which is much harder to achieve if you rely on gasoline for cars and generators
In an actual post-apocalyptic situation there wouldn't be any usable gasoline left within a year. EV's would actually last longer with a proper solar array.
EU law will require all new cars sold to have zero CO2 emissions from 2035, and 55% lower CO2 emissions from 2030, versus 2021 levels.. The European Commission has pledged, however, to create a legal route for sales of new cars that only run on e-fuels to continue after 2035, after Germany demanded this exemption..
The EU policy had been expected to make it impossible to sell combustion engine cars in the EU from 2035. But the exemption won by Germany offers a potential lifeline to traditional vehicles - although e-fuels are not yet produced at scale.. E-fuels are considered carbon neutral because they are made using captured CO2 emissions - which proponents say balances out the CO2 released when the fuel is combusted in an engine.
What I don't understand with these policies is, how the states and countries (I live in EU, which passed the same kind of laws) intend to support the massive electrical demands that will put on the grid.
I live in a city, small by global standards, and I am certain all these vehicles charging over night will create heavy tolls on the grid, not even to mention the last mile delivery, where apartment blocks will have to upgrade cabling as well as local transformer stations. And this will have to be done within the entire country, which already imports 40% of its electricity needs.
So, does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
I think there is an investment aspect to this. Without a certainty that demand will increase in a significant way the power grid wont see investment. By forcing EVs, power companies know that demand will go up in the future enabling easier investment decisions
The demand for cheap electric vehicles will exist. They will be worse, and have less features, poorer construction, etc. but that’s the nature of budget stuff. Not everybody needs 300 mile range. Most folks can get most of their trips done with just a couple dozen miles of range.
It sucks, but we don’t have a choice to not act against climate change. Some people are going to get fucked in some ways, but those same people will be fucked in different ways if we don’t do anything or move too slowly.
>"Some people are going to get fucked in some ways, but those same people will be fucked in different ways if we don’t do anything or move too slowly."
If fucking up people starts with those at the top I am all for it. Otherwise GFY
I agree that we have to reduce the carbon emissions. I am wondering, though, if we started at the right place.
More electrical demands will further cause building new power plants, but none of them come without another, different impact. Sacrificing fields for solar power, flooding valleys for hydro, cutting trees for better wind, etc. I have seen it done and it makes little sense. Maybe these "local" changes will have other impacts we do not know about.
On the other hand, decreasing meat consumption might also help significantly but there have only been half-hearted attempts at it. Farmers and people will hear none of it.
I thought they’re not telling them in the USA because the USA effectively are blocking them from being sold via trade barriers and tariffs [1], meanwhile EU is buying a ton of EVs from China [2] and planning to block them with tariffs as the US did [3].
So it doesn’t sound like it’s a quality issue, sounds like that’s just your outdated opinion of Chinese manufacturing. If the western world wants to make the argument that they can do it better, then they need to do it better.
Many EVs are already cheaper than many ICE cars. They will only get cheaper and ICE cars will be more expensive to produce in 3 years. No surprise since ICE cars are quite complex.
Many EVs are cheaper than many ICE cars means there is already a fair amount of overlap in price points, and more expensive ICE cars are already more expensive than base EVs.
And then I posted a source indicating that the rapidly dropping prices of EVs means they will cost less to produce than ICE cars in a couple years, meaning that it is reasonable to think they will push out ever more of the lower end of the ICE market.
Ok, but then that's not a very useful comparison since there are ICE cars that cost multiple millions of dollars. So sure, every EV is cheaper than some ICE car.
Have you checked prices recently? EVs are $30k brand new. You can find 2 year old Model 3s for $17k. EVs like the Leaf from 2015/2016 are below $10k. The 8 year old equivalent in 2035 hasn't even been released yet.
Battery costs are continuing to decrease even today. And the deadline isn't for another 11 years.
37.9 million Americans live below the poverty line...you think they are buying a 30k car when most ppl are living paycheck to paycheck?
like the lack of awareness of your own citizens in the comments is appalling. its no wonder trump is so popular with this crowd as much as I despise him.
How soon will it need a $7000 battery replacement? It's a non-thermal managed battery, over here (mild climate with winters usually around 0C and summers around 20-25C) they're failing left and right after 5-7 years of active usage.
I have a similar, though not quite the same, concern. I wonder if it would be better, instead of outright banning gas powered cars, to tax the emissions. If by some magic we could get 150mpg cars, that could be competitive with a relatively green grid. Or alternatively if mileage can't go up but it's possible to recapture some of the carbon before it leaves the tailpipe - that could also cut down the emissions, achieving the same climate goal.
That said challenges with any such regime:
- it's probably easier to tax the gas directly than the released emissions
- it's definitely a problem to be raising the cost of living for lower-income Americans, who already don't have wiggle room in their budgets
It's pretty likely that EVs will get cheaper over time, as production of them reaches better economies of scale which get optimized more with each new generation. How much cheaper of course is the big open question that remains to be seen, but some European countries have already seen mass adoption as the EVs get cheaper than ICE vehicles (Norway in particular, via a subsidy: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23939076/norway-electric-...). That said it's not yet the case that EVs can be made cheaper without policies shifting some of the cost.
One partial answer may be extending cheap credit for buying EVs, as EVs should have cheaper maintenance in the long run and can have cheaper operating costs (though... that depends on the local price of energy, which we don't seem to be great about keeping under control) so it appears the bigger problem with EVs is upfront cost rather than total cost of ownership - a problem better credit could smooth over. Of course this then gets tied up with the problems of interest rates. <nervously glances at the Fed>
I'm inclined to feel that it's an anti-citizen policy, intended to limit people's mobility, but taking off the tinfoil hat, my conclusion would be: it's wishful thinking policy; lawmakers are hoping that all the practical concerns (power grid limitations, impractical charge times, limited range, rare earth metal depletion, etc.) will be caught by technology.
