SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Who's forcing Marchionne and all the other major automakers to sell mostly money-losing electric vehicles? More than any other person, it's Mary Nichols. She's run the California Air Resources Board since 2007, championing the state's zero-emission-vehicle quotas and backing President Barack Obama's national mandate to double average fuel economy to 55 miles per gallon by 2025. She was chairman of the state air regulator once before, a generation ago, and cleaning up the famously smoggy Los Angeles skies is just one accomplishment in a four-decade career.
Nichols really does intend to force automakers to eventually sell nothing but electrics. In an interview in June at her agency's heavy-duty-truck laboratory in downtown Los Angeles, it becomes clear that Nichols, at age 70, is pushing regulations today that could by midcentury all but banish the internal combustion engine from California's famous highways. "If we're going to get our transportation system off petroleum," she says, "we've got to get people used to a zero-emissions world, not just a little-bit-better version of the world they have now."
We've seen campaigns to defend smoking and not wearing seatbelts and not getting vaccinated. Is this like that, or is there more to it?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday August 03 2015, @07:42PM
But then it might be cheaper once the rest of the country has to follow suit.
Maybe.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 03 2015, @08:04PM
May as well introduce some incentives for personal solar panels installations and it may be dandy.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 03 2015, @08:17PM
I'm guessing she'd likely approve of that as well. And probably also high-quality passenger rail so that fewer people need to drive in the first place.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 03 2015, @09:36PM
Solar better come first, because the best estimates are that if the auto fleet were converted to electric tomorrow we would need easily twice the grid capacity that we have today.
Most places are already trying to tax households with car chargers built in. Of course none of that money will go to grid development, it will simply be sucked away by government.
I doubt they will pour that tax money back into roads either. They will add miles drive taxes to handle that. That of course means monitoring.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @11:33PM
For 30k per household, California could, TODAY, all but eliminate power plants.
Figure in a couple grand extra for 1KW wind generators to supplement the solar on low output days and you can have 24/7 power production with battery backing (unlike those tesla packs 10ish KWh of lead acids are only 2-3k, which provides 10KW output from the panels during daylight, while charging and up to equivalent output during nighttime for climate control or your pot farm.)
At current prices it is not 'grid competitive', being around 0.18/KWh figuring in battery replacements and a 30 year life, but it is an up-front purchase with known future output and limited maintenence requirements.
If everybody were to do this, not only could they have 'free' charged cars every morning, but also pre-paid electrical for their entire household for essentially the rest of their life.
Think about the possitibilities, especially if another price hike were to happen.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday August 03 2015, @08:34PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Monday August 03 2015, @08:46PM
Then why is there still so much petroll used?
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday August 03 2015, @09:22PM
The other possible answer could be that people have cars and they want to go places and are willing to pay the current price of gas and the sum total of that being the path of least resistance.
(Score: 2) by twistedcubic on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:11AM
Oil and renewables would not be on equal footing if you removed incentives. The former industry has nearly a century of head starts in incentives.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:14PM
But with any new tech it has to beat the old tech usually at the old techs own game. It is an uphill climb. DVD was better than VHS. No one wanted a refrigerator until it was cheaper than having ice delivered for their icebox. Of course price is usually the biggest impediment to adoption and these analogies are imperfect, there is a lot more infrastructure involved with new energy tech.
As it exists now, solar and other renewables are just economically lame. Someday with advances in the tech it will become feasible. But there are some HUGE gaps to make up. When it catches up I will be buying also but I will keep my extra cash for now.
(Score: 2) by Translation Error on Monday August 03 2015, @08:56PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday August 03 2015, @09:15PM
Totally and completely untrue.
