New York To Ban Sale of All Gas-Powered Vehicles In the State By 2035 (cbsnews.com) 298
New York is aiming to ban the sale of all gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035. CBS News reports: A bill amending the state's environmental conservation law was passed by the state's Senate and Assembly and signed by Governor Kathy Hochul last week. Under the new law, 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will have zero emissions by 2035. That means state agencies will work to develop affordable powering options for zero-emissions vehicles in all communities, improve sustainable transportation and support bicycle and pedestrian options. Several agencies will work to create a zero-emissions vehicle market development strategy by 2023, so ensure more zero-emission cars are available in the state.
Business opportunity! (Score:2)
Re:Business opportunity! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Business opportunity! (Score:5, Insightful)
No need to, there is thriving infrastructure and ubiquitous selling stations for that, unlike say lack of electric charging stations and the infrastructure to power them.
Re:Business opportunity! (Score:5, Informative)
Are you aware that every electric car in production today can charge from a standard wall outlet? Are you aware that there are more electric car charging stations in NYC than gas stations [cnet.com] - and it has been this way for over 5 years? Are you aware that most gasoline retailers only make about 15 cents on a gallon of gasoline, and after rent, it's more like 2 cents? [omegawv.com] What happens if you take away 20% of the volume out of a high volume business [wsj.com] that already is at less than 1% margin? By 2040, it's going to be actually hard to find a gas station in many zip codes in America.
Re:Business opportunity! (Score:4, Insightful)
You are seriously suggesting someone gets low on power away from NYC charging station, and so has to plug into standard outlet to wait for hours to charge??!!
Even the level 2 chargers which are almost all of them, only give 20 miles per hour of charging, ridiculous and puny. You call that "infrastructure"? I don't and no one with a brain does.
I can "charge" my ICE Honda Civic in less than five minutes at a gas station and drive hundreds of miles.
No comparison.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Level 2 chargers are great for over 99% of our drives. The only time they aren't is for long distance (road trips). We haven't taken the 2017 Bolt on a road trip because there are no CCS DC fast chargers. In fact , the DC fast charging port on our Bolt has never been used, not even once, in 4.5 years. For the very few road trips we have taken - and that would be about one a year, we have used the ICE on my 2015 Volt. That's just a couple days of the year during which we use almost all our gasoline usage fo
Re: Business opportunity! (Score:2, Insightful)
You know that 1% of trips for most people would translate to twice per month per family.
That doesnâ(TM)t sound appealing to have to go rent a $150/day car twice per month on top of an expensive car (no electric car is affordable and itâ(TM)s not getting better due to the reliance on ever more rare and expensive rare earth and lithium)
Re: (Score:2)
"That doesnâ(TM)t sound appealing to have to go rent a $150/day car twice per month on top of an expensive car "
Go check what a garage or a parking spot costs for a month in NY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In an ideal world sure, an electric car will work well assuming that:
You can justify the significantly higher up front purchase cost of an electric car.
You can charge at home.
You can charge at work.
You don't need to drive more miles per day then you're able to charge.
For many people this isn't the case yet, and until it is we will need alternatives. Simply taking gas vehicles away before electric cars are fully able to replace them is only going to cause problems for people.
People seem to think that by bann
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good job this ban isn't happening for another 14 years, then, isn't it? 14 years is plenty long enough to address infrastructure issues and see major further improvements in range and charging.
Re: (Score:2)
People will simply buy new cars out of state,
While there are still 14 years until implementation, this is likely not a workable loophole. You need to register your car when you buy it, and I would bet New York State will not allow registrations of new gas cars when this law goes into effect. That the transaction took place in NJ doesn't really matter. It's the same as sales tax - you pay where you register the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Ohhh boy, here we go again:
1. People have used gas stations for the last 100 years. So in what rational sense do "people expect their car to get them where they are going that day and have enough energy to get them home without needing to stop for a refill/recharge"? If you take your ICE on a long trip, you expect to stop at a gas station. If you take your EV on a long trip, you expect to stop for a charge.
2. Increasing demand spurs additional supply because companies want to make money. This is pretty basi
Re: The law will go away (Re:Business opportunity! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, in the real world there are not outlets at work to charge a car, and in the real world 20 percent of the populace does not get an outlet in their apartment parking either.
Average person can and does get to a gas station in minutes, fill up in less than 5 minutes and drive for a week or two or three or more. Hundreds of miles per tank. Not several times per week like your electric car that also takes hours to get a decent charge
You are delusional and have no concept of what the real world is like
Re: (Score:2)
THIS. Somebody mod this guy up, he gets it!