Yes, grid capacity planning is a very active topic.
Many larger municipalities are incentivizing more solar installs with battery capacity. Having solar generation and battery storage distributed throughout the city will reduce the need to have the grid import all of the energy demand from far away sources.
Modern solar, battery, and charger combos can easily be configured to store energy produced by solar panels on the house and operate the charger in a way that primarily pulls from the solar generation and the house's battery capacity (by telling the battery to discharge while the car is charging, essentially).
Power companies are also moving heavily toward "virtual power plants", which would be a good search term if you want to learn more.
I just put 14.4 kW of solar up, one of the largest installs in my community. I put 25 or so kWh of battery capacity, also respectable.
Problem is, there are plenty of days where my system only generates 10-20 kWh of energy. Which is not even enough to run my house, much less my cars. And this is sunny California.
Obviously I like the tech which is why I invested but I'm not sure it is going to help alleviate this issue completely (enough generation that's centralized).
The grid capacity isn’t really a monolithic topic either. Here in the Northeast we have easily enough generating capacity with already planned additions. Coal generation is also virtually extinct.
Don't know about virtual power plants, will look it up.
Wrt. solar, that is why I specifically mentioned appartment blocks. We have many such blocks, which usually have one to two levels of garages underneath. I do not think solar power can provide enough power to charge the same area of cars (in cases of one level underground garage), much less twice such area.
Furthermore, solar power is fickle: it relies heavily on nice weather and we have plenty of cloudy or rainy days.
Yes, you can only charge via solar in fair weather, and not when most people really need to charge. Building-sized batteries made to charge other batteries seems silly and likely impractical.
Well, I lived in a country where we had oil shortages, so we had alternating days on when you can drive your car: license plate with even number can drive today, tomorrow with odd number, day after that even again.
Was not pretty and drove people to do all sorts of workarounds.
You might overestimate the demands on the grid. For Norway in particular it’s been calculated that everyone can drive EVs without any upgrades to the grid, if smart charging is implemented. That means having a smart meter that charges you the exact cost of electricity the minute it’s used, and having a charger or car that cuts charging when electricity is expensive. This is trivial in Norway. Everyone has smart meters and the electricity provider can interface directly with many common EV models to stop and start charging through public APIs.
There’s plenty of spare capacity on the grid if EVs just use the capacity when it’s available, and avoids the peaks. Since EVs are batteries on wheels thats nearly trivial to achieve with the right incentives.
Norway has a pretty strong grid to start with since electricity has been used for heating in winter for a long time. And it had already rolled out smart meters for everyone years ago. Other countries/states may need some upgrades. But it’s not as much as you’d think and with modern technology it can be done at a reasonable price. You can often push more electricity over the same pylons with newer wires.
Does your country produce its own oil? If not EVs is a path to higher energy independence since EVs are more flexible with their energy demand and easier to pair with new renewables. With the right policies you might not need to import any more electricity, while getting to import less oil or fuels.
I understand the benefits and I agree it's the right direction. What I miss, though, are efforts to upgrade the grid and increase electrical supply.
I also understand that it is possible to do in Norway. I commend the Norwegian leaders who invested the income from selling oil into a robust and extensive infrastructure. Most of the other countries, however, do not have that luxury, foresight, or funds. Most of the other countries are also more densely populated and without the ability to deploy wind or water power plants.
So, while I am happy for Norway and how it's working out for them, the reality in other countries is a bit different. Would be happy to be proven wrong :)
> how the states and countries (I live in EU, which passed the same kind of laws) intend to support the massive electrical demands that will put on the grid.
I think this question is easily explained away by politicians that this new demand would reinvigoriate innovation and the Western economies.
My theory (not an original thought) is that the objective of all of this is to deprive ordinary people of their freedom to travel. Engineers must be telling someone about the seemingly insurmountable problems, yet various governments are plodding along into ruinous directions.
Will they subsidize new batteries? This will just mandate that most cars will only be driven for 10 years or 100k miles. The failing batteries will cause more environmental damage than modern gas vehicles. Used gas and EVs will be priced above what the low-income can afford. The untended consequences will be enormous but in the end the facts won't matter since there will be backs to pat and endless passes given.
100k miles is the minimum warranty you get from manufacturers, in California it’s 150k miles. More realistic is 200k miles.
And then your still left with 80% capacity.
And then you can recycle them. There’s almost no capacity yet because there’s also no demand, but it seems like it will be a no-brainer financially to recycle them.
Allowing plug-in hybrids to continue to be sold simply ensures that people will buy plug-in hybrids that are never plugged in and simply carry around extra weight for no useful purpose. And when those cars are passed on to the used market, I wonder if anyone will ever bother to replace the batteries.
Personally, I'm looking to buy exclusively hybrids in the near future. But I'm a weird case because I keep vehicles for decades. I have a lot of bad feelings about this legislation.
All 8 states are run by Democrats. The bans are ultimately motivated by Democratic Party leaders and influencers who believe a) that climate is changing, b) that this change is for sure going to lead to a climate apocalypse which will kill billions of people and irrevocably destroy the ecosystem, c) that the anthropogenic component of this climate change is decisive, d) that the portion of anthropogenic change due to Co2 emissions is also decisive, and that the decisive factor in Co2 emissions comes from consumption of fossil fuels.
Which are all fine. I don't know enough to question their beliefs.
But I do know enough about math and engineering to know that the only realistic way to deal with the disaster they are predicting is an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power. But instead of arguing in favor of this immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power, which Republicans would likely support, they push stuff like this.
If by now you don’t know enough about this topic to form any kind of opinion on whether humans are responsible for climate change, you have chosen to intentionally ignore the scientific community.