Not even in an "all generalizations are false" sense. Just in a "refuses to acknowledge any sane system of economics" sense. The US government has price supports for food crops to ensure that in the event of a war or blockade, it can feed its own citizens. This is loosely classed as "sanity". In a "purer" free market, cheaper international land values and unskilled labor would almost instantly bankrupt american farmers. People would eat today, but there would be no infrastructure for the next time shit goes down.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday August 03 2015, @09:59PM
Cars themselves aren't economically feasible by themselves. This comes up constantly in publicly funded car and airport vs completely privately owned train discussions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:04PM
That argument is similar to the argument that if you have to light a fire (i.e. to provide energy to start it) then it cannot produce energy. In other words, totally bogus.
Of course the art is to distinguish combustible substances from non-combustible ones. A piece of wood won't too easily start burning, but if you manage to set it on fire, it will give you a lot of energy. OTOH no matter how hard you try, you'll never get granite to burn.
The question is whether renewables are more like wood, or more like granite. But that cannot be answered by a simple argument like yours: You'll classify wood as non-combustible.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 03 2015, @08:49PM
We don't need another Enron. We already have an ageing infrastructure ran by for-profit energy companies that would shit itself from the additional load. No where in the article is this talked about.
Point is if they want to push electric cars as hard as they want to, they also have to push utilities to upgrade infrastructure. ConEd was warning all of south queens (NYC) to turn power hungry appliances like air conditioners, washers and dryers off in the middle of a heatwave to allow them to conduct repairs. Either it was a hoax to keep their loads light during peak or they were serious. You think air conditioners and dryers are high loads? Wait until we have millions of electric car chargers installed. There is no way the current grid would support an all electric automobile society.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:14AM
That's a real problem, but it's a sort of chicken and egg thing. If the cars aren't there, then the normal demand on the infrastructure doesn't need supplementing. Sometimes it does, but it's "uneconomical" to "overbuild" or "overmaintain".
So it's a question of timing, as much as anything else. How can the electric cars be fed into the system at a rate just sufficient to allow the grid to be strengthened to keep up with it. Of course, there's also the question of how the grid companies can be motivated to build-up and maintain the grid. They seem quite happy to skimp on needed maintenance already.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:02AM
I have never understood why time-of-day based electricity rates are so uncommon in the USA. They have been used for decades in the UK and many appliances include a delay timer so that they can be run at night.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Covalent on Monday August 03 2015, @08:27PM
I teach chemistry and physics and every year my students and I tackle some aspect of climate change. Last year we looked at the cost of absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere using solar, wind, and nuclear power. We decided on an amount of 350ppm and a timeline of 85 years, which by a convenient coincidence works out to about 2100 gigatons by the year 2100. Nice! The problem was somewhat simplified so that high school students could tackle it, but the cost is probably correct to within an order of magnitude. The motivation was also simplified: If we do nothing, the 3 - 6 foot sea level rise predicted to occur by 2100 will force the evacuation of most of Miami and Miami Beach. So we tried to compare the cost of saving Miami to the cost of abandoning it.
Care to venture a guess?
The cost to absorb CO2 (assuming we continue to produce it at the current rate, which is another simplification, but I digress) was around 1 quadrillion dollars.
That's 10^15 USD for those of you playing with your scientific calculators at home.
The cost of evacuating Miami is presumably several orders of magnitude less than that. But when you throw in New Orleans, Galveston, Manhattan, San Francisco, Seattle...and the list goes on and on and on...the amount of money stops sounding quite so insane.
So when people say "Oh, this is going to cost too much. It's going to damage the economy! Grumble Grumble They TERK ER JERBS!!" I like to respond with this:
"Which would you rather spend your trillions on? More fuel efficient cars, better power generation, cleaner air, etc. or the evacuation of millions of people to a sweltering hellhole?"
And if you don't think it's we, the average taxpayer, that's going to foot the bill for the mess we're making, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday August 03 2015, @08:41PM
Btter yet, it's not even us, it's our children. Strangely, the "think of the children" line works less well when there's any sort of money involved. We're a greedy species.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @09:15PM
Problem is, we are also a lying species.
