Is this really goin to happen?, 2035 Phase Out all new gas cars Options

[horizontally-opposed]

One of the comments above really resonates with me—it's really whole picture, and about each of our total footprints as much as anyone else.

I wouldn't say I'm an "environmentalist," but I did go through Scouting as a kid and one of the big takeaways was to leave the campground as you found it or, if at all possible, better than you found it. And so I've been making some changes over time.

Cut my commute from 45~ miles a day to 5~ miles in 2008 (with my better half switching to a bus into downtown most days) and then a short walk for both of us in 2012. When we went looking for an office, the commercial realtor kept getting on the freeway, and in the direction of morning commute traffic...and I kept saying, "No, no, no…" Our current landlord keeps raising the rent at our walkable office, but part of our calculous is the cost of driving a car to an alternative. My work is specialized, so if I can ditch my commute, others (though certainly not everyone) can do it. And the pandemic is forcing the question on a mass scale. I think it's a good thing in the long haul.

Rooftop solar goes on this week, with battery backup. The battery is costly, but the solar is a push for ten years and then should cut our electricity bill to zero for the next 15-25 after that. And the battery starts looking a lot better when weighed against throwing out food or being dead in the water without electricity for our business. Moving one of our three cars to an EV is on the horizon, but the environmental aspect is only one part of the thinking. I like the idea of eliminating fuel bills and fuel stops. A lot. If the lease on something we actually want to drive is even close, it'll be a no-brainer.

Flipside, I've traveled by air for work quite a bit over the last 23 years (6-12 trips per year, with 2-4 of them overseas), and our household falls into many of the same consumption traps so many others do. But we're still looking for changes we can make.

So count me as one more who'd like to hear more about a catalyst on a 914. I suppose a catalyst will do its thing no matter what, with or without the 02 sensor, so then I'm curious about packaging, that much heat around a 901 transmission, fire safety, etc. As much as I love driving my old 914, and that's a lot, and as much as I can say its impact is inconsequential due to the mileage it travels each year (as well as the fact that it prevents me from going through a series of cars that have to be built), I'm becoming increasingly aware of just how smelly my 914 is as it drives through today's world—mainly because of how clean most cars have become. No one from the general public has complained to me about it (yet), but I sometimes wonder if smiles and waves from pedestrians and neighbors are occasionally replaced by other feelings as raw unburned everything wafts over them. But more than that, I'd just like to clean up after myself.

[andrewb]

One of the comments above really resonates with me—it's really whole picture, and about each of our total footprints as much as anyone else......................but more than that, I'd just like to clean up after myself.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[Chris914n6]

Glad we got that cleared up (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

We are talking about carbon emissions,

Not exactly. I care more about clean air, clean water, clean earth and that mess of a trash island in the pacific than carbon emissions. Those are things I can make better with actions today. But they are interconnected.

I'm not an environmentalist, I'm a boy scout too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer.gif)

I'll take that bet - tell us, how many hours a day do you run your air conditioning and how much of your overall power consumption is from renewables?

Those are actually the wrong questions. I have no control over the weather or where the power company sources electricity. But here it's mostly NatGas & some solar. If NatGas is not clean then the buses are lying (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) CA takes all the hydro & most of the solar.

I can say my house was built in 1971 and so far I have spent a small fortune on new retrofit windows. Last year I replaced the upstairs seer 6 a/c unit with seer 14 and a new roof in prep for solar panels. Power bill is about half. Before covid I was about 2 years away from being off grid and 100% solar w/batteries. Still a few reductions to make plus the tech gets better the more I put it off.
Add to that my property is fairly green considering it's a desert, I drive <2500 miles a year in a used car I've had for 12 years, my cell phone for 6, no TV and consume no cow products. I also have an electric mower. You get the idea.
I've also got to think about moving out of the area if the 10F over average this year becomes a regular thing. Nothing got done outdoors this summer and it cooked a good number of plants.

No actual numbers but that's about as small as one can get in a modern American lifestyle.

Compromised, but not useless.

Long Way Up, ep 2 and/or 3 (I binged the first 4). The bikes were too cold to charge = useless. Of course that's not every situation, but it did happen.