Building more nuclear power is good, but it can’t be the only solution because it’s very expensive and takes so long to ramp up. Projects in the West have been decades behind schedule. And it’s far from given Republicans would support it.
Why don’t Republicans take the initiative and get Democrats behind a national plan for more nuclear? Because their voters don’t care. So why would they support such a Democratic initiative?
It’s a weird assumption that Republicans are somehow just waiting to do the right thing, if only Democrats would come to them with a plan. It’s never worked like that.
In the USA in April 2023 a Gallup poll had nuclear support at 54%, the highest level since 2012.[54]
In August 2023 Pew Research Center conducted a survey which found that 57% of Americans favor more nuclear power plants. This is up from 43% in 2020. Support for nuclear power has increased among both Democrats and Republicans. However, Americans are still more likely to favor solar and wind power than nuclear power.
True. Nevertheless, if one believes in what many environmentalists and scientists say they believe, and one understands math, one must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power -- on their front lawns, if need be. The fact they do not is suspicious.
I have this intuition that the support is not real, I can’t justify the position but i strongly suspect the expression of support would almost entirely evaporate in the face of plans to actually build a nuclear facility in any given town.
I guess I’m skeptical of the hypothetical support people claim when they have no skin in the game (I.e. no local construction plans and it’s currently obvious that no plans are possible anytime soon)
On a personal level I’ve felt pro-nuclear most of my life, it’s just in the last few years I’ve become, not anti nuclear but skeptical I suppose. I just can’t see a cost benefit in today’s world given the other options available.
That is a fair analysis and a fair opinion to hold. Does this mean you do not believe in one or more of the more apocalyptic climate scenarios? Because if you do, but not in the need for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power, you may benefit from further research on the math around world energy production and consumption.
There very much is, however, a global collective of everybody who has gathered atmospheric, ocean, and geophysical data and|or submitted a peer reviewed paper to a recognised peer reviewed journal.
This includes people from all the G20 countries, many non G20 countries, purely academic researchers, exploration geophysicists working for transnational energy and mineral extraction companies, etc.
Within this body of people that can math well, understand numerical models, deal with gravity, planetary positions, magnetic fields, atmospheric gases, radiometric backgrounds, continent drift, glacial isostatic adjustment, tides, etc. there is a documented and overwhelming consensus.
Well, of course most papers claim humans cause global warming. If your research supports that claim you are awarded copious amounts of grant money and academic recognition.
What about this document, signed by over 1,100 scientists including nobel prize winners?
I know enough about what you call the scientific community writ large, and the scientific method, and the specific people who call themselves climate scientists to say that a) I don't pay very much attention to science unless it's falsifiable, b) there is no consensus on which climate models by which environmentalists have predictive value, c) the IPCC has been consistently wrong in its predictions for as long as I've been reading them, and d) that science is not decided by a majority vote.
It's pretty easy to figure out whether or not Republicans might support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power. Since you don't sound like you tolerate Republicans, let alone like you are on speaking terms with enough of them that you could ask, I'd recommend you consult some polls of Republicans on the question. According to one study by Pew, 2/3rds of them support the construction of new nuclear plants. Which is to say, Republicans are more likely to support what you call the right thing than Democrats.
>> I do know enough about math and engineering to know that the only realistic way to deal with the disaster they are predicting is an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power
Would it not be cheaper, whilst also being realistic, to pursue renewables + natural gas?
AIUI renewables LCOE is around 5x cheaper than nuclear and natural gas is often (including right now) sold at negative prices in the US because it is almost a waste product from far more lucrative shale oil operations (accounts for around 80% of gas production). Add to this gas is a near perfect complement to renewables given its fast response times to demand changes unlike nuclear. Natural Gas is also the cleanest of the fossil fuels, modern generation facilities are far more efficient than e.g. petrol or diesel engines.
I’m failing to understand why nuclear would be the only game in town? Those construction costs make it look unviable. Not to mention the NIMBY aspect which means nuclear is simply off the table in terms of options thanks to citizen desires.
Natural gas doesn't pollute much less than coal or oil. The CO2 is less but there is also the methane. Natural gas is methane gas. It's not a transition fuel. Calling it 'natural' is a scam to sell methane gas.
so what? Its just being used as a peaker plant since the renewables cant scale effectively or at all. Just put a co2 sequestration plant nearby and youre good to go.
It might be. Probably. I don't know. All I know is that if people who do believe in the climate apocalypse say that CO2 generation from lng would make the problem worse, not better; whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I accept that they genuinely do believe it to be true. And so, if I do take them at their word, and use their logic, and assume they understand math, then they must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear.
If they do not argue for an immediate and massive expansion, I'm forced to conclude they either a) are lying about what they call the science, b) are lying about their belief in apocalyptic scenarios, c) don't understand math, or d) some combination of a, b, and c.
Unfortunately nuclear power is by no means free from CO2. Especially if you need to build new plants, massive amounts of CO2 are released because of all the concrete that is needed.
Does that really mean much when it's factored over the lifetime of the plant? Wind has to be replaced much more often so you're causing CO2 repeatedly.
That seems like a circular argument. Solar and storage are cheaper because of massive subsidies, they don't adequately account for externalities like the environmental impact of lithium mining, and benefit from streamlined zoning and aggressive variances. Nuclear is expensive and takes a long time to stand up at least in part because the state doesn't favor it.
The state can absolutely reduce costs and speed up plant construction in a way that is safe, and which is less vulnerable to bad weather, and which does not create as many energy storage problems.
Pursue wind and solar at the same time if you like, but the math climate scientists claim to understand requires them to also push for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear.
I find it suspicious that they do not, and that they never have.
I don't think a massive expansion of nuclear power is the only way. Sure it might play a role but why would it be the only way. Look at this study for example.