When one herd of fatcats is attacking another "because ecology!" and it makes you believe they are really caring about someone, or something besides their bank accounts... Well, there is that bridge for sale somewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @09:19PM
So you teach wild ass economic speculations as physical science? I think what you describe is bizarre. For example, why is the cost of saving Miama = cost of absorbing CO2? You could also just build a system of dikes and canals... That is just for example.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hubie on Monday August 03 2015, @10:02PM
No, he's teaching them how to think a problem through. To be a good scientist, you need to be able to attack these kind of order of magnitude problems. That's why Enrico Fermi cared how many piano tuners there were in Chicago [utexas.edu], among other things [umd.edu]. Too many people think Googling for an answer is a sufficient replacement for being able to think through problems.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @10:21PM
Not from that description. I find it difficult to believe that thinking a problem through would result in concluding that we need to either scrub X amount of CO2 from the atmosphere or evacuate miami. Either way, it is (extremely inappropriately in my opinion) presenting wild economics speculations as hard science. The Fermi examples are good, but they are a completely different beast. Estimating something is not the same as wildly speculating. If I said "CO2 is so bad it'll cost a quadrillion dollars to fix it", it is just as valid as the above which makes bizarre assumptions.
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Wednesday August 05 2015, @04:19PM
Thank you! This is exactly the point. Not to assume that my two "solutions" are the only ones, but rather to consider options and analyze them for feasibility. Aka critical thinking. Apparently the AC hasn't heard of that idea. ;)
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 03 2015, @10:00PM
You know, we abandoned Detroit and nobody really gave a F. I'm not thinking abandoning a couple more cities is going to matter.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:44AM
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday August 03 2015, @11:56PM
You're talking about a city that's over 3,000 miles from where I live. You're also talking about a sea level rise that won't affect me, my kids, my parents, nor anybody I know. You're talking maybes and ifs. To balance that you want me to spend extra money now to avoid something that may or may not happen (not saying it won't happen, saying 2100 is so far off my grandkids will be dead by then).
Hope you like rolling that rock uphill forever.
Recent research has shown that 1 out of 3 Trump supporters is a stupid as the other 2.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:14AM
> You're also talking about a sea level rise that won't affect me, my kids, my parents, nor anybody I know.
Unless you don't like your Orange Juice to taste a bit salty and you live in the kind of place South Beach [bleep] could consider for relocation.
Thank you for illustrating (I call Poe's Law) the effect of claiming to be one happy United People, when the US is more like a sum of its mostly-convergent selfish parts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:54AM
It sounds like you are near the West Coast where the land rises quickly as you move away from the ocean.
Seaports, however, are at sea level.
Most people get significant portions of what they consume via ships and seaports.
As sea level rises, the port(s) that serve(s) you will have to be rebuilt--even though they aren't on the East Coast|Gulf Coast (which will be clobbered even harder).
Whistle in the dark if you like.
There's some bad shit coming for you and/or your descendants.
The old saying is "Pay me now or pay me later".
...and I really like the "a system of dikes" AC who, apparently, doesn't know that water will go around the end of that thing unless you make it go continuously all the way up the coast.
...not to mention that that doesn't address the problem of ever-bigger storms, and an ever-hotter, drier climate that keep coming with climate change.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:27AM
There's another easy way to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere: it's called "planting a tree". Plant lots of trees, and you'll absorb huge amounts of CO2. Of course, the trees eventually die and fall over and the CO2 is released, but while they're alive they make seeds and those grow into even more new trees to replace their parents. The main danger is forest fires (though that frequently helps clear out old trees and helps new seeds grow).
The other thing we should be doing, besides planting lots of trees, is building the SkyTran system. Then we can get around with a tiny amount of energy (much less than even Teslas), plus we'll get to our destinations much faster since there's no traffic lights and the pods travel at 100mph. It costs much less per mile to build than a highway, and will have huge economic benefits by saving people so much time as well as money, since most people won't need private cars any more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:37AM
Are you saying we could either spend a quadrillion dollars or each plant a tree?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:19AM
Bamboo grows faster and is a really versatile source of material inputs. You can make flooring with it, build whole houses with it, make paper with it, eat it, and even spin its fibers into tough, silky yarn.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:11PM
I would like to grow it but it sounds like the stuff will spread like crazy beyond my yard. The containment solutions online are marketed like some terrible Jurassic Park thing. "They will never escape containment!"
