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

[Tdskip]

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

That is a conclusion unsupported by the full picture of their energy production, and if we are talking about the OP post also off topic.

[horizontally-opposed]

As I've understood it, China's pivot to EVs is directly related to their recognition that their air quality is horrendous (which is plain to anyone who has traveled there for work) and the need to address it. Therefore, it's hard to imagine part of the plan is to replace ICE with EV + more coal—no matter what is going on in the here and now based on ongoing plans. But I'd be curious to hear more about China's plans for electricity development in the long run and/or parallel.

Point with that, and CA, is this: We won't see or benefit from real change 15-30 unless we start planning now. 2035 is 15 years away. I hardly call that rushed…

Remember the hole in the ozone?

[mrholland2]

I recall an article (or maybe opinion piece) that ICE LEV's tailpipe emissions are "cleaner" than the air in severely polluted areas.

Now, I'm not claiming this as fact, I just recall reading this and scoffing but not completely discounting it.

Are the US's really polluted areas less polluted than the cleanest tailpipe emissions of modern ICEs?

[Tdskip]

I recall an article (or maybe opinion piece) that ICE LEV's tailpipe emissions are "cleaner" than the air in severely polluted areas.

Now, I'm not claiming this as fact, I just recall reading this and scoffing but not completely discounting it.

Are the US's really polluted areas less polluted than the cleanest tailpipe emissions of modern ICEs?

This comes up in marketing material from time to time (Subaru), and requires not treating greenhouse gases as pollution.

[Tdskip]

It seems to me that science is now being used as the justification for whatever the tyranical whim of the day happens to be.

Are you really suggesting that citing the existing science as a reason to address greenhouse gas emissions is tryanical?

[Superhawk996]

It seems to me that science is now being used as the justification for whatever the tyranical whim of the day happens to be.

Are you really suggesting that citing the existing science as a reason to address greenhouse gas emissions is tryanical?

I'm merely stating that science isn't settled and that the attempt to use it for politcal purposes is not constructive.

[bbrock]

It seems to me that science is now being used as the justification for whatever the tyranical whim of the day happens to be.

Are you really suggesting that citing the existing science as a reason to address greenhouse gas emissions is tryanical?

I'm merely stating that science isn't settled and that the attempt to use it for politcal purposes is not constructive.

I agree with this but quibble over the idea that all science is disputed and consensus isn't real. All science SHOULD be challenged because skepticism is one of the pillars of the scientific method, but there are lots of things that go undisputed because after skeptical review, no other scientists have been able to knock holes in it.

Newtonian physics, Evolution, and Climate change are three areas that have the broadest consensus I have seen. Sure, there is debate and argument over the fine points of all of these. For example, Newtonian law falls apart at tiny quantum scales but it still works reliably enough outside the quantum realm to send robots to other planets and predict how safe our cars are in a crash.

The politicization of science has 3 main sources:

- cherry picking data to skew toward a desired result. This is rampant across the political spectrum and I can attest from personal experience that ANY group will love you when you present data that supports their view but turn on you like rabid dogs when the data point a different direction.

- sowing confusion by focusing on small areas of disagreement while ignoring broad areas of consensus. This is a tactic perfected by the tobacco industry to exploit the skepticism, challenge, and debate inherent in science to trick the public into believing the science can't be trusted.

- implying parity to dissent. A common journalistic practice these days is to find an expert on a subject to interview but to be fair, find someone with a dissenting view as a counterbalance. What gets lost is that the dissenters may represent only a tiny percentage of the scientific community or way too often, they aren't even members of the scientific community at all (lacking credentials in the subject field). The public is left with the perception that the scientific community is split or undecided which is often far from the truth.

It's frustrating because I've seen the ability for science to inform wise decisions eroded drastically during my career due to the above factors. Critical thinking is becoming a lost art and scientists have yet to find a remedy. On top of that is the dynamic nature of science you rightly mention where science is constantly adjusting as new data become available, ideas are challenged, and consensus shifts. Unfortunately, that's the tide we have been swimming against with climate change and convincing people that EV might be a good idea after all.

[914_teener]

Porsche was on to something in 1898....the P-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_P1

Science attempts to answer what.

Religion attempts to answer why.

Key words....attempts.


The latter is verboten on the World.....also politics....see Zachs and Clay's post.

Ev's are simpler. That's my truth...maybe not others.

[dhuckabay]

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

That is a conclusion unsupported by the full picture of their energy production, and if we are talking about the OP post also off topic.

The info I had came from a Chinese official with the embassy when I was there in Spring 2019. It was part of their explanation why they had to shut down the industry to be able to shut the coal plants during the Olympics. We did see a lot of small packaged nucs in high density housing areas. Apparently the hot water is also used to run the HVAC systems in the buildings.

While there is some hydro we were told that China completes about 50 4800mw coal fired power plants a year. Obviously you have different research than what we were given.

Not sure how it got off topic when the topic is the use of ev's.

[bbrock]

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

That is a conclusion unsupported by the full picture of their energy production, and if we are talking about the OP post also off topic.