It doesn't have to be the only solution. But any proposed solution that does not include, in addition to some expansion of wind and solar energy production, an immediate and massive nuclear expansion is suspicious to me when it comes from somebody who purports to simultaneously believe in one or more of the apocalyptic climate scenarios.
You don’t know enough to have an opinion on climate change, but somehow do know enough to be SURE that nuclear is the only solution?
It’s an example of some strange outdated internet meme that someone posts on any energy thread - to come in and say “actually guys nuclear is great you are all just not smart enough to know”. Despite the totally insurmountable arguments of time and cost - if we started today it would take 15+ years for one plant, and it being the most expensive major form of new power we know of.
I wish the meme would either die, or folk would brush up on their arguments.
For a group of smart solution driven folks, this comment section reads overly negative. I am curious if any one here is in the autos sector. My extended family works in motorcity and some work in machining around the Midwest. I hear excitement for new growth opportunities and hesitancy as the US autos lag behind China in rapid development. I have an EV and an ICE motorcycle. Admittedly I would be sad if all ICE vehicles were banned but I am open to change. I hope American auto groups can take the reigns and become global leaders again. There is a large sector of people itching for more manufacturing jobs.
Not many people in tech are really aware of how the auto industry works. Mostly the insane lead times on new products. What is out there and for sale now is something that was likely designed 3-5 years ago.
You are right to point out the innovation coming out of China in the EV space. Every automaker is currently in a cycle of copying what they are doing for their next wave of products. To the extent that there is an EV “slowdown” right now is basically intentional until the next wave of BEVs starts coming out which are way more cost competitive.
As I pointed out in another comment the main driver is large format LFP prismatic cells in a cell-to-pack configuration. BYD blade and CATL qilin are examples to study.
Meanwhile, New Jersey (one of the eight states mentioned here) just passed a law that increases the annual registration fee for EVs by $250/year, with automatic increases to this amount each year. And since new car buyers in NJ have to pay 4 years registration upfront, that's an extra upfront payment of $1000+ when buying a new EV.
The governor's budget also proposes eliminating the state's sales tax exemption for EVs (one of the few reliable EV incentives in NJ), which will effectively increase their upfront cost by another several thousand dollars.
I should mention the state does have a $5000 tax credit for new EVs. But it goes in and out of effect completely unpredictably, as funding runs out each year and then is reinstated arbitrarily some time the next year.
And this is all happening while EV sales are not doing well to begin with. There's basically no chance the ICE ban will happen as planned there.
And this is a blue state, with (iirc) ~40% nuclear and 10% renewable energy.
In NZ new right government (congratulated by Musk himself) scrapped incentives and slapped $80nzd per 1000km tax. Which is twice of phev or same as 7000lbs diesel truck.
Eventually, sure. But 11 years ahead of the supposed ICE ban? When EV sales already aren't growing with those incentives in place? All this will accomplish is ensuring the ICE ban never happens.
Also, this is more than "removing incentives" -- it's an outright EV penalty. The increase in registration fee for EVs is roughly double what the most popular ICE car (Honda CRV) pays in annual gas taxes in the state, according to Gothamist/NPR https://gothamist.com/news/what-drivers-need-to-know-as-nj-m...
The incentives are to encourage adoption, if that happened, they should go away. As for the increased registration it needs to both offset the gas taxes and account for increased road damage.
Yes, ostensibly the extra registration fee is supposed to go to improving the roads. But in NJ, ICE pickup trucks outnumber EVs, and they weigh more than EVs, causing more road damage than EVs. So why don't they have an even larger increased registration fee?
One of the sponsors of the bill (that increased the EV registration fee in order to fund roads) is a state senator who is also the COO of a major roadwork construction company.
He's also simultaneously the mayor of a 10,000 population town with only a couple public chargers. Way more trucks than EVs in his town btw.
A few of these are northern states like New York in Massachusetts. Do electric cars still have issues if the weather is cold enough? We got some pretty bitter winters lately.
You lose some range. How much depends on the brand/model of the vehicle. Some lose quite a bit, some lose hardly any. Of course, ICEVs lose quite a bit of range in cold weather too.
171 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 214 ms ] threadRhode Island, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia
The timeline is by 2035
I have my doubts that we’ll have the range and capability by then, perhaps if automakers are smart we’ll see more series hybrids and range extender models.
The next generations of BEVs are getting faster and faster charging with longer ranges such that I don’t think this will be an issue.
I don't know if the infrastructure for home charging will be ready by 2035... but as charging times decrease, replacing gas stations with charging stations becomes more viable.
https://insideevs.com/news/710508/li-auto-mega-fast-charging...
Most automakers are currently redesigning and retooling for the new reality of very cheap BEVs with lots of range and very fast charging. The largest shift currently underway is a major change over to LFP packs with cell-to-pack technology and large format prismatic cells like the BYD blade and CATL qilin. We also inch closer to solid state and sodium batteries which is likely the enablers for the next wave of innovative products at all price points in 5 years.
I don’t think 500-600 mile range BEVs with 500kW+ charging will be that rare in 11 years. We already have some current examples like the 2024 Zeeker 001. Based on those figures recharging is on par with refueling an ICE car.
Not that I have any particular affinity or love for gas powered cars in particular. It's weird to imagine that some day we might end up in a world where gas stations aren't common anymore and you need to go to the Hardware Store or some specialty shop to buy gas.
My other immediate question is: what stops people from buying a car in the next state over and driving it in? At which point this ban might be meant as more of an increased barrier rather than a full ban.
It's great if you're an EV manufacturer though because you can rack up your price and customers won't have much of an alternative. Bonus points if the government also bans imports of EVs from certain other countries.
Even if this isn't the objective, it nevertheless is a way people will see the whole situation as.
That could be true but we can't say for certain because the market is already so incredibly distorted by oil and gas subsidies.