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:06AM
Yeah, but how long does it live?
If you're looking for a way of sucking carbon out of the atmosphere and turning into a useful raw material (a wood-like product in this case), then yes, bamboo is a great idea. It grows faster than trees.
However, if you just want to plant a bunch of plants, and have them suck carbon out of the atmosphere for as long as possible (and then reproduce so their children do the same), it seems like large, deciduous trees are the better choice. They can live for centuries. Large fir trees might work too (things like sequoias and redwoods); those things are giant, and probably live a pretty long time too, though I don't know offhand. It seems to me that bamboo probably does not have a very long lifespan, so unless you plan to harvest it, it would not be a good choice here.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday August 05 2015, @08:40AM
About 120 years. That's roughly equal to pine trees.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Monday August 03 2015, @08:54PM
(Score: 2) by geb on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:44AM
If you'd asked me at any point over the last ten years, I would have confidently predicted that the future was biofuel derived from algae, that hydrogen for automotive use was a fucking stupid idea because it's so difficult to transport and store, and that electric vehicles would be forever crippled by battery use cycle limits.
Only the prediction about hydrogen was right. I still don't really understand how we failed to do anything useful with algae, but apparently electric truly is the future.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday August 03 2015, @08:57PM
In Massachusetts law, there are certain regulations about vehicles that are legal in all 50 states and ones that are legal in 49 states. I wonder if California's overreach here will cause other states to remove their legal links to California's requirements?
Energy has to come from somewhere, so unless California is going to build more plants, they're likely going to be importing some sort of carbon-releasing energy.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Alfred on Monday August 03 2015, @09:14PM
Getting people used to something implies that it is painful and possibly unnatural. How is zero emissions even possible? As we operate now it is not possible. The greenies are perfectly content with an electric vehicle that all the smoke from diving it is pumped out in another state or wherever the electricity is generated. No smoke here by my car so life must be good. They act as if smoke is fine if you can't see it, hypocrites. Make up your mind which lies you want to believe is smoke/pollution/combustion/whatever bad or not?
Now if we somehow went all solar, hydroelectric, wind and such then they would have something. (never mind the other greenies that are opposed to dams drowning trees, windmills killing birds or something) Going all solar or alternative power is not economically possible (yet) otherwise it would have already happened.
Here is some math, because everyone loves math, especially greenines: In 2014, about 136.78 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed in the United States, a daily average of about 374.74 million gallons. (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10) Energy content of gasoline is 34.8 MJ/Liter. or ~36.6kW/hr per gallon (Wikipedia) (Therefore we would need 5 trillion more kw/hrs generated each year assuming cars are perfectly efficient) may 2015 the USA generated 321,906 megawatt hours (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/), if may is average, (which it is not, it is low) that 3.86 trillion megawatt hours a year, which is low so let's over generously round up to 5 trillion. I'm not about to say we would have to double our generation capacity, that isn't correct. just because gas has so much energy in it doesn't mean it get used. so say cars are 25% efficient at using gas and that batteries are 100% efficient and motors using electricity are 100% and there are no line losses and everything else in favor of electric cars...
You still need to increase national electric generation by greater than 25%.
This will not happen. Therefore electric cars cannot be viable without some major changes, innovations and inventions. The greenies have been forcing the issue and forcibly subsidizing it and it has not moved out of the pipe dream stage. It could be done in the future but the greenies need to start working on it and stop helping others make a fast buck. Moral of the story is "NOT YET, maybe someday, if you want it then go make it happen."
If you actually want to save the earth, and not just be a green zombie/lemming/sheep, then go develop a better air conditioner that uses less power or advocate for better housing insulation to make things better, faster with existing inexpensive tech!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @09:46PM
So what you're saying is I can't see how we can do it, too hard.
