California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars

[T0RM3NT]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

Climate change has to be addressed and transportation is an important part of it. EVs, especially when more solar, wind, and other renewables are contributing to the grid, will be a significant reduction over ICEs. It's unambiguous.

But, right now ~61 percent of electricity produced for those EV's comes from fossil fuels. So let's get rid of ICE's and go EV's? Which are ultimately powered by fossil fuels? That grid you speak of needs to mature, and a lot, before this is a reality.

Coal alone generates more electricity in the United States than all renewable energy combined.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by T0RM3NT

But, right now ~61 percent of electricity produced for those EV's comes from fossil fuels. So let's get rid of ICE's and go EV's? Which are ultimately powered by fossil fuels? That grid you speak of needs to mature, and a lot, before this is a reality.

It's can still be a net carbon reduction because the ICE is so horribly inefficient. That a power plant is powered by fossil fuels doesn't mean that the EV that charges off of it doesn't represent a reduction in emissions over its gas powered counterpart.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by T0RM3NT

But, right now ~61 percent of electricity produced for those EV's comes from fossil fuels. So let's get rid of ICE's and go EV's? Which are ultimately powered by fossil fuels? That grid you speak of needs to mature, and a lot, before this is a reality.

Coal alone generates more electricity in the United States than all renewable energy combined.

Estimated loss of power from a power plant to the end user is 8-15% as well. Considering that number comes from the EPA and the government lies around everything, 15% is no doubt the low end of the loss.

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by ///MPhatic

I don't think so. This is America. You're not going to get our guns, and you're not going to get our gasoline motorcycles and cars.

The difference is that many Americans are highly passionate about guns and it's become highly identity/political in nature.

Cars? 99% of people don't give a damn. They just want to go point A to B in quiet and comfort. Point being, any laws mandating ICE bans will have much less pushback from the general populace. Even within the car community, there are some people cheering for this because they are more passionate about their "progressive" ideology than they are about cars.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by NickyC

Considering that number comes from the EPA and the government lies around everything, 15% is no doubt the low end of the loss.

Don't be a sheep. There are like 20 different sources that all give something around that range, including sources that include pages and pages of the factors involved and equations to calculate it.

In practice, in some areas close to their sources it will actually be less than the 8% in a country with good distribution.

https://blog.se.com/energy-managemen...r-line-losses/

http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/l...and-your-plug/

[chris719]

Originally Posted by ///MPhatic

Isn't someone going to have to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's less harmful to the environment to drive an existing ICE car to it's natural end than to make a new EV? If not, it's just taking our freedom, which is, at the very least unconstitutional, no?

Unsure about existing ICE car because it depends on many factors. However, no one would be stopping you from using an existing ICE car.

When you compare new vs new though, there is absolutely no doubt except from quack science sources.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Cos270

Actually, they'll probably be buying oil and natural gas from the US. As the US continues to pay artificially high gas prices because of the policies and messages put out by the current administration over the past two years. It's a totally unmitigated cluster fueled by virtue signaling, greed and control.

We are paying high gas prices in part because refinery capacity continues to decline and refiners refuse to invest in any new facilities.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...ecade-Low.html

Chevron’s CEO Mike Worth said earlier this month that he doesn’t see any relief to the refining capacity issue in sight, even going so far as to suggest that the United States may not see any new refineries built, ever, given their long lead times and lengthy ROI combined with the uncertainty of the future of fossil fuels in general given climate concerns.

The largest refinery on the east coast, PES, blew up in 2019 and is now shuttered.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andysto...h=b6df03b7ef7d

[chris719]

Don't worry, they will push this date back 3 times or something anyway. It'll happen when we are mostly ready.

[FastFrog]

Originally Posted by Cos270

Actually, they'll probably be buying oil and natural gas from the US. As the US continues to pay artificially high gas prices because of the policies and messages put out by the current administration over the past two years. It's a totally unmitigated cluster fueled by virtue signaling, greed and control.

You said it all.
I'd simply add that for the US gas, Europe will have to wait a bit (and put an additional sweater on during the upcoming winters), as we'll have to build (or ramp-up) the port equipments needed to handled liquified gas. Not to mention the energetical cost of those facilities, nor the poor energetical efficiency of such a technology.

[FastFrog]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

It's can still be a net carbon reduction because the ICE is so horribly inefficient. That a power plant is powered by fossil fuels doesn't mean that the EV that charges off of it doesn't represent a reduction in emissions over its gas powered counterpart.

This is a good point. It is indeed possible.
However, we can't just state that power plants have a higher energetical efficiency than individual cars (closer to maximal therical efficiency, see Carnot and all stuff), which is true, to conclude in a way or another.
To do so, we have to consider all the contributors to the global energy cost. Line loss as already stated (which has its counterpart with trucks dealing gas to stations), but also recharge efficiency, electric motors efficiency, battery production energetical cost (ICE production obviously costs as well), etc.

All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if global cost of primary energy is close for EVs and ICEVs.
- In case primary energy is fossil for both cases, carbon emissions would then be pretty close.
- In case primary energy is partly or fully nuclear for EVs, carbon emissions would then be lower for EVs.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by FastFrog

This is a good point. It is indeed possible.
However, we can't just state that power plants have a higher energetical efficiency than individual cars (closer to maximal therical efficiency, see Carnot and all stuff), which is true, to conclude in a way or another.
To do so, we have to consider all the contributors to the global energy cost. Line loss as already stated (which has its counterpart with trucks dealing gas to stations), but also recharge efficiency, electric motors efficiency, battery production energetical cost (ICE production obviously costs as well), etc.