Automobiles in general are insanely subsidized in the form of state funded road infrastructure.
There's nothing free market about transportation, especially in North America.
Most countries in the world also implement significant excise taxes on petroleum fuels. The American one is about 5%, while in Europe they can go to 40% excluding VAT.
[1] <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/climate/tax-breaks-oil-ga...>
[2] a few examples under <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapte...>
You're just regurgitating some O&G spin talking point that was put out to counter a recent report that may or may not have over estimated the amount of subsidies to O&G depending on your interpretation of the statistics.
But that doesn't mean that O&G subsidies don't exist.
How do I know? My salary comes from those subsidies.
EVs are automobiles too, using the same roads.
Even if you're suggesting everyone should move to something non-automobile (bikes?) you still need the roads because society needs things like ambulances, fire trucks, garbage trucks, etc. You can't have a society without roads, they have existed for millenia before cars.
That's only true in the absence of any market failure, but in this case we have mispriced negative externalities.
EDIT: Changed "unpriced" to "mispriced", since gas taxes exist as pointed out below.
This doesn't mean the gas taxes are big enough to correct the market failure. Your comment would be true even if we multiply gas taxes by 0.01, 0.1 or 10.0.
I would prefer it if we just used properly calibrated (larger) gas taxes as the single mechanism. But voters hate that, so we're left with second best solutions.
The bans are in great part likely due to politicians trying to score points.
Also we literally ban all sorts of technologies whenever they have negative consequences. For DDT to asbestos, to chemical-dumping in rivers, to low quality fuels, etc. This is nothing new.
So if the ban comes into effect in 2030, it will be impossible to register a gas/diesel vehicle that is a 2030 or newer in said state.
Sure, you could register a vehicle in a state or country you don't live in, but that's already illegal.
It's a lot harder to argue against something like NOx emission limits than ICE bans.
I've heard some people say plugin hybrids are the worst of both worlds ("You need to maintain an electric powertrain and an ICE!") but as a Chevy Volt owner, I think they are the best of both worlds:
1. The vast, vast majority of people drive less than 40-50 miles a day.
2. With a plugin hybrid, there is never range anxiety. If you run out of battery, you just can go on gas for that extra few miles you may need.
3. Going on a road trip currently is generally a PITA with an EV, especially if you don't have access to the Supercharger network. God forbid you plan things out and then pull up to an Electrify America site where none of the chargers work...
4. The batteries in plugin hybrids are much smaller, meaning they're cheaper, weigh less, and require much less mined metals to produce.
5. Since the battery is much smaller, you don't need a big expensive home charger/electrician upgrade. With my Volt, I'd just plug the portable charger into a normal 120V outlet and it would charge overnight.
6. Still has what in my mind are some of the biggest driving benefits of EVs, namely quick acceleration and 1-pedal driving.
This article says some plugin hybrids qualify as 0-emission vehicles, but it's not clear to me if that's in all states. I hope so, as I think a lot more people who would be reticent to get a pure EV would love a plugin hybrid if they tried it.
Its true under the “Advanced Clean Cars II” as adopted in CA, which a number of other states have adopted directly (including some states that have modified it by only adopting the timeline through 2032, stopping just short of a total phase-out of non-ZEVs, probably specifically to avoid the headline of “banning sales of gas-powered cars”.)
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cars-and-light-tr...
What is a zero-emission vehicle?
Zero-emission vehicles (ZEV), in the context of the Zero-emission Vehicle regulation, include battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles.
Particularly the Chinese have mastered the truly low cost BEV which is being copied all over the globe (yes with North American crash standards). So many interesting things are happening in China in the EV/battery space.
Road tripping an EV in America is actually not that bad in a lot of regions. With NACS rolling out everyone will have access to Superchargers. I’m in the Northeast and fast charging is very dense here.
My last three cars have all been Hybrids and I'm still not comfortable with EV and range anxiety etc. I'd happily swap to a PHEV if I had a decent option (in australia) but the range of options is very few and very pricey and with poor options/capabilities in the ranges.
I’ve been in favour of EVs or plugins with small batteries myself. But in the long term I’m wondering if it’s a bad idea if the battery doesn’t last as long as the car. Replacing them is very expensive.
Maybe with it’s more responsible with modern LFP battery packs. They should handle many charging cycles fairly well
That leaves the fixed cost of labour for the replacement, but if the battery is designed as a planned-replacement item, that can be reduced to a minimum. It's a lot easier to swap out a few cells or battery modules than a full frame-integrated battery. And Tesla demonstrated doing the latter in under 60 seconds.
Again, the upside is not having a huge, and for once a correct usage of the term, massive battery pack you're lugging with you, accelerating, braking, and tire-wearing all the time.
Seems to me you would need more or less the same tooling.
After all, you’re not replacing either by hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHaYXBFnJo
OTOH, replacing the Rav4 hybrid's battery is apparently much more difficult and I couldn't find anyone doing that DIY.
On hybrid petrol-battery EVs, the cells are included as modules, typically located under the rear seats (where the fuel tank of a conventional petroleum-fueled passenger car would be), which can be slid out in a matter of minutes as a DIY proccedure.
The batteries themselves weigh about 100 kilos and are rated for 100k -- 150k miles, which makes audunw's argument specious.
Toyota hybrid Camry DIY battery replacement: <https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=nlvibjNUAXQ>
Toyota hybrid Prius DIY battery replacement: <https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=FPXY0AqHHzI>
Toyota hybrid Camry battery warranty 10 year/150k miles: <https://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota-extends-battery-warranty...>
As I've noted downstream, replacement takes about 15 minutes and is possibly as a DIY: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39921047>
Obviously for some drivers or types of vehicles phev is still be better option.