Hope you didn't waste your time by going to university. They do hard shit for a living.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 03 2015, @09:54PM
Rather than decree it, care to provide a reason why it will not happen?
Input to feed your argumentation [cleantechnica.com] - and mind you, we are speaking of 10 years term.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:32PM
Some things I saw.
1) new solar is being built but not coal or nuke
2) new built natural gas grew twice as fast as solar
3) if you include non-utility solar natural gas still wins.
4) green added 824 MW in nov
My math: from the link above 1025070 installed / 824 a month added renewable = 104 years for green to catch up to existing non-renewable install base. This is actually slower than I expected. I assume that adoption will accelerate from that rate and it will take fewer years. Green needs to step it up since we are adding non-renewable natural gas faster than renewables.
What I also see is that renewables cannot cover even the new generation capacity which means they will never catch up without accelerating the installation. However all is not grim, the install base is actually increasing and in 10 years renewable will have at least 13% of capacity. (I say at least because I didn't account for acceleration or tech improvement. But maybe that doesn't matter since everything else is improving also.)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:23AM
Building a lot of solar would also create a lot of jobs that can't be outsourced. In the United States they spend something like $360 billion per year on foreign oil. If that money were spent in the US it would be like a major economic stimulus package every year.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:31PM
That is not a real good point here. Ideally we would go all renewable and coal plants would go away. But a coal plant employs more people than a solar or wind so it would be a net loss of jobs. The jobs argument is used so much it becomes part of the go-to vernacular to the point it becomes cliché. I suspect you brought it up out of reflex. Don't take this any of this the wrong way but the jobs argument is ineffective if used in every argument but do use it in every argument where it cant be refuted.
That would be huge but people will continue to spend that money because they have stuff to do and places to go. You will find very few people willing or prepared to stop spending that money and walk to work just so they can hope or invest in a solution with any progress showing up in years from now. That said anyone can do exactly that on a personal level, arrange job and home so you can walk to work, stop driving, take quick cold showers, get a cart to move groceries, buy stock in renewable energy companies, evangelize the lifestyle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:19PM
Fusion. It's only 20 years away. :-)
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday August 03 2015, @09:18PM
I wonder if she also considered the service infrastructure? Since ICE automobiles have to handle multiple semi-open fluid systems (electrons don't count) under hostile conditions, it seems that much of the fabrication, distribution, servicing, and technology of those fluids, hoses, and other parts will simply vanish from the majority of peoples' perception and memory.
(Score: 2) by computersareevil on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:06PM
The only "semi-open fluid system" that a BEV doesn't have is the fuel system. It has lubrication, cooling, and refrigeration systems just like an ICEV including hoses, radiators, evaporators, condensors, pumps, and compressors. These systems cannot be energy-efficiently replaced with solid-state alternatives.
So the perception and memory of fluid oils, glycols, and refrigerants will persist for the foreseeable future.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:19PM
Is there a diagram somewhere that compares the internals of both systems? That would be handy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Monday August 03 2015, @09:24PM
The topic of electric cars and carbon output was on the radio last night, [nashvillepublicradio.org] so this conversation today seems appropriate.
Driving an electric car is better for the environment only if your electric power is generated by a clean power plant. This means that they make sense in California, but in Tennessee not so much. In places where coal is the major source of electric power it's better to just buy a more fuel-economic car.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 5, Funny) by FrogBlast on Monday August 03 2015, @10:23PM
Having all of my dirty socks in the hamper doesn't make my socks cleaner, but it makes my house nicer and makes it a lot easier to do the laundry when the time comes.*
*This comment may not reflect my actual sock-handling procedures.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:35AM
Driving an electric car is better for the environment only if your electric power is generated by a clean power plant.
if only there were some huge source of power that that could just broadcast power to everyone on a daily basis! i mean, who would refuse free power?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:41PM
If only that daily dose of fusion power came in the form of electromotive force instead of the blackbody radiation signature for 5778 K. Then the people in Tennessee would be using it instead of digging rocks out of the ground and setting them on fire to boil water and spin some magnets. As long as the barrier to entry (read that as "cost") of accessing that daily power broadcast is higher people will keep using the cheap option and they will still be better off driving a 55 mpg diesel VW Bug rather than a Nissan Leaf.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @11:52PM
http://www.autoextremist.com/current/2015/8/3/subterranean-motor-city-blues.html [autoextremist.com]
This week the Autoextremist presents his version of Bob Dylan's “Subterranean Homesick Blues” -- scroll down for the last two lines, very clever...
