Here we go again: California Banning Sales Of New Gasoline Cars By 2035

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to pointofdeparture :

Regarding the "What about apartments" issue, I live in a 1950's apartment complex in California and we have EV chargers. They are popping up at most apartment complexes because the utility company will pretty much pay for them to be installed (believe it or not, they want to sell you more electricity and it's worth the cost of a L2 charger for them to do it).

This is a great example of where people think that because something works at a low adoption rate that it will work the same if you scale it up. How many chargers in your apartments? How many units? How many parking spaces? Your 50's apartments aren't likely to have more than 50A-100A per unit. Those level 2 chargers that you mentioned are another 30-40A each, there is zero chance that the apartment's service could even handle a fraction of the extra load required by widespread adoption, as it's likely the few they already added put it at capacity. It would be like if we removed all but one gas pump at all of the gas stations. It would still work in theory, but it would suck and require changes to our lifestyles. 

I actually spent a bunch of money putting in a 220 plug on the side of the house to plug my motorhome into. This was a house built in 1954. Multiply that by 100 units for a large apartment complex. Multiply that by all the apartments complexes in a large city. It's a bigger deal than you think.

Btw, the real problem with these mandate is that it puts so much pressure on the auto industry, who will fine meeting it, but less pressure on the rest of the system to do their part. 
 

Sure, you can find chargers at malls and shopping centers, and at apartment systems- but is that really anywhere near enough?

Trying not to be snarky here, but having to build new infrastructure that allows us to use resources more efficiently and in a more climate-friendly way is a feature, not a bug.

A lot of contractors will make a lot of money, a lot of jobs will be created/sustained, the money won't go to drilling hydrocarbons out of the ground and that's a good thing.

In reply to alfadriver :

Oh, and those chargers that already exist are pretty much a crapshoot as far as whether or not they work properly.

I was at the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance this weekend and talking about EVs with some industry folks. There was agreement that one of the biggest problems for EV owners is that the charging network is just total crap unless you have a Tesla, since there's no real ownership of those chargers in grocery store parking lots and malls and so forth. It's not that there aren't enough (currently, at least); it's that there's a 50/50 chance that the charger has just been down with no explanation for three days, and some nebulous service company probably has to be called in to fix it by people who don't really care, so you're out of a charge if you were counting on it.

(There was also a consensus that the lithium supply issue could get uglier than anyone realizes at some point.)

The left side of that graph is much more significant than the right side. 
 

New EV sales are currently 16.5% of sales in CA. That graph says the mandate will require 35% by 2026. That's an increase of 212% in 4 years. 
 

Sounds like magic fairy dust. 

No, they can't just stick a charging station wherever  there is a parking meter. There are no wires in the ground for parking meters!

Thats a huge expense!!

Also...

Electrical infrastructure upgrades are NOT free, and neither is electricity. The only way to pay for these things is with tax increases or rate increases to consumers. It's gonna get really expensive to live in CA!

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

But what if they're right and it works out better for this state than others.  Somebody has to move first. You're just not happy it's you. 

SV reX said:

No, they can't just stick a charging station wherever  there is a parking meter. There are no wires in the ground for parking meters!

Thats a huge expense!!

 

Also...

Electrical infrastructure upgrades are NOT free, and neither is electricity. The only way to pay for these things is with tax increases or rate increases to consumers. It's gonna get really expensive to live in CA!

Stop trying to confuse him with facts! He repeats that same stuff, every EV thread, with no (apparent) understanding of the falseness of it. We all WANT solar to rid us of our dependence on power companies, but wanting does not change the fact that it does not. 

In reply to SV reX :

Not just California, Massachusetts has once again followed CA:

Massachusetts new policy on ICE vehicle sales on 2035

I'm officially calling pandering to a voting base BS on this one.

We'll see see if the actually follow through with shooting themselves in the foot.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Having 9 billion people on the planet also requires changes to our lifestyles, if our lifestyles worked great when there were only 2 billion.  *shrug emoji*

You are free to change your lifestyle as you see fit. Maybe you should do what you think is right, and let other people worry about themselves. The utopia sounds great, but the adults needs to do the math and see if we can afford it, and explore the unintended side effects. 

But like I said earlier, this is nothing but theater. Nothing to see here, just a bit of political pandering to give you the warm and fuzzies. It won't change a thing. Either the market will solve the technical issues and EV adoption will increase, or it won't and they will move the goal posts again. We will run into an infrastructure wall. That is what we should be working on rather than dictating to manufacturers and consumers. 

The US hasn't built new infrastructure in decades.  We are shutting down more plants than are being built.  The workforce (skill), companies (that have the capability to build this infrastructure), the funding (government or private) to upgrade the infrastructure to support this do not exist.  It makes for great headlines though.  PG&E is in the process of divesting themselves of their last nuclear power plant in CA.  They have been reducing the ability to generate power in the state for decades in order to transfer to green energy.  The water that feeds the Hoover Dam is almost all gone.  This is a complete disaster, but EVs are so cool no one cares about reality.  Rock on, I'm making popcorn and enjoying the turdfest this is all becoming. 

ProDarwin said:

Its 12+ years away.  Lots of time to overcome the hurdles, none of which seem to be technology limited.  Its logistics, infrastructure, etc.

