Bloomberg: California Considers Following China with ICE Ban

[ohmman]

California Considers Following China With Combustion-Engine Car Ban

Looks more like internal questions than any serious policy movement, but worth posting here.

 

[ecarfan]

I would be happy to see California ban ICEs in a decade or two when battery energy density
And production costs have decreased to the point that battery-powered vehicles and other traditionally gas-powered products are at cost parity.

 

[ohmman]

I would be happy to see California ban ICEs in a decade or two when battery energy density
And production costs have decreased to the point that battery-powered vehicles and other traditionally gas-powered products are at cost parity.

I think the point of those long term goals (saying that it's happening in 10-15 years) is to drive automakers to change in anticipation. With that kind of lead, there should be plenty of used EVs on the market, and the restriction would likely only apply to new vehicles anyway. That could be phased out afterwards over a longer period of time to ensure it's not a financial hardship on anyone.

 

[Cloxxki]

That would be much cheaper than a $10K buying incentive. And would create jobs probably, building a good share locally rather than importing.

 

[ohmman]

That would be much cheaper than a $10K buying incentive. And would create jobs probably, building a good share locally rather than importing.

It would definitely be worthwhile looking at the overall costs/savings from such a move. Certainly healthcare expenses would drop meaningfully. Some of those would be government supplied care, some in premium drops. That would create more economic cash. Increased costs would probably be related mostly to ensuring the grid is capable of meeting that kind of demand in such a short period (10 years feels really short in utility-time).

 

[McRat]

Jerry Brown is somewhat of a hypocrite. California is currently stalled on their written plans for enhancing EV infrastructure, and has moved to reduce EV sales by virtually eliminating the EV credit, going so far as to increase taxes on EVs far in advance of their plans to retire ICE cars.

To Jerry and Friends, the idea that common people can afford to spend $9k more for a car is foolish. Plans for EV adoption must take into account car prices.

California needs to assist the EV industry TODAY, if they want results. Allowing the utilities to increase electricity prices was just another of Jerry's adminstration's errors.

 

[Cloxxki]

It would definitely be worthwhile looking at the overall costs/savings from such a move. Certainly healthcare expenses would drop meaningfully. Some of those would be government supplied care, some in premium drops. That would create more economic cash. Increased costs would probably be related mostly to ensuring the grid is capable of meeting that kind of demand in such a short period (10 years feels really short in utility-time).

Decentralized green energy generatio would offset grid load. And if cars batteries are used as buffer, more so. Let alone power walls. But then, the whole grid loses a degree necessity. Depends on whether a state considers the grid a purpose or a cost.

 

[McRat]

EVs will eventually dominate the landscape once EVs become the best option in cars.
Tesla is already proving this. Give people a reason to buy EVs, and they will buy them.

 

[nwdiver]

EVs will eventually dominate the landscape once EVs become the best option in cars.
Tesla is already proving this. Give people a reason to buy EVs, and they will buy them.

People can't buy what isn't available. The LAMEs (Legacy Auto Manufacturing Enterprises) have zero interest in seeing a transition to EVs. With the exception of maybe Nissan. Sadly the only way they're going to make compelling EVs is with a boot on their throat.

Never Forget...

 

[McRat]

People can't buy what isn't available. The LAMEs (Legacy Auto Manufacturing Enterprises) have zero interest in seeing a transition to EVs. With the exception of maybe Nissan. Sadly the only way they're going to make compelling EVs is with a boot on their throat.

Never Forget...

You live in a different world than I live in. In my world, people buy cars based on personal choice. Manufacturers make products that people buy.

The EV1 failed. When the experiment ended, there were cars still on the lots. There weren't 1000 people who wanted them. Many were returned before the lease ended. 41 people wanted to keep their cars.

If you were the Dictator in 1997, would have mandated all cars be electric since the EV1 was obviously functional, and some people liked them?

 

[Skotty]

Does CA have any coal power left? If so, maybe ban that first.

 

[ohmman]

You live in a different world than I live in. In my world, people buy cars based on personal choice. Manufacturers make products that people buy.

I generally agree that the incentives should be lined up to nudge decisions in the right direction. For instance, placing an appropriate price on gasoline that incorporates its externalities - that would entice owners to purchase an EV.

But I'll also say that personal choice starts to get muddy when it's affecting others. So the choice to buy an ICE vehicle contributes to healthcare costs for all of us, it reduces the quality of life for many who suffer from asthma, etc. If my neighbor dumps gallons of diesel into the ground to kill some moles, and it pollutes my well water, well that's an issue that rises above personal choice.

 

[nwdiver]

You live in a different world than I live in. In my world, people buy cars based on personal choice. Manufacturers make products that people buy.

The EV1 failed. When the experiment ended, there were cars still on the lots. There weren't 1000 people who wanted them. Many were returned before the lease ended. 41 people wanted to keep their cars.

If you were the Dictator in 1997, would have mandated all cars be electric since the EV1 was obviously functional, and some people liked them?

That's not how marketing works A less generous term would be propaganda. The reality is that it's usually the manufactures deciding what people should want (what they sell) than the other way around...

There were plenty of people that wanted to keep their EV1. But thank you for proving my point on the LAMEs helping people come to the 'right' conclusion.....

 

[McRat]

I generally agree that the incentives should be lined up to nudge decisions in the right direction. For instance, placing an appropriate price on gasoline that incorporates its externalities - that would entice owners to purchase an EV.

But I'll also say that personal choice starts to get muddy when it's affecting others. So the choice to buy an ICE vehicle contributes to healthcare costs for all of us, it reduces the quality of life for many who suffer from asthma, etc. If my neighbor dumps gallons of diesel into the ground to kill some moles, and it pollutes my well water, well that's an issue that rises above personal choice.