SUBTERRANEAN MOTOR CITY BLUES
Sergio's in the basement
Talkin’ consolidation
I'm at the keyboard
Thinking about the motives
The man in the bad sweater
Hand out, pissed-off
Says he's got a bad feelin’
Wants a big payoff
Look out kid
It's somethin' you said
God knows why
But you're doin' it again
You better duck down the alley way
Lookin' for a new friend
A man in a Volkswagen cap
Holdin’ a big pen
Offering eleven billion dollar bills
But says you’re only worth ten
Mary talks good
Face doesn’t show it
Talkin' that the Mo put
Plants back but
What’s the point anyway
Mary says what many say
They must bang it in early May
Legacy from D.A.
Look out kid
Don't matter what you did
Walk on your high-heels
Don’t matter how it feels
Better stay away from those
Carryin’ around a doomsday hose
Keep a clean nose
Jettison those plain clothes
You don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows.
Ah get sick, get well
Hang around that Ford well
Ring bell, sure as hell
F-150’s gonna sell
Try hard, get tarred
Kick ass, do tell
Jump on the Insurance Institute if all else fails
Look out kids
You're gonna get hit
By users, poseurs
Six-time losers
Hangin’ around the cheap seats
Holdin’ you accountable
Lookin' for a new fool
Stop followin’ e-leaders
Watch those chargin’ meters.
Ah get born, stay warned
Read rants, no chance, it’s a dance
Get dressed, get stressed
Try to be a success
Please her, please him, buy gifts
Don't whine, don't groan
Twenty years of schoolin'
And they send you to the Dead Zone
Look out kid
They keep it all hid
Better avoid the assholes
Light yourself a candle
Don't wear sandals
Try to avoid the scandals
Don't wanna be a bum
You better chew gum
The pump don't work
'Cause Elon took the handles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:00AM
Elon didn't take the handle. Old Charley stole the handle, and the train it won't stop goin'; no way to slow down.
(Score: 4, Funny) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:49AM
While moving towards electric vehicles is one part of the solution to rampant CO2 emissions, there needs to be a realistic and coordinated approach.
1) the current vehicle fleet has huge amounts of embodied carbon as about half the emissions of a vehicle are in manufacture.
Therefore, retro-fitting electric motors to the current fleet is more efficient than building new vehicles, government subsidies would help in transitioning the fleet.
2) public transport will always be more efficient than moving a ton of metal for a single occupant. Therefore, vehicle taxes should be based on emissions per passenger and taxes fed directly into public transport improvements.
3) stop building roads (and airports)
4) town planning needs to factor in public transport to reduce travel requirements. Walking and cycling to work have benefits for health, public well-being and emissions.
5) electricity generation needs to move assertively to renewables (not nuclear). Large scale solar thermal and wind have sufficient power density and are becoming competitive with other sources.
6) remove subsidies on high-carbon industries an direct these to renewables.
No more coal co2 sequestration "trials". No more diesel fuel subsidies for heavy industry.
7) for remote locations, liquid ammonia fuel generated from surplus renewable energy can bridge the energy gap, until
8) the rollout of a next generation grid able to handle the larger power spikes inherent to larger power differentials.
9) shut down 60 year old nuclear plants and stop building fission plants, the government is subsidizing these hugely and te money would be better invested in renewable energy.