All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if global cost of primary energy is close for EVs and ICEVs.
- In case primary energy is fossil for both cases, carbon emissions would then be pretty close.
- In case primary energy is partly or fully nuclear for EVs, carbon emissions would then be lower for EVs.

Yes, it's complicated and the whole carbon cost account has to be done. I think it's very important that we have good numbers on whether and how much net carbon reductions are being achieved. And we should assume just because it's electric, it's better. Very important points.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

Climate change has to be addressed and transportation is an important part of it. EVs, especially when more solar, wind, and other renewables are contributing to the grid, will be a significant reduction over ICEs. It's unambiguous.

I agree. Just not in the next 30 years.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by chris719

We are paying high gas prices in part because refinery capacity continues to decline and refiners refuse to invest in any new facilities.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...ecade-Low.html

The largest refinery on the east coast, PES, blew up in 2019 and is now shuttered.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andysto...h=b6df03b7ef7d

Refineries pay Rin taxes that are 100's of millions of dollars a quarter. The new regime killed as much refining as possible when they took over. Now we rely on other countries and they don't
Give a shit about our prices. Lol. Pandemic also crushed the refineries. Did they get bail out? Not a fucking penny. Like I posted earlier. We are now opening up units that were shut down to make more diesel, jet fuel and reg gasoline. It's comical how we actually do certain things. The government is funding these projects yet they go on TV and scream and cry about it. 🤥🤥

[///MPhatic]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

Climate change has to be addressed and transportation is an important part of it. EVs, especially after solar, wind, and other renewables are contributing to the grid, will be a significant reduction over ICEs. It's unambiguous.

Fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by Germanauto

Cars? 99% of people don't give a damn.

I think your made-up on the fly statistics are just a bit off.

America INVENTED car culture, and it'll be here long after we are dead...and so will the smell of gasoline.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by chris719

We are paying high gas prices in part because refinery capacity continues to decline and refiners refuse to invest in any new facilities.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...ecade-Low.html



The largest refinery on the east coast, PES, blew up in 2019 and is now shuttered.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andysto...h=b6df03b7ef7d

You are correct. New facilities are not being built because permits are not being approved and the current administration has been saying for the past 3 years that their goal is to end the fossil fuel industry (using those exact words). Why should there be any incentive for them to invest more capital if their industry is going to be regulated out of existence (or at least until the next administration comes in)? And these facilities take years to bring online, so even if by some miracle the ones in power come to their senses and approve new permits, we are stuck with these high prices for 2 years at a minimum. Again, this is all orchestrated and planned. We made our bed, time to lie in it.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by chris719

Don't worry, they will push this date back 3 times or something anyway. It'll happen when we are mostly ready.

How are companies supposed to plan around "almost ready"? Do you hear yourself? How about this: we don't rush into anything without a clear plan and technology that is able to support such a transformative shift on a massive scale. Is that really too much to ask?

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by Cos270

How are companies supposed to plan around "almost ready"? Do you hear yourself? How about this: we don't rush into anything without a clear plan and technology that is able to support such a transformative shift on a massive scale. Is that really too much to ask?

We can't do anything right. Lol. Our government will fuck this up worst than Chevy is with the new Z06 launch. Merica baby🤪😉😘

[Marcoose]

For those old enough to remember the stupid, ignorant and defeated diatribes against seatbelts, airbags, converters and unleaded petrol, how they were going to bankrupt the auto industry and the economy, lest we forget, it didn’t happen.

Carry on.

[Alfisti]

There are political and ideological arguments I cannot be bothered getting into because it's the same people yelling at a cloud.

Reality is, in regards to banning ICE engines, the charging network needs more than 13 yrs to get it's shit together. We are talking a trillion dollar investment to even begin to scratch the surface of what is needed, then someone has to maintain it all. This is before we get past compact sedans and start talking delivery vehicles and long haul trucks etc. This is way, way more complicated than many government egg heads want to acknowledge.

In regards to energy, it's fossil fuels or nuclear, there really is no other option if we are being realistic.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by Marcoose

For those old enough to remember the stupid, ignorant and defeated diatribes against seatbelts, airbags, converters and unleaded petrol, how they were going to bankrupt the auto industry and the economy, lest we forget, it didn’t happen.

Carry on.

You seem to be under the impression that auto manufacturers are against this...they are not. Once brought to full scale, the margins on an EV are much greater than a comparably-sized ICE vehicle. The situation we are going to be facing is what happens when all of these companies have retooled their manufacturing facilities and invested in all this new equipment and people don't buy the vehicles because they don't fill their needs or the infrastructure isn't ready? THAT is what will bankrupt the industry. Companies of this size cannot turn on a dime. This takes years of careful planning and finance management (most of which has been thrown out the window) and getting it wrong can be catastrophic. We will know by 2025 is this is really going to work. Companies that have gone all in on EV are too far in to pull back now - it will either be a success or a massive failure.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

i love when arguments get slightly political or broach topics that are "party" based. grown adults start arguing like a bunch of 8 yr olds

[Marcoose]

Nah. Nonsense. It takes a few days and a few thousand dollars to install a fast-charger. Furthermore, 90% of trips are just a few miles long, to work/school/store. This is going to be done, successfully, and the gargoyle naysayers will be laughed at again.

Remember when people ‘didn’t want’ ABS? LOL

Carry on.