Can the US go 100% BEV new car sales by 2035?

[MontyFloyd]

Can the US go 100%* BEV new car sales by 2035?
(*In reality there will be a need for ICE cars forever, but the number will be statistically insignificant)
(*Also, does not count massive industrial vehicles like bulldozers, those will take longer to be tackled)

California passed a law going 100% new car sales by 2035, and California sells about 2 million annually on average. Tesla alone is producing about that much as of this post (Aug 2022), it is obvious there is already enough production just for Cali.

What about the entire US?
The US purchases 15 to 17.5 million annually. Tesla's goal is by 2030 to make 20 million per year. Of course the other auto makes will also be cranking out millions of BEV.

What about material gathering?
So far mining is keeping up with demand, barely, but the industry knows what is happening and there is a mad scramble to expand, world wide.
US efforts to increase domestic production of IC (chips) will also alleviate that issue.
Finally power generation is also increasing, but that may be the biggest uncertainty; however by charging at low demand times (easy to do) this issue can be compensated for.

I am realistically believing the US can, and easily do so , meet a 2035 new car deadline.

The real uncertainly is the cost for BEV due to enormous effort to shift to new powertrain (keep in mind that most of the car is not that much different than ICE)

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Yes.
Even crappy crossovers end up classed as trucks now, making it easy to do new cars, as anybody who didn't want an electric car would buy a crossover.

 

[thesmokingman]

The rest of the US isn't slated to get to zero emissions till 2045 iirc. However, there's already opposition, well there's always been opposition to this but now they're suing to block CA's appointed right to make their own emissions rules.

Missouri and Other AGs Try to Block California’s EV Goals

A group of Republican attorneys general have filed a lawsuit in hopes of preventing California from setting its own vehicle emissions standards, claiming the state’s rules could negatively impact other states down the road.

www.governing.com

A group of Republican attorneys general have filed a lawsuit in hopes of preventing California from setting its own vehicle emissions standards, claiming the state’s rules could negatively impact other states down the road.​

 

[Tam]

...However, there's already opposition, well there's always been opposition to this but now they're suing to block CA's appointed right to make their own emissions rules...

Trump already revoked California's rights to set its own standard, citing the "One National Program Rule," and there's no exception.

EPA officially moves to revoke California's authority to set own fuel standards

The administration says that its new rule will ensure that "there will be one, and only one, set of national fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles"

www.cbsnews.com

Originally, car manufacturers were behind Trump, but they changed their minds when they realized it would be a big mess, so they settled with California despite the DOJ antitrust investigation. It's better to comply with California's stricter standard than to follow Trump's chaotic orders.

Four automakers bucked Trump policy on emissions. Now they are under antitrust investigation

Even the President couldn't even force California to abandon its strict emission standard, so how will this new lawsuit have any hope without President Trump?

I think the new factor is the new make-up of the Supreme Court that was willing to toast Roe V Wade. The lawsuit might think it will go to the conservative Supreme Court and toast California's stricter standard.

It will be unpredictable because California and car manufacturers didn't listen to the President's order the last time; what makes them think California will listen to the Supreme Court this time?

 

[ElectricIAC]

Only if only the top 10% are the only ones allowed to drive. Grid won’t support it.

 

[Ogre]

Legislation isn't going to make a difference one way or the other.

Either we'll have enough production to move to EVs, or any legislation will change to reflect reality. A governor isn't going to let a policy set by an administration elected 13+ years shut down a huge chunk of the car market.

Most likely, we will have migrated to 99% EVs well before 2035 due to the big operating cost savings.

 

[Ogre]

Only if only the top 10% are the only ones allowed to drive. Grid won’t support it.

It's 13+ years out.

Grid will be fine. We'll see lots of little changes in the meantime, but the infrastructure will adjust and we'll move forward.

 

[thesmokingman]

Trump already revoked California's rights to set its own standard, citing the "One National Program Rule," and there's no exception.

EPA officially moves to revoke California's authority to set own fuel standards

The administration says that its new rule will ensure that "there will be one, and only one, set of national fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles"

www.cbsnews.com

Originally, car manufacturers were behind Trump, but they changed their minds when they realized it would be a big mess, so they settled with California despite the DOJ antitrust investigation. It's better to comply with California's stricter standard than to follow Trump's chaotic orders.

Four automakers bucked Trump policy on emissions. Now they are under antitrust investigation

Even the President couldn't even force California to abandon its strict emission standard, so how will this new lawsuit have any hope without President Trump?

I think the new factor is the new make-up of the Supreme Court that was willing to toast Roe V Wade. The lawsuit might think it will go to the conservative Supreme Court and toast California's stricter standard.

It will be unpredictable because California and car manufacturers didn't listen to the President's order the last time; what makes them think California will listen to the Supreme Court this time?

Why you so contrarian?