10) efficiency bonuses and alteration of traffic laws to improve access for electic buses, trams and trains in urban areas.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:50AM
Your points are mostly well taken, but I think you are way off on the idea of public transportation in American cities. The last time I visited the US, we (of course) rented a car. It was entirely normal for us to drive 30-45 minutes from my cousin's house to go, well, anywhere. To go out to eat, to go to the mall, heck, just to get to the grocery store.
Public transport can only work within densely packed urban areas, and for long-haul intercity travel. Otherwise, instead of moving one ton of metal (a car) per person, you find yourself moving 10 tons of metal (a bus) for 5 occupants. Or, worse, 50 tons of metal (a tram) for 10 occupants. If you ever want public transport to work in most American cities, you first have to convince Americans to aspire to living in an apartment in the city center, instead of in a McMansion. Until that mentality changes, it just ain't gonna work.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:36AM
You're absolutely right that many cities have been set up with hopelessly sprawled infrastructure. I'm not sure there's much that can be done in the short term about that.
However, people do gravitate to well designed urban centers.
It's also possible that light, electric, self driving vehicles may provide a backup solution for the cities which are already poorly designed.
(Score: 2, Funny) by vali.magni on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:11AM
The only way to "end" the auto industry is to shift our perspective and look at the root causes. The solution proposed in the article does not end the problem of ever increasing traffic and gridlocks, ergo, wasted time and losses in productivity.
The only real way to "end" the auto industry is to provide efficient and fast public transport as is available in places around Europe and East Asia. For example, the Hong Kong MTR (their metro, for those who haven't been there) operates like clockwork. At peak hours, there's a train every 45-50 seconds around places like Tsim Sha Tsui, Wan Chai, Admiralty etc.
This works because of the population density and distribution. This sort of system will hardly work in the majority of US suburbs since the population is generally spread out.
The second factor is safety or the perception of safety. In Germany, when I get in to the train, it's clean, well lit, and makes you feel comfortable and safe. It can get slightly iffy at certain RER stations in Paris, but you can manage well.
If we're really interested in solving this problem, we need to rethink our approach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:34AM
If YOU want to live in a sardine can of a city/flat/etc, go ahead. I don't, and I wager most others don't either outside of those who are born there and think it's the best thing in the world.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:17AM
Up yours with your sanctimony.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:14AM
So all these electric cars made with petroleum products are going to improve things how? This just shifts the pollution somewhere else and does little to reduce CO2 emissions. In a state the size of California it's going to be problematic at best to install the infrastructure needed for people to get anywhere. The power plants we have can barely keep up with demand now and it takes a minimum of ~20 years to get a new power plant online, imagine adding a few million electric cars to that equation. If I had to drive an all electric car today I'd be screwed because there is no place to recharge within 200 miles other than home. I propose that this lady and all of her employees be required to do without all things made with petroleum for six months, because when it comes down to it, that is what this is all about. I hope they enjoy their caves without fire because all that smoke is a pollutant as well.
(Score: 2) by EQ on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:32AM
There are places where electrics are simply impossible - you need endurance, horsepower and range at a cheap price (Farm vehicles, for example). Try living in a rural area, or having a 60+ mile commute (not all that uncommon in western US cities - like the commute from Denver to CO Springs). Not everyone is urban.
(Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:25AM
Yes there are always exceptions. I am sure they will have permits for those that have reasonable cause to have standard ICE. But non trivial portion of car use is single occupant commuters. Replace those with electric.
As to long commutes: If cities switched bylaws, land use etc to cause creation of pedestrian friendly/centric cities where people live near where they work. This would decrease average car-hours of commuting down substantially. Denser pedestrian centric cities in the long run would be the best thing for the environment and economy.
Horsepower is not a valid argument for ICE btw. Electric can be designed for same horsepower as ICE.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:52AM
I propose a 2 minutes silence...
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:59PM
California has done a lot to screw most everything up for their state. I was talking to a friend the other day and Gas is $4+ a gallon there. Texas has been enjoying $2.35 / gallon. Hearing about things like this just makes me wonder, what all is driving their prices up. Projects like this don't just fund themselves.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"