Also, I need 100% charge in 5 minutes, with a 500-mile range, anywhere in the country. And that's with a 1-ton load in the bed, due to my work.
Re:Business opportunity! (Score:4, Funny)
Uh, don't forget that you have to be able to go uphill both ways too. That takes a lot more power than people would otherwise expect.
Re:Business opportunity! (Score:4, Insightful)
* The average American commute is 25 miles per day (one way)
* The average American drives 13,500 miles per year, so right in line with commuting ~250 miles per week
* The average American doesn't haul 1-ton loads ever, let alone very often, or due to work - they don't need a 6,001 lbs vehicle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can just imagine this type of attitude in the waning days of horse-and-buggy... "You mean you have to stop and find a service station to fill your horseless carriage with petrol every so many miles?! Pah! What an inconvenience, I can ride my horse for hours and she can drink from any stream and eat from any grassy field! These horseless carriages will never catch on, for they are simply too much of a hassle."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no idea. Most people in metropolitan areas don't live in homes that have ease of access to chargers. In fact, in most areas of the US, getting the landlord to keep the pipes from leaking and the toilet flushing requires a lawyer or a visit to a tenants association.
You really think a NYC slum lord would put in chargers? It isn't going to happen.
Don't forget grid stress. Think NYC is going to spend the cash it takes to sling more wires, apartment owners spending for beefed up amperage coming in?
Re: (Score:2)
An NYC slum lord will do anything to make money, including putting in 'vending machines' to provide electric to parking spaces. Most large parking garages already have electric directly wired to the building (I know surprising), most I've seen already have some level 2 chargers and will be built with better electric capacity in the future, or upgraded.
Gas stations in the city are already fairly rare and will all but disappear fairly quickly. I suspect that most grocery stores will have banks of level 3 ch
Re:Business opportunity! (Score:4, Informative)
Clearly you don't have any idea how this stuff works?
Do I think NYC building owners are going to put in EV chargers on their own? Absolutely not. Do I think they'll do it if the State and City of New York give them incentives to do so? Yes I do.
Do I think ConEd will sling more wires? I do, because they get to sell more kWh over those wires. And they'll probably be getting some tax incentives to do so - at the very least, it's CapEx which represents a tax-free investment for them while increasing their capacity to sell more electricity.
If you're paying by the minute to charge your car, you're charging in a very shitty place. And nobody charges even remotely that much unless they are complete assholes, and you'll know before hand if you use any number of ways to find out charging rates before you get there. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
ChargeAmerica fees are based on kWh. So is Tesla's supercharger network. The only network I could find that costs per minute is EVgo, and it's $0.35/min which is more than an order of magnitude less than your FUD. And quite honestly, that's highway robbery in comparison to literally any other charging network that is pricing per kWh and should just be avoided until they change their pricing model in favor of a company that isn't fucking you bigtime.
Gas stations DO want EV chargers, because it means more high markup snack and beverage sales. Nobody with a Tesla will be "harassing their staff for hours on end" because they won't be there for even an hour, and if they are there for an hour they'll be watching Netflix on their car's display which is far more entertaining than whatever you're dreaming of. In fact, many supercharger stations are installed in the parking lots of gas stations with convenience stores - do you think the property owners were somehow forced into doing that, or that maybe they saw some advantage in having those installed?
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about, and should probably just never speak on this topic again.
Re: (Score:2)
Level 1 chargers (120V) are particularly wasteful, though. Even when running at the full 15 amps, about 30% of the energy goes to fixed overhead the car charging system has (cooling) and other charging losses. And sometimes the current is even less. My 2015 Volt defaults to charging at 8 amps if I plug-in a 120V charger, something I have only ever done once. I didn't know one has to change the setting to 12 amps (there is no 15 amp option) manually each time when using an L1 charger. So, my car charged at 8
Re: (Score:2)
L1 usually gets tested at 85% efficient, vs. 88% efficient for L2. This depends how cold it is, so if you charge outside on a very cold day...maybe 30% is accurate? Regardless, the difference is low.
