Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday September 30 2017, @12:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the ban-gas-instead-of-passing-it dept.

France and the United Kingdom are doing it. So is India. And now one lawmaker would like California to follow their lead in phasing out gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

When the Legislature returns in January, Assemblyman Phil Ting plans to introduce a bill that would ban the sale of new cars fueled by internal-combustion engines after 2040. The San Francisco Democrat said it's essential to get California drivers into an electric fleet if the state is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, since the transportation sector accounts for more than a third of all emissions.

"The market is moving this way. The entire world is moving this way," Ting said. "At some point you need to set a goal and put a line in the sand."

California already committed five years ago to putting 1.5 million "zero-emission vehicles," such as electric cars and plug-in hybrids, on the road by 2025. By that time, the state wants these cleaner models to account for 15 percent of all new car sales.

Could the hills surrounding Los Angeles one day become visible?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by RedBear on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:45PM (2 children)

    by RedBear (1734) on Saturday September 30 2017, @08:45PM (#575377)

    Yes, at some point we need to put a line in the sand! Everyone needs to pay another $5000+ for transportation in the state with the worst metro transportation. And fuck everyone that lives outside a city. Everything is great here if they can't afford a car in a rural area why aren't they forced to move to a city and live and work here? Everything is great here! Everything outside a city is just like a city, just worse! Never mind that automobile prices have been steadily ramping up due to safety and environmental laws. Everyone should be able to afford a $30,000 vehicle. If not, well shouldn't we have a UBI or a Vehicle Purchase Program, or can't they just take an uber everywhere or, I don't know, something?

    By 2025 at the very latest, EVs will reach price parity with fossil fuel vehicles. Even without the kind of tax rebates California has been offering, it will be cheaper to buy a new EV than a new ICEV. And that's just the sticker price. Add the reduction in cost-per-mile for "fuel" over the lifetime of the vehicle and it will be a no-brainer for most people to go EV. That's by 2025.

    By 2035 there will be tens of millions of good used EVs going for low prices. Long before 2040 it will be far easier and cheaper for low-income people to own an EV than a fossil fuel vehicle. "But the batteries!" EV batteries for the most part have been lasting very well in real-world usage. Much longer than anyone expected. Most are estimated to last 20-25 years now before significant degradation happens. They will also be much less expensive to replace or upgrade by that time.

    I don't know exactly what you mean about city vs. rural, but I assume you're referring maybe to early EVs having sub-100 mile range? By the time 2025 rolls around the average range of an EV will be 200-plus miles. By 2035 even the most affordable EVs will likely have more than 250 miles of range as standard. Combine that with the fact that there will be fast-charging stations everywhere you look in this country by 2025 and I'm not sure why EVs would only be good for "city folk". Plenty of people outside metro areas already own Volts and Bolts and Leafs and BMW i3s and Teslas, and they get around just fine. And public fast-charging stations are only necessary for road-tripping. Most EV owners recharge most of the time at home while they sleep.

    Of course all of this is far less relevant than the fact that we HAVE TO STOP PUMPING POLLUTION AND GREENHOUSE GASES INTO OUR ATMOSPHERE. But the "free market" will eventually take care of that on its own, right? Right after the planet becomes nearly uninhabitable.

    The truth is that China, India and parts of Europe are already planning the end of fossil fuel vehicles by 2030 or EARLIER, and the rest of Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia will be following right along. This means that by 2030 it will already be quite difficult to find a car maker still wasting their time manufacturing pollution-mobiles even here in the US. The fact that Cali wants to ban ICEVs by 2040 isn't really going to mean squat by the time 2040 actually gets here. China is now the largest car market on the planet and they are already telling car makers they need to be selling 10% plug-in vehicles by 2019 if they want access to the Chinese market.

    I know there are a bunch of you who want to hyperventilate over this imagined "tyranny" but the reality is that by 2040 you won't even notice the ban finally being enacted. By that time there will hardly be anyone left alive that won't think of using a fossil fuel vehicle for personal transportation as morally repugnant. A lot is going to happen over the next quarter century. The migration to EVs is happening and there's nothing you can do about it.

    --
    ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
    ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Troll=1, Insightful=2, Interesting=3, Total=6
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @10:04AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @10:04AM (#575513)

    I know there are a bunch of you who want to hyperventilate over this imagined "tyranny" but the reality is that by 2040 you won't even notice the ban finally being enacted. By that time there will hardly be anyone left alive that won't think of using a fossil fuel vehicle for personal transportation as morally repugnant.

    Because scientists and futurists have been so successful in the past at predicting the course of technology, why not double down! Make laws based on it! After all, it is inevitable that these predictions will be correct!

    It's nice that your crystal ball is so perfectly accurate that you are happy to pass laws based on it. Others might think that is hubris.

    If this reality is so inevitable why does there even need to be a ban?

    • (Score: 2) by RedBear on Sunday October 01 2017, @09:05PM

      by RedBear (1734) on Sunday October 01 2017, @09:05PM (#575677)

      Because scientists and futurists have been so successful in the past at predicting the course of technology, why not double down! Make laws based on it! After all, it is inevitable that these predictions will be correct!
      It's nice that your crystal ball is so perfectly accurate that you are happy to pass laws based on it. Others might think that is hubris.
      If this reality is so inevitable why does there even need to be a ban?

      Score: 5, Missing the Point

      What you seem to be severely misunderstanding is that these global bans on the sale of fossil fuel vehicles are not about promoting one specific technology over another for no particular reason. They are about limiting particulate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

      Any type of zero-emission vehicle such as hydrogen fuel-cell cars and plug-in hybrids (with a minimum amount of electric-only range) are also accepted in most countries as part of the quota of non-ICE vehicles that must be sold. If you were to invent (in the next few years) a transportation technology that was cheaper and easier to manufacture while still being as clean as battery-powered electric vehicles, the world would go with that instead. It's mere chance that BEVs are the most practical choice we have available to help save our environment.

      The hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle is finally being recognized as impractical by most of the world because nobody is going to spend the trillions of dollars it would take to build the extensive hydrogen refueling station network that would be necessary for it to be practical to use for personal transportation. Plus there's the fact that most hydrogen still comes from "cracking" fossil fuels like natural gas, so it really does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. And then there's the fact that every HFCV is actually a BEV anyway. They have to have a fairly large battery in order to store energy for acceptably quick acceleration and regenerative braking. So you might as well just throw out the big 10,000 PSI hydrogen tanks and the absurdly expensive fuel-cell and just put in more batteries to make it a BEV.

      The switch to BEVs is inevitable because the people of the world are demanding that their governments crack down on pollution and do something to reduce the threat of global warming. The inevitable consequence of that is that we will move to any functional zero-emission transportation and energy generation options that are available to us. That means battery-powered electric vehicles and zero-emission energy options like wind and solar, hydro and geothermal. Most people on this planet actually want all this to happen. The regulations are just helping it happen faster so that we can minimize the damage to the environment. Which, again, is what most of the population of the planet actually wants.

      Why else would the ban be necessary? I'm sure it's not because the traditional car manufacturers are wrapped around the little fingers of the fossil fuel industry and have been resisting the change to low-emission and zero-emission technologies for decades. No, I'm sure that has nothing to do with why the bans are needed to kick the auto industry in the ass and get them to start making the zero-emission cars people actually want.

      --
      ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
      ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