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

[Mark Henry]

It's going to happen to new cars sooner or later, but even then in places without salt it will be 50 years before all the gas DD's are off the road, so we're talking about 65 years. In salt areas like where I live it would only take 20 years to have almost all gas DD's off the road.
My kids or even grand kids might have to sell the 914's off to collectors, but that's not my problem. Minimum 35 years before it really starts to effect my operating costs, I'll be close to done by then, if I live that long.

[horizontally-opposed]

Really curious to know more about the longevity of new cars going up rather than down. Is there some way to learn more about that?

My anecdotal experience is sort of the opposite, with many recently popular cars just gone from the roadways because of the cheap way they're built (i.e. E60 BMWs, which were already pretty awful but apparently killed off by bad and heinously expensive fuel injectors that have to be replaced in sets), where in the "old days" it seemed like cars were made to live a long time. At least in places they don't rust. And the cost to manufacture, ship, sell, and dismantle cars is huge.

And yes to the point about cutting off one's nose to spite his/her face. See it in all sorts of well-meaning environmental legislation where something changes but the reaction causes more damage. One of the dumbest is the deletion of the dipstick as well as hood-opening sensors, which forces techs to go drive around in the car for a certain distance to make the computer happy. And yet, trend in air quality from 1968 > 2000s here in the Bay Area is simply undeniable, moving from an inability to see across the bay from east bay hills due to the smog most days to very clean air most days (sadly, our pollution gets pushed to the central valley…which makes you wonder what that must've been like back then). Those vilified air pumps, thermal reactors, and catalysts (only one of these was a really good thing…and it took a while to get to) were key to a real, tangible improvement and a long second wind for the performance car. Arguably, we've only enjoyed the performance cars we have since the 1980s because of the efficiency required by legislation, which drove the need for O2 sensors.

Battery materials and disposal are legit concerns.

Cost to consumers, less so, as a high % of consumers seem to lease their daily cars and there's a tipping point between lease + running costs + convenience. From many consumers' standpoint, the EV is either "there" or about to be. EVs may also offer better longevity as whole cars, with so few moving parts. And good cooling seems to go a long way with re: to batteries. And how many ICE cars, in the fleet at large, see 200,000, 300,000, 500,000 miles etc. anymore? Seems a lot depreciate to the point they're not worth fixing, and then. I'd like to learn more, but what appeared to be fair and not EV-motivated studies suggest EVs are less damaging to the earth from cradle to grave.

Whatever the case, I don't think much of this conversation will apply to our 914s or fun cars built in the last 100 years or the next 15. Maybe it'll look different in 2050, but the rest of the world probably will too. But I think this decision may have a big effect on what most people drive every day over the next 30~ years. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Listening to the street outside my office, I hear one bird and a ton of Honda Odysseys, Maximas, F150s, and other bland mobiles.

I'd rather listen to the bird...and then really enjoy the occasional cool car or motorcycle.

[Chris914n6]

The Leaf is a throw away car from the get go. Cheap battery that degrades heavily and can't be replaced or fixed like the Prius. It is NOT a viable used car.

Also, EVs are currently subsidized by ICE sales and are only on the market because of CA. Even Tesla is subsidized by carbon tax profits.

The Obama Era CAFE standards are grossly optimistic and hampered by the fact that EV sales are flat at 2%. Any manufacturer that sells trucks is failing to keep up, per EPA website. Personally, I'd be happy to see these current monster trucks off the market.

An affordable EV made to fit everyone's needs in 15 years... I don't see how that's possible. But I'm sure Nevadans will be happy to sell you fruits & nuts new ICE cars.

As for a cheap EV? you can buy a used Leaf for less money than a 914..

https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylist...tedEntity=d2077

I don't recall their range (80 miles?) but no one said you had to go buy a new Tesla or Taycan.

I know.. its not what you want.. but it may be what you "need" someday. and in 15 years, a then cpo used "leaf" or "bolt" will likely have a range of 300+ miles/charge.. maybe 500 miles.. who knows.

[Racer]

My point with the Leaf, despite its limits, is that you can buy one rather cheaply and could comply with a statute if it went effect in 2021. I would think, that by 2035 (15 years in the future), even basic EV's would have advanced significantly in range, cost and usefulness.