Biden restores California's power to set car emissions rules

The Biden administration is restoring California’s authority to set its own tailpipe pollution standards for cars, reversing a Trump administration policy and likely ushering in stricter emissions standards for new passenger vehicles nationwide.

apnews.com

 

[Tam]

Why you so contrarian?

Yes, President Biden did restore California's rights to set its stricter standard. There's no question about it.

However, take a look: The Judicial Supremacy has been overruling President Biden's executive powers:

CDC enforcing eviction moratorium due to Covid-19
OSHA enforcing workplace vaccine mandate.
EPA limits on greenhouse gases

With this trend, Judicial Supremacy will be able to overrule President Biden's order that restored California's rights to set its stricter standard.

 

[ElectricIAC]

It's 13+ years out.

Grid will be fine. We'll see lots of little changes in the meantime, but the infrastructure will adjust and we'll move forward.

Okay. Besides the grid issues there’s also general buildout.

You already got cars piling up at DCFC’s in rural towns and cities across the country as it is with the minuscule adoption rate there is now. You’ll have to see networks grow 1,000% or better to support that kind of take.

 

[nwdiver]

Only if only the top 10% are the only ones allowed to drive. Grid won’t support it.

... we need ~1,000TWh/yr of additional electricity to displace 100% of fools fuel. The US currently produces ~4,000TWh/yr from generators that on average only operate at ~50% of nameplate. So we can add another ~4,000TWh/yr just by running existing generators more often. More than enough capacity off-peak.

 

[ElectricIAC]

... we need ~1,000TWh/yr of additional electricity to displace 100% of fools fuel. The US currently produces ~4,000TWh/yr from generators that on average only operate at ~50% of nameplate. So we can add ~2,000TWh/yr just by running existing generators more often. More than enough capacity off-peak.

Nuclear and or more Hydro. Anyone not onboard with that is unserious.

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear and or more Hydro. Anyone not onboard with that is unserious.

Nuclear is prohibitively expensive and Hydro has already tapped all the viable geologic areas. Anyone that can't accept those facts is unserious.

Wind and Solar are $30/MWh vs ~$150/MWh for nuclear. And the great thing about charging an EV is that 90% of the time waiting until there's sun or wind isn't an issue. Cheap variable generation is the perfect kind of generation for charging a battery.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Wind and Solar are $30/MWh

Where you gonna put it? No one seems to want it in their backyard.

 

[nwdiver]

Where you gonna put it? No one seems to want it in their backyard.

Seems like lots of people are fine with it on their roof or providing shade for their car. That would do. Wind can go where cattle graze or offshore. Also plenty of space there.

You can fit ~5kW of solar over a parking space. That's ~7,000kWh/yr good for >20,000 miles/yr. How far do you think most people drive annually? Math.... try it.

 

[Ogre]

Where you gonna put it? No one seems to want it in their backyard.

Not sure what you are even talking about. People are fine with solar on their roof, in their backyard, in their neighbor's backyard, on their children's schools...

Nuclear on the other hand? People don't even want it in their country. I'm not against nuclear power myself, and I particularly like some of the more compact/ melt-down proof solutions which are getting close to read, but the idea that it's more acceptable than solar is just silly nonsense.

 

[MontyFloyd]

The rest of the US isn't slated to get to zero emissions till 2045 iirc. However, there's already opposition, well there's always been opposition to this but now they're suing to block CA's appointed right to make their own emissions rules.

Missouri and Other AGs Try to Block California’s EV Goals

A group of Republican attorneys general have filed a lawsuit in hopes of preventing California from setting its own vehicle emissions standards, claiming the state’s rules could negatively impact other states down the road.

www.governing.com

Ahhhhh, the irony that "States Rights" Republicans are now saying states don't have rights!

 

[MontyFloyd]

Yes, President Biden did restore California's rights to set its stricter standard. There's no question about it.

However, take a look: The Judicial Supremacy has been overruling President Biden's executive powers:

CDC enforcing eviction moratorium due to Covid-19

Federal rule, nation wide.

OSHA enforcing workplace vaccine mandate.

Federal rule, nation wide.

EPA limits on greenhouse gases

Federal rule, nation wide.

With this trend, Judicial Supremacy will be able to overrule President Biden's order that restored California's rights to set its stricter standard.

This a States decision, and does nothing to ICE standards either!
Let me say again
Before it was California's ICE requirements that was dragging all the car companies into complying with CA nation wide.
Cali is not imposing any requirements to BEV cars, they are simply saying "no more ICE car", and the car companies are MORE than happy to make BEV because that is where the big profit demand is.

 

[CrazyRabbit]

No

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Where you gonna put it? No one seems to want it in their backyard.

Plenty of people seem to be very happy to have it. It's just that there are some people who don't want it in other peoples back yards who are the problem.