[bbrock]

But here it's mostly NatGas & some solar. If NatGas is not clean then the buses are lying (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) CA takes all the hydro & most of the solar.

Well... not exactly. The buses aren't lying but they aren't telling the full story. NG is much cleaner than coal when it is burned but the production is quite messy and leaks a lot of methane into the atmosphere. Since methane is many, many times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2, the climate impacts from methane leakage are substantial. Although NG is great for cleaning up air quality in a city, it isn't a great solution for climate change although it has it's place since it at least can be better than coal if leakage is properly contained.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmen...cts-natural-gas

[Tdskip]

Well said @bbrock .

@Chris914n6 that is a very thoughtful and admirable approach you have adopted. See, nailed it about you being a great fellow!

Unfortunately you better get used to those higher termperatures. We all better, not to mention more variable weather.

[RRietman]

One of the comments above really resonates with me—it's really whole picture, and about each of our total footprints as much as anyone else.

I wouldn't say I'm an "environmentalist," but I did go through Scouting as a kid and one of the big takeaways was to leave the campground as you found it or, if at all possible, better than you found it. And so I've been making some changes over time.

Cut my commute from 45~ miles a day to 5~ miles in 2008 (with my better half switching to a bus into downtown most days) and then a short walk for both of us in 2012. When we went looking for an office, the commercial realtor kept getting on the freeway, and in the direction of morning commute traffic...and I kept saying, "No, no, no…" Our current landlord keeps raising the rent at our walkable office, but part of our calculous is the cost of driving a car to an alternative. My work is specialized, so if I can ditch my commute, others (though certainly not everyone) can do it. And the pandemic is forcing the question on a mass scale. I think it's a good thing in the long haul.

Rooftop solar goes on this week, with battery backup. The battery is costly, but the solar is a push for ten years and then should cut our electricity bill to zero for the next 15-25 after that. And the battery starts looking a lot better when weighed against throwing out food or being dead in the water without electricity for our business. Moving one of our three cars to an EV is on the horizon, but the environmental aspect is only one part of the thinking. I like the idea of eliminating fuel bills and fuel stops. A lot. If the lease on something we actually want to drive is even close, it'll be a no-brainer.

Flipside, I've traveled by air for work quite a bit over the last 23 years (6-12 trips per year, with 2-4 of them overseas), and our household falls into many of the same consumption traps so many others do. But we're still looking for changes we can make.

So count me as one more who'd like to hear more about a catalyst on a 914. I suppose a catalyst will do its thing no matter what, with or without the 02 sensor, so then I'm curious about packaging, that much heat around a 901 transmission, fire safety, etc. As much as I love driving my old 914, and that's a lot, and as much as I can say its impact is inconsequential due to the mileage it travels each year (as well as the fact that it prevents me from going through a series of cars that have to be built), I'm becoming increasingly aware of just how smelly my 914 is as it drives through today's world—mainly because of how clean most cars have become. No one from the general public has complained to me about it (yet), but I sometimes wonder if smiles and waves from pedestrians and neighbors are occasionally replaced by other feelings as raw unburned everything wafts over them. But more than that, I'd just like to clean up after myself.

how much of your 10 year break even on the solar is tax credits? as a general contractor I have priced solar installs for customers a few times and that is usually a deal breaker. not everyone can qualify. NOBODY can pay retail for household solar and make sense of it.
Randy

[horizontally-opposed]

how much of your 10 year break even on the solar is tax credits? as a general contractor I have priced solar installs for customers a few times and that is usually a deal breaker. not everyone can qualify. NOBODY can pay retail for household solar and make sense of it.
Randy

~25%, so figure another 3-4 years to break even without the credit. If CA does nothing, the tax credits go down in 2021 and disappear after that—which was definitely a motivating factor.

Fwiw, we decided to buy the panels vs lease, which may not pencil out for someone else. There's no "one size fits all" on this, but I am glad we looked into it because where I quickly dismissed solar in the past, it made sense for this house. As noted above, we looked at the trajectory of electricity rate increases (historically and with an eye on PG&E's inevitable reckoning whether it's upgrades or settlements) as well as anticipated cost of new windows—a capital outlay vs essentially moving our electricity payment over to the solar company.