I charge my EV using 110V, I don't see the need to spend $500 to run the 220 wires to garage/get electrician. I get about 8 miles of range per hour. So I get home at 5 and leave at maybe 7...pretty typical I think. 110 miles of charging overnight is much longer than my actual daily commute. Even in your hu
Re: (Score:2)
The efficiency (or lack thereof) for L1 isn't just because of the voltage but because of fixed overhead of battery/car cooling when charging. There is maybe 300 - 500W of overhead for cooling and other functions in the charger depending on the car model. 8 amps 120V is only 960W. If you have 500W for cooling you are putting just 460W into the battery. Minus perhaps another 20% in AC to DC conversion. The 120V can be extremely inefficient. Of course, 8 amps is silly, but that's the default on the Volt when p
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this is a weird Leaf thing. On a Renault Zoe, battery cooling only kicks in when required, which only happens on my 7kW home charger on a hot summer night.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like an absurdly bad design of the cooling system, that it runs at significant power when it's not needed to to the point that it seriously increases the charging time.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware that there are more electric car charging stations in NYC than gas stations [cnet.com] - and it has been this way for over 5 years?
The conflation of NYC with NY, Chicago with IL, and LA with CA is exactly why we're in this goddamn position to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true, I keep having to run off to my local electric store to power my laptop and phone. There is no infrastructure to support electricity in most places in the US.
Are you aware that every electric car in production today can charge from a standard wall outlet? Are you aware that there are more electric car charging stations in NYC than gas stations [cnet.com] - and it has been this way for over 5 years? Are you aware that most gasoline retailers only make about 15 cents on a gallon of gasoline, and after rent, it's more like 2 cents? [omegawv.com] What happens if you take away 20% of the volume out of a high volume business [wsj.com] that already is at less than 1% margin? By 2040, it's going to be actually hard to find a gas station in many zip codes in America.
That article is about Manhattan, not New York City as a whole. There are few gas stations in Manhattan, it's much too expensive to operate there. Fortunately Queens, Brooklyn, The Bronx, and New Jersey are just over a bridge or tunnel and have plenty of stations.
Re:are you [redacted] (Score:2)
However, I do know that nearly every car is parked near electricity in a hyperdense urban environment like NYC. If you park your car in a private garage you can get power there (hypothetically). Garage owners can provide electricity to parkers. NYC is already committed to provide 40,000 chargers in municipal garages by 2 [electrive.com]
Re: are you [redacted] (Score:2)
40k, so a couple orders of magnitude too low?
Our governments are supposedly committing to conversions in decades, but they are doing the work to do it in centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
This is possible. Don't believe people who tell you it's not possible.
I'm not going to say it is impossible to put chargers in public parking spots. I'm going to say it is not practical.
If BEVs require chargers at parking spots to be a practical replacement for the ICEV then people need to go back to the drawing board. I started to do the math on what it would take to run wires to parking spots in a parking ramp and quickly discovered this would be just horrendously expensive. Just running the copper wires would be incredibly expensive, then on top of that the wires need t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:are you [redacted] (Score:4, Informative)
On street parking is much harder to solve, but it is possible for multimeters to be retrofitted to provide L2 charging facilities to on street parkers.
Londoner here. It isn't hard to solve. Round my way there are on street charging points cropping up. Some of them are dedicated stations with relatively noisy cooling so I assume they're quite fast. The rest are units that attach to lamp posts and are retrofitted very easily. The latter are, judging from the comments in this thread L2 chargers, because they look like standard UK outdoor sockets (indoor ones are 13A/240V, outdoor ones are a different design and rated at 16A).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens to that ubiquitous infrastructure when even just 20% of the gasoline market evaporates by 2025? Unlike the electric grid, the specialized system which supports petroleum exploration-refining-transportation need huge capital at every step of the production and distribution. Eventually he financing of oil exploration will be difficult to fund as the collapse of the industry will be obvious.
Even the stations themselves have huge tanks which have to be dug up and changed every decade or so. Incurri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Business opportunity! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I'll be selling used ICE vehicles in NY come 2035!"
They will forbid entry for them in 2025.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Business opportunity! (Score:4, Insightful)
What we need for BEVs to really get adopted is some type of modular battery system where you can pull into a service station, yank out some depleted cells, slap in some fresh ones, and be on your way. Many people don't have viable charging options, and the idea that you're going to be able to plug into a charging point on the street and not have someone fuck with your car while you're gone is laughable... especially in NYC of all places.
ban DEALER ONLY SERVICE FOR EV as well! (Score:2)
ban dealer ONLY SERVICE FOR EV's as well!
I mean, Anakin, (Score:4, Insightful)
The largest city in New York also elected Rudy Giuliani mayor twice, so you know, it's not as if they're fighting from the high ground.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The US elected Trump twice too, what's your point.
Re: (Score:2)
lol I get it
Re: (Score:2)
The largest city in New York also elected Rudy Giuliani mayor twice, so you know, it's not as if they're fighting from the high ground.