Battery prices are predicted to drop below $70/kWh this year. Electric drive trains are cheaper to build than ICE, HEV or PHEV equivalents even if you include a massive 60kWh battery.
BYD and Tesla both just released horrible Q1 numbers. Both companies have shown they'd rather lower prices than cut production. EV prices are going to drop significantly over the next few months.
non-plugin HEV's make sense. If you can't plug in at home, electric cars are inconvenient and you'd probably run a PHEV on mostly gas anyways, so you might as well save the PHEV premium and just get a standard HEV.
Niche PHEV's make sense. The Ramcharger makes a lot of sense for rural use.
To address your points:
2. An electric car is very good at knowing at knowing what level your battery will be at when you reach your destination. Range anxiety is not a lack of knowledge.
3. Superchargers are now available to Ford & Rivian owners, and will be available to everybody else within the next few months. I've done tens of thousands of kilometers of road trips in an EV, and our EV is a far better road trip vehicle than our gasoline car.
4. The engines and complexity of PHEV's make them cost more then BEV's in 2024.
5. If you don't need >120V to run almost fully electric on a PHEV, you don't need >120V for a BEV either. With 120V you can add 5 miles of range per hour of charging, so can easily cover daily driving with a night of charging. Sure, you can't charge from 0-100 overnight, but how often do you do 300 mile road trips on subsequent days? 120V will let you do 40 miles/day every weekday and 300 miles every weekend with overnight charging. If you every need more than that you can use a supercharger.
The EV cannot predict the future like unexpected detours, sudden change of plans, traffic jams on a hot/cold day where you need to keep the AC/heater running for long periods, and so on. A whole state is a big place and many areas have very sparse charger coverage - it took a hundred years to build up all the gas stations we have now. And its not enough to just build charging stations because the electric generation capacity in many area will also eventually need to be increased (not cheap or easy) as thousands and then millions more EV tap into them for power. This is a very big infrastructure issue and it is a bad idea to increase the EV population faster than the its supporting infrastructure can handle.
120V plugs are everywhere and far more common than gas stations and work great for those once in a decade type experiences. The infrastructure already exists.
Applies to ICE cars too
> traffic jams That actually reduces battery use
> on a hot/cold day
That indeed is predicted already
But if you are only asking if it's possible, sure. Look at the phenomenon of 'snowbirds' registering Florida plates on cars mostly driven in the NYC metro. Used to be much cheaper insurance premiums a decade or two ago, now not so much. (Just to be clear, this is insurance fraud and highly discouraged)
Run the same experiment in 2035. Are EVs still significantly more expensive and lack utility / range? If so, it is some approximation of the 1995 experiment. If EVs are cheap and awesome (which will probably be the case), then no ban is necessary as no one would bother to buy an ICE car anyway.
In short, at best a ban makes no difference and at worst makes everyone's lives suck while having no impact toward the stated goal.
Are we sure of this? Are biofuels not an option here? If you lived in California, you'd know that our pathetic grid can barely handle the load now. When everyone plugs in their Tesla at 6pm it's going to be pandemonium. Of course, Gavin is happy handing the extra business to his buds at PG&E.
https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofue...
Realise that we shifted from biofuels to fossil fuels in the 19th and early 20th centuries because the energy-fueled technologically-driven economic growth people wanted simply wasn't possible with agriculturally-based energy systems. In 1900, the US devoted a fifth of its grain supply to transportation, in the form of horse feed. Henry Ford experimented with alcohol-based automobiles. Ultimately large petroleum finds (Spindletop, the East Texas Oil Field, and Ghawar in Saudi Arabia) demonstrated that petroleum would be a reliable fuel source for the foreseeable future.
Biofuel yields vary, and some of the higher claims remain largely theoretical (grasses, pickleweed, and algae particularly). Demonstrated biofuel productivity from crops such as soybean, sunflower, and sugarcane range around 48--63, 63--90, and 700 gallons/acre (about 450--590, 590--840, and 6,550 litre/hectare).
The US consumes about 7.3 billion barrels of petroleum annually, the world about 37 billion.
Given the highest yield above, sugarcane (which has a limited growing zone), substituting for all petroleum use would require somewhat over 2 billion acres. That's ... somewhat ... less than the total present arable land on Earth, but keep in mind that fuel crops would displace food crops, that we're working from the best option (soybean or sunflower would require better than 10x as much land), and that agriculture itself is quite energy intensive, with most present crops requiring more energy input than is delivered.
That’s why it’s suggested for 2035…politicians get to look noble and visionary while bearing none of the actual consequences of the policy actually doing anything.
I would love to hear about a serious government proposal to reduce fuel emissions which starts working before my children graduate from college.
It does though bring up an interesting question: In the event of natural catastrophe and loss of critical infrastructure due to natural disaster (or brain eating contagions), how does one keep the literal wheels of industry and commerce moving?
Will preppers of the future focus on having gas cars, or having radically self-sufficient sources of electricity for their cars?
Preppers will just use their generators and PV system to charge their cars.
They last around 12 months (way less for gas with added ethanol) if stored properly meaning not too cold or hot and no big temperature changes.
This can be extended with preservatives/stabilizers to a few years but after that you are fucked if you don’t run a refinery.
So yeah preppers should go with electric. Batteries also have a limited lifespan but it should be longer if managed properly.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/2829/game-car-wars
EVs can be paired with solar panels to be completely independent of the grid for many years.
“Radical” self sufficiency for EV cars isn’t exactly radical. Many have already achieved full energy self-sufficiency for their homes with solar panels and battery packs. And this is true long term self sufficiency, which is much harder to achieve if you rely on gasoline for cars and generators
I live in a city, small by global standards, and I am certain all these vehicles charging over night will create heavy tolls on the grid, not even to mention the last mile delivery, where apartment blocks will have to upgrade cabling as well as local transformer stations. And this will have to be done within the entire country, which already imports 40% of its electricity needs.