A now aging 2015 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that cradle to grave carbon emissions from EV were lower than ICE even in regions where electricity is generated primarily from coal. A big reason is because even though ICE have gotten a lot cleaner for other pollutants, they still produce a lot of CO2 and it is easier to reduce carbon (and other pollution) emissions from a single coal stack than hundreds of thousands of tailpipes. Hard to say how well this applies to China since it depends on the efficiency and scrubbing capabilities of the coal plants. The general argument that running EV off coal electricity makes climate change worse has not been true for at least 5 years.

[Chris914n6]

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?).

As a Nevada mechanic that has to deal with CA cars way too often I'm probably the most qualified to clear this debate.

CA regs are not some super forward thinking push. It's just demanding normal industry improvements 1 to 2 years early.

I'll reference my Nissan VQ30 engine swap. In 1995 the CA ecu added a CEL for the "canister purge control valve". In 1996 this became federal. The improvement is literally zero, but because of it CA has a one-off ecu and harness that is not consumer friendly.
CA is not helping the cause it's just making cars cost more. We the people would be better off with a single Federal standard.

Before you all start screaming "the cats" "the cats" CA mandated cats on carb'd cars, years before the industry was ready with electronic fuel management. Though to be fair, the big 3 have been historically slow to adopt the latest fuel management technology. But then the Federal cats were much better than the earlier CA cats, so in reality Californians paid a lot to test unproven tech. Remember the Thermal Reactor? How did that turn out? (hint (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stromberg.gif) )

[Tdskip]

It seems to me that science is now being used as the justification for whatever the tyranical whim of the day happens to be.

Are you really suggesting that citing the existing science as a reason to address greenhouse gas emissions is tryanical?

I'm merely stating that science isn't settled and that the attempt to use it for politcal purposes is not constructive.

Whoa - dude - are you really going on record as saying we don't have an understanding of what is happening? Are you really saying that what we've known about greenhouse gasses since the late 1800's isn't real?

Seriously?

[Tdskip]

CA regs are not some super forward thinking push. It's just demanding normal industry improvements 1 to 2 years early.

That is historically inaccurate. You cannot simply claim that all of this would have happened in the normal course of business;

The nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide (1966), oxides of nitrogen (1971), and particulate matter from diesel-fueled vehicles (1982);
Catalytic converters, beginning in the 1970s;
On-board diagnostic, or “check engine” light, systems, beginning with 1988 model-year cars;
A Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation (1990) that requires manufacturers to produce an increasing number of ZEVs;
The nation’s first greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars (mandated by the Legislature in 2002 and approved by CARB in 2004); and
California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program (2012), which reduces both conventional “criteria” and greenhouse gas pollutant emissions from automobiles.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history

[horizontally-opposed]

I'm merely stating that science isn't settled and that the attempt to use it for politcal purposes is not constructive.

Fair enough. But we have enough information—and sufficient resources—to make improvements. Which brings me back to leaving the campground as we found it or better.

And, fact is, there are already better, more efficient, less polluting ways to power our cars for 80-90+% of trips. That isn't true in all cases, or for everyone. Or for all applications. But…if home solar pencils out in Northern California, it likely pencils out in much of the southwest. And not only that, there are financial advantages for many, including our family. I doubt we're alone. I wouldn't have believed it a few years ago, based on quick math I had done. But I know better now.

And there are jobs to be created. Good jobs. I looked at the home battery installed last night. 100% made in the USA—and it looks really well made. The crew installing the rooftop solar are driving a nice work van plus two nice personal cars. Nothing extravagant, but nice. My wife noticed, too. That's how it should be.

Perhaps more importantly, lessons learned and scale benefits might either be applied elsewhere to the point that they do make sense for those places—but that has to start somewhere. If CA ends up doing more than its part, offsetting places that can't, I am cool with that—because I care about the Union. And Canada, too.

Let's wait until we have it all figured out didn't get us to the moon, or WWII.

So let's do this thing.

(And, yes, I recognize I may be buying an E12 530i with thermal reactors in the form of a battery. Let's hope not, but someone's got to bite the bullet) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

As a Nevada mechanic that has to deal with CA cars way too often I'm probably the most qualified to clear this debate.

CA regs are not some super forward thinking push. It's just demanding normal industry improvements 1 to 2 years early.

I'll reference my Nissan VQ30 engine swap. In 1995 the CA ecu added a CEL for the "canister purge control valve". In 1996 this became federal. The improvement is literally zero, but because of it CA has a one-off ecu and harness that is not consumer friendly.
CA is not helping the cause it's just making cars cost more. We the people would be better off with a single Federal standard.

Before you all start screaming "the cats" "the cats" CA mandated cats on carb'd cars, years before the industry was ready with electronic fuel management. Though to be fair, the big 3 have been historically slow to adopt the latest fuel management technology. But then the Federal cats were much better than the earlier CA cats, so in reality Californians paid a lot to test unproven tech. Remember the Thermal Reactor? How did that turn out? (hint (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stromberg.gif) )

Agree a single federal standard would be better. But not if it's dumbed down. Just as what works here doesn't work elsewhere, what works in, say, Iowa, may not work here. CA has 40 million people—it's one of the largest new-car markets in the world and one of the worst at public transportation (GM played no small part in that, btw). And then there are the microclimates, which have an impact on how our smog works. So, CA has to deal with more emissions than other states but has little say or sway over the other 49 states. CA is also the source of a lot of the food for the rest of our Union. And coastal smog goes right to our farmlands.

