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

stuart in mn said:

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

And pearl clutching. 
 

you win the internet today my friend. 

So let me get this straight. The state that has almost constant rolling brown and black outs because their electrical grid is already strained is now going to require that millions of new cars also be connected to this grid. Am I correct? Are they planning on upping their power output to handle the current load? Because if not, this isn't going to go like they think it will. But this is a political thing and most politicians don't have enough active brain cells to follow a thought through to completion. 

OK, I think we need to level set here a bit.  This is another example of why such stories really NEED to be discussed and explored. Yes the media has failed again... so, based on what what we know (bold for emphasis, not yelling)

- this is NOT an EV Requirement (since hybrids are allowed, which is NOT clear in the articles)

That of course changes a lot of the arguments, chargers, infrastructure etc.  I would certainly guess, if followed through, this will result in the vast majority of complying vehicles being hybrids.  This of course still has an effect, since hybrids are generally noticeable more expensive (you might know CA is already super expensive to live in).  They will also still use a lot of gas and pollute (just less).

This still creates some pretty significant battery demand (cost, mining/sourcing etc). 

Oh, and I also want to point out that the power generation in the state is crap, they regularly call for Flex Alerts in the summer, which means they want you to minimize electrical use during the day (you know, when all these public charging stations would mostly be used). So clearly there will be big issues if they jump that demand.

Also of note, CA is not all LA, Bay Area and Sacramento.  There are very large areas of the state that are rural, which would be super expensive and difficult to "EV".

Steve_Jones said:

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. 

12 years is the blink of an eye in infrastructure planning and construction. It will take them that long to do the studies and come up with plans to build something that is too little and too late. 

This seems a lot like political grandstanding from where I'm sitting on the east coast. If I don't believe them, I wonder how many of their constituents believe them. 

Steve_Jones said:

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. 

12 years ago, EVs made up 0.5% of new vehicle sales.  Things have changed a lot in 12 years.

Using data from https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/new-zev-sales

Taking a look at where that trendline goes over the next 12 years:

It may not be a long time, but small changes add up fast

Until they start planting solar farms and windmill on Highway 1 and 101, between San Diego, north thru Los Angeles to Santa Barbara this is all political theater.

And this group found it hard to look at oil rigs, miles off the coast.

bobzilla said:

So let me get this straight. The state that has almost constant rolling brown and black outs because their electrical grid is already strained is now going to require that millions of new cars also be connected to this grid. Am I correct? Are they planning on upping their power output to handle the current load? Because if not, this isn't going to go like they think it will. But this is a political thing and most politicians don't have enough active brain cells to follow a thought through to completion. 

You're talking about Texas right? Cause that sounds like Texas. 

Updated:

Blue = ZEV Sales % So far

Blue line = best fit exponential

Red = ZEV Sales % Targets per ACC II Proposal

I'm not saying that there aren't going to be issues encountered. But it seems like people are confusing some things here. "No new ICE sales" doesn't mean that all existing cars disappear and everything becomes electric powered overnight. At that point the majority of vehicles on the road will still be gas powered. Yes the electric grid will need some upgrades to keep up at some point, but it's not like it all needs to happen next week...or even by 2035.

What California really wants to do is ban cars in the cities and suburbs.  They want Everyone  on public transit, bikes, walking, etc.

As a ancillary benefit to the required build up of solar, wind and the the required transmission lines the required weed abatement will need, mandate, full time bodies to clear and clean the power generation equipment.  No grass land fires will be tolerated.  But the use of gas powered weed whackers will not be allowed.  Alterative means of weed disposal will be developed in time to solve this issue.

Goats, that might work....

jr02518 said:

Goats, that might work....

Haha!

My daughter tried that. In Metro Atlanta. She rented goats. 
 

Goats didn't work so well!! 

bobzilla said:

So let me get this straight. The state that has almost constant rolling brown and black outs because their electrical grid is already strained is now going to require that millions of new cars also be connected to this grid. Am I correct? Are they planning on upping their power output to handle the current load? Because if not, this isn't going to go like they think it will. But this is a political thing and most politicians don't have enough active brain cells to follow a thought through to completion. 

My state right now will put solar panels on the roof for the owners with no out of pocket cost.   It's cheaper by far for the utility companies than building a new power plant.  
Minnesota is already approaching 50% renewable power.  
   California which is much much sunnier than Minnesota ( and doesn't have the snow issue)  is lagging way behind.  
   In fact if all the southern states just put solar panels on roofs  much of the shortages and brown outs would be over. 
    Plus shingles  life would be increased by as much as 10 years.  
  Not only that but think of the employment opportunities for very well paying jobs.  Eric quit his job at Cargill to work on solar panels. 