If the average transaction price of a car is about $38,000 today, then a Bolt, or Model 3, would be in the reach of many consumers if they wanted an EV today with reasonable range.

And lets remember, that the mandate is ZERO emissions. It does not say that Battery Electrics are the only way to do it. It could be Hydrogen that eventually wins out.

Perhaps the Europeans have nudged in a better direction, having the prime crowded cities start restricting ICE emmissions.. whether it be by taxation / fees/ tolls or what ever economic incentive would cause people to change their habits. If I had to drive into downtown LA, or NYC, or Miami or wherever, and I had to pay an extra $10/day to do so in an ICE, or $5/day for a hybrid or $0/day in an EV, that might spark the needed change for a majority. Having/owning. operating or even having access to a car is not a protected right in America.

Automakers would have never embraced many advancements we take for granted today without government intervention: Seatbelts, Airbags, Crash safety and Auto emissions are just the obvious ones.

[mrholland2]

Just think about how far EV and other zero or nearly zero emission vehicles have come since 2005 (15 years in the past).

Do you all think that we will be in the same place as now? Nope. The next 15 years will likely progress as quickly as the last 35.

Will this really come to pass? Probably not due to the lack of broadly available technology.

This is a negotiation and we now have the "line in the sand" but not a "barrier of lead" to work from.

My guess is that we will have better tax breaks on zero emissions and the closer to zero emissions a vehicle is, the better the tax breaks. Conversely, the further from zero emissions a vehicle is, the larger the tax increases. (For purchases of new vehicles only).

Other items will follow as far as guzzler taxes on cars that get below a set standard etc. . .

Just a guess.

[bbrock]

Really curious to know more about the longevity of new cars going up rather than down. Is there some way to learn more about that?

Here are DOT stats on average age of vehicles on the road since 1995. Obviously there are other factors that influence the age of the cars we drive than longevity, but it's reasonable to assume most cars don't reach the scrap heap until they become unreliable or unsafe to drive. I haven't found anything on cradle to grave lifespan though. It may be out there but would be a more direct measure.

Anecdotally, the reliability of first cars I owned started to decline rapidly after 100K and stretching it to 120K guaranteed being left stranded more once. Even worse were the early Japanese imports that started to rapidly decay at around 60K miles. I don't have anything in my fleet now with under 120K. One is pushing 300K and while I wouldn't trust it on a cross country trip, it is find for trips withing 100 miles from home. Our DD has 200K and we think nothing of hopping in for cross country trips. Neither car has had any major work. Just maintenance. Of course, that isn't uniform across all makes and models and I do agree that some of the high end makes have cheapened themselves by chasing higher volume sales.

And yes to the point about cutting off one's nose to spite his/her face.

At the risk of opening another can of worms, the worst case of this in my experience is how my environmental and conservation colleagues have irrationally turned their back on nuclear. I have yet to see a serious analysis of a roadmap toward zero emissions that doesn't rely on nuclear. The health and safety record of the old and outdated technology is still way better than coal and new designs would eliminate risk of failures like we have seen in the past. Sure, it isn't perfect and presents challenges as do all technologies including solar. But no. It is off the table. WTF?

I'd rather listen to the bird...and then really enjoy the occasional cool car or motorcycle.

And the birds would agree with you. Several studies have shown that noisy environments reduce reproductive success. Turns out being able to hear each other is pretty important for them. Go figure.

[914_teener]

Not being political... legal analysis only...

but .. the order is mostly symbolic. It violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, so it fails judicial scrutiny, in theory. Now, the automakers would have to challenge it and get it before the courts, in this case, the 9th Circus and then the Supreme Court.

That being said, if one party wins the election, they could decide the "green new deal" is so important, they could try to modify the commerce clause. But mostly, it would not live through judicial scrutiny. For those of you who need the primer on the Commerce Clause, you cannot enact a law that negatively impacts interstate commerce, or commerce between the 50 states. You can enact all the laws you want "within" the state, or "intrastate commerce". This clearly effects commerce between states as automakers are both foreign and domestic.


And yes, I would love to leave CA, but I won't take a BAR exam again, as it was miserable the first time....

The historical analysis is in The Clean Air Act( Federal Law)which Southern California has been in violation of since it was signed back in the 60's. Has nothing to do with Interstate Commerce.