[AZBanks]

That's gonna leave a mark.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/epa-chief...8?mod=home-page

[andrewb]

This is a brilliantly simple - and thought provoking - demonstration of a related issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXXcHKJvyhM...eature=youtu.be

[falcor75]

I just wanted to add in my own experience of electric cars.

I live in Sweden and I dont drive very much, to work and back every day and a bit on the weekends. My commute is 10 miles one way and I drive about 12k miles per year.

Two years ago I was offered a company car from work and I wanted the cheapest monthly cost but still a car large enough for the whole family. I got a 2018 VW
Passat GTE wagon plug in hybrid.

Its got up to 31 miles of electric range which in practicality is probably is closer to 25 miles with heat/AC and my driving style. But it gets me to work and back in the summer on a single charge. I have the option to charge at work if needed because in the winters it wont do the return trip on a single charge when the temps go below freezing. It works really well. The petrol tank is 55 litres and the longest I have driven between refills is 2538 miles. Basically I do all the short trips on electric and only use the petrol engine on longer journeys. In electric mode its quick enough and you can go up to 70 mph on pure electric.

It works really well and when the lease goes out next year I will get another one. Ideally I would want the same car with usable electric range of around 60 miles.

[Superhawk996]

. . . impacts from methane leakage are substantial.

My wife would agree. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

[horizontally-opposed]

That's gonna leave a mark.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/epa-chief...8?mod=home-page

Yep, that's a stumbling block if it remains in place. There are a number of the 50 states against the EPA's stance on this, and car manufacturers too (though there are also states that don't care, and manufacturers loving it).

Fwiw, I saw some of the previous MPG targets as unrealistic. But stripping CA of its special waiver to legislate for clean air is, in my opinion, a mistake given the vehicle population. I was a CARB hater with the best of them way back when, and still have some reservations about some of its policies, but I've come to see things differently—and have little doubt that one of the single most impactful changes implemented when it comes to clean air (yes, the catalytic converter) would have taken far, far longer to be implemented had it not been for the CA market leading when others didn't want to or said it didn't matter. Look at the lag period of "49-state" cars, and how long it took even Germany to require catalysts (late 1980s or early 1990s?).

Interestingly enough, those catalysts are also directly responsible for the second golden age of performance cars—because they targeted efficiency, which was eventually used to generate more horsepower. And, in time, a lot more. Remember when 200-210 hp from a 4.9-liter Mustang or 3.2-liter 911 were NA benchmarks? Now we have GT3s making 500 hp from 4.0 liters and 300+ hp V6 minivans...

[horizontally-opposed]

The petrol tank is 55 litres and the longest I have driven between refills is 2538 miles. Basically I do all the short trips on electric and only use the petrol engine on longer journeys. In electric mode its quick enough and you can go up to 70 mph on pure electric.

It works really well and when the lease goes out next year I will get another one. Ideally I would want the same car with usable electric range of around 60 miles.

^ Pretty incredible. Prompts me to wonder about using Sta-Bil in the gas tank!

[flipb]

The petrol tank is 55 litres and the longest I have driven between refills is 2538 miles. Basically I do all the short trips on electric and only use the petrol engine on longer journeys. In electric mode its quick enough and you can go up to 70 mph on pure electric.

It works really well and when the lease goes out next year I will get another one. Ideally I would want the same car with usable electric range of around 60 miles.

^ Pretty incredible. Prompts me to wonder about using Sta-Bil in the gas tank!

I know a guy who had a first-gen Chevy Volt. The computer tracked when the tank was refilled, and started running the ICE more frequently when the fuel was approaching 90 days of age.

[Tdskip]

how much of your 10 year break even on the solar is tax credits? as a general contractor I have priced solar installs for customers a few times and that is usually a deal breaker. not everyone can qualify. NOBODY can pay retail for household solar and make sense of it.
Randy

That is simply factually incorrect.

[Tdskip]

That's gonna leave a mark.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/epa-chief...8?mod=home-page

All that pronouncements from morons like that will do is make us more determined to succeed. Nothing that we’ve already accomplished has been possible based on those sorts of inane pronouncements.