This whole thread is like out of r/persecutionfetish 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Persecutionfetish/

so many people want to feel like they are oppressed  

In reply to frenchyd :

Your state, or utility companies IN your state?

No out of pocket?  Who pays the electric bills and the taxes?

My cousin was an early adopter of solar. His multi-million dollar house has been solar powered for decades. He once told me "I'm not stupid. I know the reality is that what I am doing is paying my electric bill 20 years in advance."

I don't think it's nothing out of pocket.

Hopefully some of the Californians here can chime in with specifics, but I think  it's also worth mentioning that CA has some of the highest state level incentives and rebates for purchasing Plug-in vehicles and equipping your home or business with solar capability. It seems like they are willing to spend some money on the situation. But rather than spending it on expanding the existing grid which even in CA is primarily fossil fueled, they are instead spending the money to incentivize individuals to become more energy independent via renewables. If you've taken advantage of the opportunity and incentives, and equipped yourself with solar power, your dependence on 'the Grid' is far lower or non-existent.

GM is also partnering with the much maligned PG&E to work on bi-directional charging, which could be of some assistance to 'the Grid'. Many other EV's are offering this capability as well (most notably the Lightning with it's backup power ability).

So, all of these plug-in vehicles aren't likely to need to charge from empty to full at the same time. They're probably replenishing <15kwh each day when they do charge. An electric dryer or oven might use 3kwh per hr of run time for reference.

When they do charge at home, they might be at least partially powered by solar; reducing strain on 'the Grid'.

And when equipped, they might be able to act as backup power, or temp storage to reduce demand and support 'the Grid'.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

I think it is distasteful to respond to people's legitimate questions and concerns by calling them fetishists.

Its a discussion. Let people speak. 

In reply to SV reX :

Help help. Come see the violence inherent in the system. 

bobzilla said:

So let me get this straight. The state that has almost constant rolling brown and black outs because their electrical grid is already strained is now going to require that millions of new cars also be connected to this grid. Am I correct? Are they planning on upping their power output to handle the current load? Because if not, this isn't going to go like they think it will. But this is a political thing and most politicians don't have enough active brain cells to follow a thought through to completion. 

It isn't like everyone will be charging from 0% to 100% every day. With my 40 mile round trip commute, using a Rivian, the amount of extra electricity that I would be using is about the same as a window unit AC for 8 hours. With a Bolt, its about half that. And, they're primarily being charged at night.

This argument really annoys me. It implies that we're unwilling to invest in our infrastructure, in our technology, and unable to make innovations. It is frankly un-American. We're the country of Edison, Tesla (halfway at least), Ford, Winchester,  the Wright brothers, Engelbart, etc. Let's act like it and figure it out rather than wimp out.

Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:

What California really wants to do is ban cars in the cities and suburbs.  They want Everyone  on public transit, bikes, walking, etc.

Nope it's worse!  They want everyone to buy Tesla Model 3 Plaids.  And put solar panels up on their roof

   Now on the off chance you don't have the money for a Tesla Plaid you can buy a Nissan Leaf for as little as $20,300 after the $ 7,500 allowance.   Plus after 2023 you're allowed to take  the $7,500 as a discount. 

Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:

What California really wants to do is ban cars in the cities and suburbs.  They want Everyone  on public transit, bikes, walking, etc.

As someone who actually lives here I can assure you that will never be the case.

SV reX said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Your state, or utility companies IN your state?

No out of pocket?  Who pays the electric bills and the taxes?

My cousin was an early adopter of solar. His multi-million dollar house has been solar powered for decades. He once told me "I'm not stupid. I know the reality is that what I am doing is paying my electric bill 20 years in advance."

I don't think it's nothing out of pocket.

It's ordered by the state, underwritten by the utility companies and it's working!!   
 Minnesota has approaching 50% renewable energy.  Our goal is 100% renewable by 2030 
    In fact we sell our surplus down as far as Florida. 
        I checked into it and I have too many big trees shadowing my roof.  But my neighbor doesn't.   
   They do it for no out of pocket cost.  Plus you stop paying for electricity.  It's paid for from your surplus energy that is sold  to others.    
  That's a great deal for the utility companies.  They earn money selling energy they didn't  pay for.  With no fuel cost or maintenance costs.  

It does seem like there's a lot of "because it's hard, we shouldn't even try" being spouted here. A state mandate is an attempt at making something happen, everyone involved knows it might not work out.