So, does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
this is like "let them eat cake"
It sucks, but we don’t have a choice to not act against climate change. Some people are going to get fucked in some ways, but those same people will be fucked in different ways if we don’t do anything or move too slowly.
If fucking up people starts with those at the top I am all for it. Otherwise GFY
More electrical demands will further cause building new power plants, but none of them come without another, different impact. Sacrificing fields for solar power, flooding valleys for hydro, cutting trees for better wind, etc. I have seen it done and it makes little sense. Maybe these "local" changes will have other impacts we do not know about.
On the other hand, decreasing meat consumption might also help significantly but there have only been half-hearted attempts at it. Farmers and people will hear none of it.
So it doesn’t sound like it’s a quality issue, sounds like that’s just your outdated opinion of Chinese manufacturing. If the western world wants to make the argument that they can do it better, then they need to do it better.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-18/chinese-e...
[2] https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/one-in-four-ev...
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2024/03/08/if-europe...
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/evs-wi...
Can you please post a list of these many EVs that are cheaper than ICE cars?
According to this article the cheapest EV is the Chevy Bolt at 26.5K. So if that is true, the list of EVs cheaper than ICE is null.
https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/cheapest-elect...
Many EVs are cheaper than many ICE cars means there is already a fair amount of overlap in price points, and more expensive ICE cars are already more expensive than base EVs.
And then I posted a source indicating that the rapidly dropping prices of EVs means they will cost less to produce than ICE cars in a couple years, meaning that it is reasonable to think they will push out ever more of the lower end of the ICE market.
Ok, but then that's not a very useful comparison since there are ICE cars that cost multiple millions of dollars. So sure, every EV is cheaper than some ICE car.
Battery costs are continuing to decrease even today. And the deadline isn't for another 11 years.
like the lack of awareness of your own citizens in the comments is appalling. its no wonder trump is so popular with this crowd as much as I despise him.
How soon will it need a $7000 battery replacement? It's a non-thermal managed battery, over here (mild climate with winters usually around 0C and summers around 20-25C) they're failing left and right after 5-7 years of active usage.
That said challenges with any such regime: - it's probably easier to tax the gas directly than the released emissions - it's definitely a problem to be raising the cost of living for lower-income Americans, who already don't have wiggle room in their budgets
It's pretty likely that EVs will get cheaper over time, as production of them reaches better economies of scale which get optimized more with each new generation. How much cheaper of course is the big open question that remains to be seen, but some European countries have already seen mass adoption as the EVs get cheaper than ICE vehicles (Norway in particular, via a subsidy: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23939076/norway-electric-...). That said it's not yet the case that EVs can be made cheaper without policies shifting some of the cost.
One partial answer may be extending cheap credit for buying EVs, as EVs should have cheaper maintenance in the long run and can have cheaper operating costs (though... that depends on the local price of energy, which we don't seem to be great about keeping under control) so it appears the bigger problem with EVs is upfront cost rather than total cost of ownership - a problem better credit could smooth over. Of course this then gets tied up with the problems of interest rates. <nervously glances at the Fed>
Many larger municipalities are incentivizing more solar installs with battery capacity. Having solar generation and battery storage distributed throughout the city will reduce the need to have the grid import all of the energy demand from far away sources.
Modern solar, battery, and charger combos can easily be configured to store energy produced by solar panels on the house and operate the charger in a way that primarily pulls from the solar generation and the house's battery capacity (by telling the battery to discharge while the car is charging, essentially).
Power companies are also moving heavily toward "virtual power plants", which would be a good search term if you want to learn more.
Problem is, there are plenty of days where my system only generates 10-20 kWh of energy. Which is not even enough to run my house, much less my cars. And this is sunny California.
Obviously I like the tech which is why I invested but I'm not sure it is going to help alleviate this issue completely (enough generation that's centralized).
Wrt. solar, that is why I specifically mentioned appartment blocks. We have many such blocks, which usually have one to two levels of garages underneath. I do not think solar power can provide enough power to charge the same area of cars (in cases of one level underground garage), much less twice such area.
Furthermore, solar power is fickle: it relies heavily on nice weather and we have plenty of cloudy or rainy days.
Was not pretty and drove people to do all sorts of workarounds.
Then the country fell apart.
There’s plenty of spare capacity on the grid if EVs just use the capacity when it’s available, and avoids the peaks. Since EVs are batteries on wheels thats nearly trivial to achieve with the right incentives.
Norway has a pretty strong grid to start with since electricity has been used for heating in winter for a long time. And it had already rolled out smart meters for everyone years ago. Other countries/states may need some upgrades. But it’s not as much as you’d think and with modern technology it can be done at a reasonable price. You can often push more electricity over the same pylons with newer wires.
Does your country produce its own oil? If not EVs is a path to higher energy independence since EVs are more flexible with their energy demand and easier to pair with new renewables. With the right policies you might not need to import any more electricity, while getting to import less oil or fuels.
I also understand that it is possible to do in Norway. I commend the Norwegian leaders who invested the income from selling oil into a robust and extensive infrastructure. Most of the other countries, however, do not have that luxury, foresight, or funds. Most of the other countries are also more densely populated and without the ability to deploy wind or water power plants.
So, while I am happy for Norway and how it's working out for them, the reality in other countries is a bit different. Would be happy to be proven wrong :)
I think this question is easily explained away by politicians that this new demand would reinvigoriate innovation and the Western economies.
So, what I am missing from these laws are explanations how they intend to tackle it.
Electric car charging uses less power than air conditioning, and happens overnight when air conditioning generally doesn't run. Your grid is fine.
And then you can recycle them. There’s almost no capacity yet because there’s also no demand, but it seems like it will be a no-brainer financially to recycle them.