12 years ago the Audi A7 was released. Does that seem like a very long time, or not at all? Personally, I think 12 years will go by quickly. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

n reply to Boost_Crazy :

But what if they're right and it works out better for this state than others.  Somebody has to move first. You're just not happy it's you

I sell all of the equipment for electrical infrastructure. From the transformers to EV chargers themselves. The amount of infrastructure needed would make me very wealthy and lead to an early retirement. I'll be okay, but thanks for worrying about me. If the manufactures could produce it. They can't. If there were enough contractors to install it. There aren't. If the property owners had the money to invest. They don't. 12 years is nothing when planning something of this scale. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

n reply to Boost_Crazy :

But what if they're right and it works out better for this state than others.  Somebody has to move first. You're just not happy it's you

I sell all of the equipment for electrical infrastructure. From the transformers to EV chargers themselves. The amount of infrastructure needed would make me very wealthy and lead to an early retirement. I'll be okay, but thanks for worrying about me. If the manufactures could produce it. They can't. If there were enough contractors to install it. There aren't. If the property owners had the money to invest. They don't. 12 years is nothing when planning something of this scale. 

Cool you've just defined the problem.  Due to this policy change more people will be trained as electriciains, companies producing infrastructure will increase output etc. 

cslifornia is following the ethos of America here. Set big goals. If you miss no one cares if you missed because you've moved the needle so far in the direction you want to go  it'll be amazing. 
 

this is how Tesla and amazon work. No one cares in those companies if you missed on delivering your crazy idea.  They love the fact that you discovered x y and z along the way.  
 

we shouldn't be afraid of missing goals. We should be afraid of failing to change. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine and Boost_Crazy :

You're both right. And you're both wrong. 
 

It's not the job of great leadership to constantly be forcing change for the sake of change by creating lofty goals. It's also not the job of great leadership to sit still and be stagnant. 
 

You are working at the extremes of the spectrum.  Kinda like politics- there are no solutions at the extremes.

Let's not make an idol out of change.  It's not a goal unto itself.  Constant change is just chaos, not growth.  Let's also not be so conservative that we can't grow.

Great leadership needs to consider BOTH extremes, and develop a plan to grow based on BOTH.  

In reply to SV reX :

No one is forcing change for the sake of change. Doing so is stupid.  
 

see climate change that what like 1930% of living and dead scientists agree on. That's the reason. 
 

The role of leadership is to set tone and direction. California is doing that. The rest will catch up. 
 

when I mentor young people, i always tell them that they need to pick a direction in their career.    Saying I don't know or not picking a direction even if short term is fruitless and wasteful.  Directions can be changed.  Goals altered. Etc. but you need to start somewhere and somehow.   In two years this goal/policy will be altered with the data learned in the interim.

When JFK proposed landing a man on the moon in 1961, he allowed a decade to implement it.  58% of Americans were not in favor.

But the goal was not a shot in the dark. It was carefully planned before announcing it, and then the resources were allocated for a decade to enable it. It was the loftiest goal since the Panama Canal.  

He didn't create chaos and stress. He motivated. He planned. He invested. He united. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Except CA has already proposed similar with no legitimate effort to follow through. 
 

Not sure I can call that great leadership. It's looking like political theatre.

This won't create chaos. You guys are all being silly. 
 

the funny thing is I've never said if this policy is good or bad.  I haven't read it. I'm merely stating that this what governments and leaders should do.   If your goals don't stretch you.  If your goals don't challenge you, they're not good goals.  This is the role of leadership. 

If there was only a way to harness all the energy expended by hand wringing on the Internet.

Sure. In Southern California they are already building charge stations all over the place. It's a high tax state in an area filled with high income individuals. They can afford to throw money at whatever they choose to. But what about places like Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Clayton, New Mexico? Most of the country doesn't have the stupid money that California has to throw around. Unless the Federal Government funds a crash program you aren't going to see charging stations all over the country.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Sure. In Southern California they are already building charge stations all over the place. It's a high tax state in an area filled with high income individuals. They can afford to throw money at whatever they choose to. But what about places like Pine Bluff, Arkansas and Clayton, New Mexico? Most of the country doesn't have the stupid money that California has to throw around. Unless the Federal Government funds a crash program you aren't going to see charging stations all over the country.

There's nothing here mandating anything for any state besides California. This is CA mandating what happens in CA. Other CARB states are likely to follow at some point, but this stuff still falls under "State's Rights". If another state chooses to follow or not follow the mandate, that's up to them and their specific situation.

1. It's 12 years away.
2. It will almost certainly get pushed back.
3. It's for NEW cars, they aren't banning ICEs from the roads. And by the time they do, most of us will be in our graves.
4. PHEVs count.

I guess this is where the pragmatist in me comes out. Electrification is coming to our vehicles, whether we like it or not. Our choices are to ignore it as long as possible, embrace it, or complain about it online. It seems pretty obvious to me which is the most likely to result in a positive outcome.

As for the grid/supply, it will start to fail under the strain, people will complain, the utilities will slap together some kind of half-assed solution, and we'll keep on going. Just like we've been doing for the past 30+ years as electrical needs have been increasing.

Side note, I'd love to see the US embrace nuclear power again, but I don't see that happening with the amount of NIMBYs we have. Pity.