The catalytic converter was mandated for California( by the Feds) to comply with this law. The only reason the rest of the country put them on was economics. 40 million people now which most whom drive cars command a pretty big market share.

A primer in history and the same thing will prevail with EV's. Newsom is playing this like he invented the idea that this will happen. Politicians do this since they were invented by us. Detroit wants one standard because safety and now.....yes.....wait for it..................now lawyers get involved when bad sh**t happens.


Right now.....and I'll put on my engineering hat....Batteries and charging standards are the tipping point along with the grid are holding EV's from going full tilt here (in CA)

Pete is right....particularly in CA.....EVERYONE and most engineers from out of state that I know have their eyeballs glued to what happens to SPG &E.

[JamesM]

An affordable EV made to fit everyone's needs in 15 years... I don't see how that's possible.

With Teslas latest battery development, and VW now also entering the market, I would not be surprised if we hit that mark in 5 years. Though "everyone" is a pretty broad base, but im not sure you could say ICE vehicles do that currently. There will always be some level of compromise. The "perfect" vehicle for everyone just doesn't exist.

[RARE 6]

Another real elephant in the room, whatever we end up driving or riding in, is highway construction and maintenance. Now largely funded by federal and state gas taxes that are a declining per capita revenue stream since increased fuel efficiency of petroleum powered vehicles prompted the start of declining gas and diesel demand. Hybrids, EVs etc. only exacerbate the problem.
It won't matter much how we power our transportation if there's no useful infrastructure between Point A and Point B. I don't think the answer will be mandating increased fuel consumption from gas and diesel powered conveyances or that every household own a late '70s gas guzzler in order to drive more demand for petro fuels and thus higher gas tax collections. Sooner rather than later we'll have to come to grips with per-mile taxes or fees, mileage based registration fees or some other alternate funding mechanisms for our streets and roads.
I spent part of my professional career consulting with both major international companies as well as environmental organizations on energy issues. The mantra from the majors was "we don't want to be in then buggy whip business." They insisted they were energy companies, not oil companies. That's why even 25 years ago major portions of their r&d budgets were targeted to biofuels, solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. Auto manufacturers are moving toward alternatives for the ICE for the same reason. As others have mentioned, EVs may be the answer...or just a transition to something else.
In the bigger picture, three things drive our overall energy use...transportation, building practices and land use patterns. New homes and offices are more energy efficient. Density (like it or not) is more energy efficient than sprawl. Hard to think transportation is or should be immune from evolution and change.

[JamesM]

It's going to happen to new cars sooner or later, but even then in places without salt it will be 50 years before all the gas DD's are off the road, so we're talking about 65 years. In salt areas like where I live it would only take 20 years to have almost all gas DD's off the road.
My kids or even grand kids might have to sell the 914's off to collectors, but that's not my problem. Minimum 35 years before it really starts to effect my operating costs, I'll be close to done by then, if I live that long.

ICE may be killed off eventually but i think our classics will stay viable. If you think about it R12 was basically banned yet we have solutions to keep old AC systems going. Just looking at the 914 community and all the things we have done to keep these cars on the road in the absence of NOS part availability. Aftermarket injection, Suby swaps, etc. Electric is just the next evolution. Where there is a problem, someone will create a solution.

I find the fact that the VW factory recognizes this as highly encouraging.

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/2019/0...the-beetle.html

I have to imagine parts provided by the factory to retrofit an old Beetle wouldn't take to much to adapt to a 914.

[flipb]

Didn't California mandate solar roofs on all new residential construction?

Seems to me that would help get closer to the necessary infrastructure for EVs. The infrastructure for EVs won't look like the infrastructure for petroleum. 99% of round-trips will be within the capacity of most EVs, which means 99%+ of charging will take place at home (or near home, for condos/apartments).

My DD for the past four years has been an EV (which I bought used). You very quickly adapt to never stopping for fuel, practically zero maintenance, etc. I've occasionally used my EV for road trips that exceed my range. Tesla's SuperCharger system is a huge step ahead of most other EVs but they will catch up.

I love to (IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif) my 914.

I love to (IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif) my EV. (minus the shifting in the emoji)

The future ain't so bad. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smoke.gif)

[horizontally-opposed]

Didn't California mandate solar roofs on all new residential construction?