Personally, I'm looking to buy exclusively hybrids in the near future. But I'm a weird case because I keep vehicles for decades. I have a lot of bad feelings about this legislation.
Which are all fine. I don't know enough to question their beliefs.
But I do know enough about math and engineering to know that the only realistic way to deal with the disaster they are predicting is an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power. But instead of arguing in favor of this immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power, which Republicans would likely support, they push stuff like this.
Building more nuclear power is good, but it can’t be the only solution because it’s very expensive and takes so long to ramp up. Projects in the West have been decades behind schedule. And it’s far from given Republicans would support it.
Why don’t Republicans take the initiative and get Democrats behind a national plan for more nuclear? Because their voters don’t care. So why would they support such a Democratic initiative?
It’s a weird assumption that Republicans are somehow just waiting to do the right thing, if only Democrats would come to them with a plan. It’s never worked like that.
In the USA in April 2023 a Gallup poll had nuclear support at 54%, the highest level since 2012.[54] In August 2023 Pew Research Center conducted a survey which found that 57% of Americans favor more nuclear power plants. This is up from 43% in 2020. Support for nuclear power has increased among both Democrats and Republicans. However, Americans are still more likely to favor solar and wind power than nuclear power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_nuclear_issu...
Nuclear is extremely expensive so if you poll on the cost of energy you will also have a different outcome.
I guess I’m skeptical of the hypothetical support people claim when they have no skin in the game (I.e. no local construction plans and it’s currently obvious that no plans are possible anytime soon)
On a personal level I’ve felt pro-nuclear most of my life, it’s just in the last few years I’ve become, not anti nuclear but skeptical I suppose. I just can’t see a cost benefit in today’s world given the other options available.
This includes people from all the G20 countries, many non G20 countries, purely academic researchers, exploration geophysicists working for transnational energy and mineral extraction companies, etc.
Within this body of people that can math well, understand numerical models, deal with gravity, planetary positions, magnetic fields, atmospheric gases, radiometric backgrounds, continent drift, glacial isostatic adjustment, tides, etc. there is a documented and overwhelming consensus.
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse...
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-...
People that don't understand any of that are more likely to doubt.
What about this document, signed by over 1,100 scientists including nobel prize winners?
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-0...
It's pretty easy to figure out whether or not Republicans might support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power. Since you don't sound like you tolerate Republicans, let alone like you are on speaking terms with enough of them that you could ask, I'd recommend you consult some polls of Republicans on the question. According to one study by Pew, 2/3rds of them support the construction of new nuclear plants. Which is to say, Republicans are more likely to support what you call the right thing than Democrats.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-s...
Would it not be cheaper, whilst also being realistic, to pursue renewables + natural gas?
AIUI renewables LCOE is around 5x cheaper than nuclear and natural gas is often (including right now) sold at negative prices in the US because it is almost a waste product from far more lucrative shale oil operations (accounts for around 80% of gas production). Add to this gas is a near perfect complement to renewables given its fast response times to demand changes unlike nuclear. Natural Gas is also the cleanest of the fossil fuels, modern generation facilities are far more efficient than e.g. petrol or diesel engines.
I’m failing to understand why nuclear would be the only game in town? Those construction costs make it look unviable. Not to mention the NIMBY aspect which means nuclear is simply off the table in terms of options thanks to citizen desires.
If they do not argue for an immediate and massive expansion, I'm forced to conclude they either a) are lying about what they call the science, b) are lying about their belief in apocalyptic scenarios, c) don't understand math, or d) some combination of a, b, and c.
There are some next generation reactor designs that are worth investment but for immediate generation capacity wind and solar is much better.
The state can absolutely reduce costs and speed up plant construction in a way that is safe, and which is less vulnerable to bad weather, and which does not create as many energy storage problems.
Pursue wind and solar at the same time if you like, but the math climate scientists claim to understand requires them to also push for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear.
I find it suspicious that they do not, and that they never have.
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/100-percent-clean-electricity-...
It’s an example of some strange outdated internet meme that someone posts on any energy thread - to come in and say “actually guys nuclear is great you are all just not smart enough to know”. Despite the totally insurmountable arguments of time and cost - if we started today it would take 15+ years for one plant, and it being the most expensive major form of new power we know of.
I wish the meme would either die, or folk would brush up on their arguments.
You are right to point out the innovation coming out of China in the EV space. Every automaker is currently in a cycle of copying what they are doing for their next wave of products. To the extent that there is an EV “slowdown” right now is basically intentional until the next wave of BEVs starts coming out which are way more cost competitive.
As I pointed out in another comment the main driver is large format LFP prismatic cells in a cell-to-pack configuration. BYD blade and CATL qilin are examples to study.
The governor's budget also proposes eliminating the state's sales tax exemption for EVs (one of the few reliable EV incentives in NJ), which will effectively increase their upfront cost by another several thousand dollars.
I should mention the state does have a $5000 tax credit for new EVs. But it goes in and out of effect completely unpredictably, as funding runs out each year and then is reinstated arbitrarily some time the next year.
And this is all happening while EV sales are not doing well to begin with. There's basically no chance the ICE ban will happen as planned there.
And this is a blue state, with (iirc) ~40% nuclear and 10% renewable energy.
Also, this is more than "removing incentives" -- it's an outright EV penalty. The increase in registration fee for EVs is roughly double what the most popular ICE car (Honda CRV) pays in annual gas taxes in the state, according to Gothamist/NPR https://gothamist.com/news/what-drivers-need-to-know-as-nj-m...
One of the sponsors of the bill (that increased the EV registration fee in order to fund roads) is a state senator who is also the COO of a major roadwork construction company.
He's also simultaneously the mayor of a 10,000 population town with only a couple public chargers. Way more trucks than EVs in his town btw.