As a sidenote – if the politicalization of science agencies doesn’t deeply disturb you as a citizen you’re clearly not paying adequate attention.

[Superhawk996]

That's gonna leave a mark.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/epa-chief...8?mod=home-page

All that pronouncements from morons like that will do is make us more determined to succeed. Nothing that we’ve already accomplished has been possible based on those sorts of inane pronouncements.

As a sidenote – if the politicalization of science agencies doesn’t deeply disturb you as a citizen you’re clearly not paying adequate attention.

Hmm. Not meant as a personal attack but that statement sure seems like cherry picking.

CA CARB and 100% EVs by 2035 -- Good.
US EPA -- Bad

Sarcasm Alert: I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to "science" agencies getting politcal. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif) As I whistle past the graveyard. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happy11.gif)

Is it just me or isn't all of this just political posturing?

No one is really interesed in the science. Minds are largely made up as was stated way back in this thread.

Science is not a static thing (unless we are talking about laws of physics, math, thermodynamics, etc.). "The Science" is all over the map. Whenever you see the statement "undisputed", "consensus", and the like in conjuction with a discussion of science you know politics is involed. Nothing is undisputed other than aforementioned "laws". The scientific method is a process of determination of truth, not a static statement of fact for all time. If & when it becomes a static statement for all time -- then and only then does it become a "law of . . ." Even then the laws of science are still challenged from time to time and are occasionally disproven and/or adjusted.

At this late point in the decline of our collective society I don't see many folks sincerly interested in the scientific method. It seems to me that science is now being used as the justification for whatever the tyranical whim of the day happens to be.

[flipb]

Science is not a static thing (unless we are talking about laws of physics, math, thermodynamics, etc.). "The Science" is all over the map. Whenever you see the statement "undisputed", "consensus", and the like in conjuction with a discussion of science you know politics is involed. Nothing is undisputed other than aforementioned "laws". The scientific method is a process of determination of truth, not a static statement of fact for all time. If & when it becomes a static statement for all time -- then and only then does it become a "law of . . ." Even then the laws of science are still challenged from time to time and are occasionally disproven and/or adjusted.

That's not really how it works. There are definitions of things like Theories, Laws, etc. A Law is provable. Science advances through research, review, and consensus. We get ourselves into trouble when we adopt an attitude of "my ignorance is as valid as your expertise"

But to avoid this politically-charged tangent and get back to the subject at hand: The worst thing that happens if we're too aggressive in enacting environmental protections is that we spend too much money making the world better for future generations. Way less risky than reacting too slowly.

[Superhawk996]

Science is not a static thing (unless we are talking about laws of physics, math, thermodynamics, etc.). "The Science" is all over the map. Whenever you see the statement "undisputed", "consensus", and the like in conjuction with a discussion of science you know politics is involed. Nothing is undisputed other than aforementioned "laws". The scientific method is a process of determination of truth, not a static statement of fact for all time. If & when it becomes a static statement for all time -- then and only then does it become a "law of . . ." Even then the laws of science are still challenged from time to time and are occasionally disproven and/or adjusted.

That's not really how it works. There are definitions of things like Theories, Laws, etc. A Law is provable. Science advances through research, review, and consensus. We get ourselves into trouble when we adopt an attitude of "my ignorance is as valid as your expertise"

But to avoid this politically-charged tangent and get back to the subject at hand: The worst thing that happens if we're too aggressive in enacting environmental protections is that we spend too much money making the world better for future generations. Way less risky than reacting too slowly.

There was a point in time at which consensus was that the earth was flat. Or that the Sun orbits the Earth. Each was challenged and the so called experts were proven wrong by those that dared challenge the experts with their so called ignorance.

That movement from research, to review, to accptance of a new consensus takes time and doesn't happen overnight. It may take decades or even centuries. The idea that we have to respond quickly and use the coersive threats of governement to accomplish the means to a politcal end is a false premise that has led us to where we are currently at.

[dhuckabay]

It also doesn't change the fact that China is the global pollution leader.
[/quote]

Chinese electricity is mostly from coal. Last I looked they were finishing a new coal power plant on average once a week. Electric cars will only make their emissions worse.a