Seems to me that would help get closer to the necessary infrastructure for EVs. The infrastructure for EVs won't look like the infrastructure for petroleum. 99% of round-trips will be within the capacity of most EVs, which means 99%+ of charging will take place at home (or near home, for condos/apartments).

My DD for the past four years has been an EV (which I bought used). You very quickly adapt to never stopping for fuel, practically zero maintenance, etc. I've occasionally used my EV for road trips that exceed my range. Tesla's SuperCharger system is a huge step ahead of most other EVs but they will catch up.

I love to (IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif) my 914.

I love to (IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif) my EV. (minus the shifting in the emoji)

The future ain't so bad. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smoke.gif)

Yep, my view also.

The sky ain't fallin'. In fact, it might get bluer.

Meantime, there's some work to do. Batteries, road upkeep (especially with heavier vehicles…), grid, waste, "recycling," etc etc all need to be figured out. There are some serious problems hidden in all of them. Just as there were/are with ICE.

But if a high % of people can charge their daily vehicle from solar on their home? That would be a major win. If people have to buy solar and EVs out of pocket, then it'll take forever. But if they've already got a lease payment, and there are smart solar incentives, this stuff is a no-brainer at little or no added cost to the average person. Maybe a decrease, in some cases.

[slivel]

I love technology. In the 15 years until 2035, I'm sure we will have better battery technology, longer range electric vehicles, quicker recharge times and other improvements that I haven't even considered.

I don't yet own an electric vehicle, but would consider one when it made economic sense for my situation. I could envision an eclectic car for local operation but an ICE vehicle for long trips. Electric cars reportedly have fewer moving parts and lower maintenance.

Lets assume that the governors order is carried out and by 2035 the ICE cars are no longer sold in CA, and that the majority of cars are electric. If you replace all the gasoline used to take care of the daily needs of Californians by electricity to charge the batteries of all of these cars, where does the charging current come from? The California grid is already experiencing rolling brown outs due to insufficient capacity. Not only must the transmission line capacity expand tremendously to accommodate all of that battery charging, but the generating capacity must also be expanded. What is the source of all of that new capacity? Few people seem to express concern about that issue. I don't know the math in equating the gasoline energy burned in cars to electrical energy for the same purpose but it must be enormous. Electric car technology is maturing fast and we already have some very good platforms. If we are going to power all of these cars using renewables, this is the great challenge as I see it. Otherwise we will be driving electric cars that receive their charge from a fossil fuel or nuclear source.

[dcheek]

I want to clarify my position on EV's (like anybody really cares what I think).

I'm for progress and innovation, just let the free market set the course, NOT the government.

I can tell you that in New Jersey, PSE&G has spent billions to upgrade the grid for both reliability and capacity. I can only assume they are anticipating a massive increase in demand for EV charging.

Bring on the EV's. I'm a PSE&G stockholder and love the dividends!

Dave

[Nojoah]

I've seen lots of comments from people in CA and the large cities but I really don't see how EVs could be a practical solution for many in rural areas or the extreme cold... think Canada (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif) Quite often in the winter months we can see the cold with windchill reach temperatures of -50 celsius in Northern Ontario. The advancements in battery technology would need to be incredible. Many communities in my area are also separated by at least 200KM... combine that with -50 conditions and constant heat in the cab. Going to be interesting...

[jd74914]

I've seen lots of comments from people in CA and the large cities but I really don't see how EVs could be a practical solution for many in rural areas or the extreme cold... think Canada (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif) Quite often in the winter months we can see the cold with windchill reach temperatures of -50 celsius in Northern Ontario. The advancements in battery technology would need to be incredible. Many communities in my area are also separated by at least 200KM... combine that with -50 conditions and constant heat in the cab. Going to be interesting...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)
That's the big thing a lot of people forget. Even in the northern US, the 35% (ish) waste energy pushing through the coolant system is used pretty efficiently to heat cars. You need to spend quite a lot of battery energy to do the same. Heat transfer doesn't get better driving on the highway either...

[RARE 6]

I love technology. In the 15 years until 2035, I'm sure we will have better battery technology, longer range electric vehicles, quicker recharge times and other improvements that I haven't even considered.