But you are my prime example!

You bought a Tesla because you wanted it. You didn't have to. Apparently an automaker built a car you liked, and you rewarded their efforts.

I firmly believe as more people are exposed to electromotive drivetrains in cars they will switch over. Cost, range, and remote refueling are the downside right now. Those are going to diminish with time.

But right now, few people have even been in an electric car, much less lived with one. Things change. There was a time when nobody believed the 1960's horsepower wars would ever be eclipsed either. Oddly enough, if cheap Li battery technology was around in 1975, the death of the ICE as a passenger car engine would have been quick. Cars ran like crap back then and had poor reliability.

 

[mspohr]

You live in a different world than I live in. In my world, people buy cars based on personal choice. Manufacturers make products that people buy.

The EV1 failed. When the experiment ended, there were cars still on the lots. There weren't 1000 people who wanted them. Many were returned before the lease ended. 41 people wanted to keep their cars.

If you were the Dictator in 1997, would have mandated all cars be electric since the EV1 was obviously functional, and some people liked them?

Just make fossil fuel cars pay their full cost (fuel, health, environmental) and EVs will be cost competitive. People can then choose to pay more for a fossil car or less for an EV.

 

[McRat]

Just make fossil fuel cars pay their full cost (fuel, health, environmental) and EVs will be cost competitive. People can then choose to pay more for a fossil car or less for an EV.

If we just made a law that if you didn't earn over $100k a year, you couldn't hold a driver's license, it would also fix the issue. Jets and buses would make more pollution than cars and there wouldn't be traffic jams.

Think about it. You should spend <10% of your income on transportation. $10k a year doesn't buy much car, EV or otherwise.

 

[nwdiver]

I firmly believe as more people are exposed to electromotive drivetrains in cars they will switch over. Cost, range, and remote refueling are the downside right now. Those are going to diminish with time.

The unfortunate reality is that far too many people won't give EVs a second glance until they can fill one up at a fuel station in ~5 minutes and carry ~100 miles of fuel in a 30lb jerry can. And since AGW is obviously a Chines/Al Gore hoax there's nothing wrong with burning $20 worth of gasoline every week. Change that to ~$100 every week and they'll probably give EVs another look and compromise on the charging time....

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

But you are my prime example!

You bought a Tesla because you wanted it. You didn't have to. Apparently an automaker built a car you liked, and you rewarded their efforts.

I firmly believe as more people are exposed to electromotive drivetrains in cars they will switch over. Cost, range, and remote refueling are the downside right now. Those are going to diminish with time.

But right now, few people have even been in an electric car, much less lived with one. Things change. There was a time when nobody believed the 1960's horsepower wars would ever be eclipsed either. Oddly enough, if cheap Li battery technology was around in 1975, the death of the ICE as a passenger car engine would have been quick. Cars ran like crap back then and had poor reliability.

It doesn't matter. What matters:
(0) Being happy is good
(1) Pollution makes people unhappy
(2) Personal mobility makes people happy
(3) Freedom to choose makes people happy

What matters is whether and at what point the unhappiness caused by a free choice outweigh the happiness caused by free choice.

The obvious extreme hypothetical example would be vehicle A and vehicle B that differ only in that A produces more pollution than B. Should A be allowed to be sold?
If not, what difference must there be between A and B to allow A to be sold?

 

[McRat]

The unfortunate reality is that far too many people won't give EVs a second glance until they can fill one up at a fuel station in ~5 minutes and carry ~100 miles of fuel in a 30lb jerry can. And since AGW is obviously a Chines/Al Gore hoax there's nothing wrong with burning $20 worth of gasoline every week. Change that to ~$100 every week and they'll probably give EVs another look and compromise on the charging time....

I'll admit, I'm not EV religious. I drive EV by choice. It is highly unlikely I'll become technology religious. Is EV the best it's going to get? Who knows? Some folk scoffed at HDTV: "no programming, no broadcast TV, too much bandwidth, a solution looking for a problem, too expensive, screen burn-in, etc". Now I'm digging the 4k clarity that makes HDTV seem primitive.

Technology always progresses. There is no reason to be a Luddite. It creates both problems and solutions in equal amounts it seems.

 

[cpa]

I think it will be a tough, near impossible sell in the rural parts of California: Central Valley (except for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area); north coast; all of Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Mono, Inyo, and Imperial Counties; eastern portions of Kern, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties; and the mountain counties like Mariposa, Sierra, Nevada, Alpine, Tuolumne, Calaveras, Amador, Placer, El Dorado, Butte, Plumas, and Trinity. By my count, those counties total 33 of our 58 counties in the state. Unfortunately, those same counties only comprise about 1/3 of the population while a rough estimate of the area is more like 60-65%.

There are too many ranchers, farmers, contractors, and others who feel like they must drive a pick 'em up truck. We have vast stretches of highway that these people need to travel to do their jobs. There are too many people who like their RVs and fifth wheels that need the distance that an ICE car will give them between refueling stops. Ohmman can bear witness to the minor inconveniences of driving a Model X towing an Airstream. He is the exception, not the rule as things stand today.

I feel that many individuals in those counties would not object to a BEV that is a commuter vehicle for trips to town or church. But too many rely on their pickups and such for work or pleasure.

Fast--really fast--DC charging would alleviate some of the inherent problems as perceived by these individuals. But battery capacity needs to be increased substantially in order to accommodate the long distances, isolation, towing, and hauling needs for these people.