Thermal reactors and early cats weren't good—no question about it. But they led to something that literally saved untold lives and improved many, many more. So were they bad, in the big picture? Should we have kept waiting until we had a perfect fix, or got moving? The big three aren't the only slow movers—other car manufacturers didn't bother adding cats until they were forced to. There was little if any incentive to do so, and more likely disincentive.

Generally speaking, I am for smaller government and free markets, but few who advocate loudly for both recognize the logical end of that, or that economic interests in the short term often block societal (and economic) interests in the long term. The emissions standards of 1968-1978 were "too soon" for the technology, arguably, but they forced the technology. Do I think it would have happened anyway? No. I really don't. And certainly not as quickly as it did.

[SirAndy]

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.

Except, those views were dictated by the church and those who dared to challenge them were scientists.

Your analogy falls flat when applied to today's YouTube "experts" trying to challenge actual science.

In fact, it's pretty much a reversal of what you wrote above.
Back then, make-believe was challenged by science.
Today, science is challenged by make-believe.

"my ignorance is as valid as your expertise" is the new motto and social media has done a great disservice to society by perpetuating that view.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

[Chris914n6]

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history

I knew someone would say that...

Federal EPA

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) was a merger of the Bureau of Air Sanitation and the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board. That same year, the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967 was enacted.

That is historically inaccurate. You cannot simply claim that all of this would have happened in the normal course of business

The LA smog was/is a good motivator and the research led to new understanding and big changes, but you cannot say it would have never happened without the CA mandate.

The nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide (1966) 1967 in Nevada which follows the EPA, oxides of nitrogen (1971) 1972, and particulate matter from diesel-fueled vehicles (1982) 1985
Catalytic converters, beginning in the 1970s;(1975) 1981 w/EFI and the current spec cat
On-board diagnostic, or “check engine” light, systems, beginning with 1988 model-year cars; already was part of EFI
A Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation (1990) that requires manufacturers to produce an increasing number of ZEVs; good luck finding an EV1
The nation’s first greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars (mandated by the Legislature in 2002 and approved by CARB in 2004); and
California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program (2012), which reduces both conventional “criteria” and greenhouse gas pollutant emissions from automobiles.

Sorry bud, CA is not as awesome as you think it is. That webpage qualifies as a fluff piece. Plus NV still requires a smog check on 67-75 vehicles (IMG:style_emoticons/default/poke.gif)

From the CARB site "[CA] including a Zero Emission Vehicle mandate that will clean up the transportation sector and put close to 1.5 million plug-in or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the roads by 2025"
257k EVs registered in 2019, 100k of those new. Not looking good on that mandate either....

-looks like you forfeited on the carbon footprint bet (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Superhawk996]

Except, those views were dictated by the church and those who dared to challenge them were scientists.

Would you be willing to agree with me that in many ways the Church was a defacto government during Newton's life that was attempting to use it's power to influence and/or control science?

[Mueller]

Couple of things I was thinking about:

Will there be a run on new cars in 2034 leading to short supply and insane dealer markups?

Will CA make it more difficult to register a car bought in another state? (lets say you live in Colorado and for some insane idea what to or have to relocate to CA)

How can I make a profit from this planned bill right now? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I for one am not too terribly concerned about the new legislation, I will be 70 in 2035 and doubt I'll be in the market for a new vehicle, if I am I won't complain.

I'd have no problem owning an electric vehicle right now, or even better a hybrid. A few nights ago the wife and kids and I went shopping, I saw a newer Prius with some nice aftermarket alloys and I mentioned that I'd daily drive that car. My wife and girls thought I was mentally ill, no idea why my wife is so dead set against them.

[bbrock]

CA regs are not some super forward thinking push. It's just demanding normal industry improvements 1 to 2 years early.

I see CA more as greasing the wheels for federal regulation. CA is the largest car consumer state in the second largest car consumer country so has a lot of influence on the economics of making cars. CA passes a regulation and the manufacturers either comply or loose a lot of market share. Now they have invested whatever to add the thingy CA wanted but there is the cost of having to make special cars for just one state so at that point, it may even be to their benefit to ask the federal government to step in to standardize things before they wind up having to make 10 or 20 versions of a model to meet individual state mandates. CA has a muscle it can flex that ripples beyond the state and they use it. I'm glad they do it for a lot of things but California, if you put Prop 65 health warnings on EVERYTHING, it means NOTHING. I'm sitting here with a Pertronix Ignitor box and there it is. I wasn't planning to eat it or take a bath with this thing but thanks I guess... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[horizontally-opposed]

but California, if you put Prop 65 health warnings on EVERYTHING, it means NOTHING. I'm sitting here with a Pertronix Ignitor box and there it is. I wasn't planning to eat it or take a bath with this thing but thanks I guess... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol3.gif)