I don't yet own an electric vehicle, but would consider one when it made economic sense for my situation. I could envision an eclectic car for local operation but an ICE vehicle for long trips. Electric cars reportedly have fewer moving parts and lower maintenance.

Lets assume that the governors order is carried out and by 2035 the ICE cars are no longer sold in CA, and that the majority of cars are electric. If you replace all the gasoline used to take care of the daily needs of Californians by electricity to charge the batteries of all of these cars, where does the charging current come from? The California grid is already experiencing rolling brown outs due to insufficient capacity. Not only must the transmission line capacity expand tremendously to accommodate all of that battery charging, but the generating capacity must also be expanded. What is the source of all of that new capacity? Few people seem to express concern about that issue. I don't know the math in equating the gasoline energy burned in cars to electrical energy for the same purpose but it must be enormous. Electric car technology is maturing fast and we already have some very good platforms. If we are going to power all of these cars using renewables, this is the great challenge as I see it. Otherwise we will be driving electric cars that receive their charge from a fossil fuel or nuclear source.

Let's not assume all electricity needed to handle increased needs will come from the grid. Increasing efficiency and declining costs for private solar might allow a significant portion to come on-site from solar-equipped homes, offices and commercial buildings. Recharging for most EVs might come mostly overnight, when providers already offer lower rates due to decreased demand at off-times. Nor should we presume what we know now will be the limit in the future. Just look at the difference between the Volt and the Bolt.
Evolution is our friend. Los Angeles, despite increased population, still gets by on about the same amount of water that was used in the 1970s because of changes in habits, improved technologies, evolving regulations and the realization that resources are finite.

[horizontally-opposed]

I've seen lots of comments from people in CA and the large cities but I really don't see how EVs could be a practical solution for many in rural areas or the extreme cold... think Canada (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif) Quite often in the winter months we can see the cold with windchill reach temperatures of -50 celsius in Northern Ontario. The advancements in battery technology would need to be incredible. Many communities in my area are also separated by at least 200KM... combine that with -50 conditions and constant heat in the cab. Going to be interesting...

^ Great point.

If society gets it right, the ones who live in places where it works can give those who live in places where it doesn't a much longer runway.

The large cities vs rural areas is the same thing I always think about when I hear people in the industry say all cars are going to be autonomous pods that you no longer own but merely hop into when they pull up. Even if I agreed (I don't), the first thing I thought about was rural areas, where that makes no sense whatsoever given people per acre. Think of the county fair. Or a mass evacuation.

And now Covid has how many of us wanting to hop into a four-wheeled Petri dish? Ah yes, about the same number who want to ride planes. Or less...

[Nojoah]

If society gets it right, the ones who live in places where it works can give those who live in places where it doesn't a much longer runway.

The large cities vs rural areas is the same thing I always think about when I hear people in the industry say all cars are going to be autonomous pods that you no longer own but merely hop into when they pull up. Even if I agreed (I don't), the first thing I thought about was rural areas, where that makes no sense whatsoever given people per acre. Think of the county fair. Or a mass evacuation.

And now Covid has how many of us wanting to hop into a four-wheeled Petri dish? Ah yes, about the same number who want to ride planes. Or less...

Frankly, that's the only way I see EV's working. If the larger cities can adapt to electric and reduce the emissions by a significant amount, the rural areas should have more time to allow for further advancements.

About fully autonomous cars - Speaking from experience in a rural area - that would not work... simple as that. During the winter months or following a snow fall you'd be lucky to make it driving in town, rural driving is out of the question.

[mobymutt]

I bought a Soul EV about 5 years ago. From a commuting perspective, honestly by faaaar the best vehicle I've ever owned. My children, who are 11, can't stand it when they have to ride the diesel school buses, or even be near a gas car that is running. I expect they will never own an ICE car, and perhaps never even drive one.

On the other hand, I took the EV on the track once when my 914 started leaking oil. It was soooo boring. But what percentage of people track their cars?

We had a Pontiac Wave for about 15 years. Bought it brand new for $15k, and spent about $30k on gas over it's lifetime. Over an equivalent 15 year period, my Soul EV will end up being cheaper, even though it cost twice as much to buy.

Edit: I am rural, and it's gets to be -20C around here on occasion. You can have the EV in a garage, set the car's preheating and it's all ready to go. Best thing ever.