Ad Hominem and also irrelevant. Moral superiority is secondary to survival.
Very stupid considering... (Score:4, Insightful)
What is really insane about the non-electric car ban for NYC in not that long a timeframe is, they just shut down [untappedcities.com] a nuclear plant that could have provided CO2-free power for all those cars!
I guess they plan to build a few new coal plants to meet what is an obviously expected increase in demand...
A complete lack of thought leading to a massive disaster seems to be the New York Way I guess.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Same issue there (Score:3, Insightful)
California has same 2035 law, and they are the largest importer of electric from outside their state
Yes and they are also trying to shut down a perfectly good nuclear reactor in CA... all while they are enduring planned multi-day power outages [enelx.com] just this year. madness.
That's again where nuclear could help, with more small nuclear reactors next to major cities, you'd be way less reliant on long-haul power lines which is the cause of California shutting down power to some regions.
Re: (Score:2)
Those blackouts aren't from lack of power. Those are because PG&E is incompetent at moving electricity.
Basically during wildfire season, they're responsible if their equipment causes wildfires, and to prevent that, they shut down transmission lines. This causes the shortages in the grid. It doesn't matter if California has more generators
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Anti-Nuclear thinking is dead end (Score:2, Insightful)
Assuming a 60 year old nuclear power plant with a history of maintenance problems would still have been operating in 2035
Illinois just canceled shutdown of two plants. It's not impossible to imagine that a 60 year old plant could have easily been kept going long enough to see some much more modern aSMR built to replace it.
nuclear power has turned out to be a dead end.
Luckily what is truly at a dead end is that kind of anti-enviormental thinking that has come very close to destroying the planet.
You want to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuke plants are not cleaner than wind and solar,
They are by any measure, sorry you have been misled on that point.
Nuclear plants are cleaner to build.
They require a lot of concrete, which produces a significant amount of CO2.
Nuclear plants when running produce no CO2 to provide energy, while solar/wind HAVE to be backed by some other usually polluting source.
In all respects nuclear energy is cleaner.
Uranium doesn't spring out of the ground refined and leap into a reactor.
Re: (Score:3)
"Nuclear plants are cleaner to build." are you including decommissioning and storage of toxic fuel in that statement?
"In all respects nuclear energy is cleaner." - no, the fuel is not cleaner
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear plants when running produce no CO2 to provide energy
That is an irrelevant, idiotic argument. What matters is lifecycle CO2 production per Wh. Any other metric for CO2 emissions is a fuckoff, misdirecting waste of time and energy.
while solar/wind HAVE to be backed by some other usually polluting source.
Or combined with storage, and even when you do that they are cheaper and better than nuclear, because the storage lets the solution follow load and nuclear cannot even do that.
In all respects nuclear energy is cleaner.
That is a stupid lie. It's stupid because it's easily disprovable [clearwater.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear fission plants are hugely uneconomical. Cleaner than fossil for sure,
The cleaner part is literally all that matters right now.
But in a free market, cost will stop them being built unless they are subsidised. Then with the amount of subsidy required (and this goes for wind, solar too) you have to look at whether the right target for the subsidy is energy generation as opposed to insulating everyone's home and buying them a new fridge, as an example.
Re: (Score:2)
But in a free market, cost will stop them being built unless they are subsidised.
The terms "free market" and "subsidized" do not belong in the same sentence.
Indeed, so at the moment the options are free marker (no nuclear) or subsidised (with nuclear). If, as a reasonable response to the issues of climate change, subsidised nuclear is useful in an balanced energy policy, I don't have an issue. What I am baffled by is your sometimes insistence that free market is the only way and will result in nuclear, although you sometimes also contradict yourself on that.
Re: (Score:2)
What the nuclear power industry needs is a government that will not scare off investors with constantly changing rules.
The UK is having a hard time getting nuclear built WITH subsidy, so I am unconvinced.
Subsidies for wind and solar, especially solar, means they have a government guaranteed profit.
In general, these are going away, except for specific purposes. Indeed, they were in abeyance in the UK, and wind and solar was still being built, just not quite fast enough.
In a free market nuclear power can make a profit but with such preferential treatment for "zero carbon" wind and solar many nuclear power plants can't make a profit, even though nuclear power produces less CO2 than solar.
That's unlikely, at least in terms of marginal cost. You might have an argument if you said that nuclear should get a premium based on it being more predictable, but the market isn't really set up to provide that premium.
Everybody wants nuclear power. (Score:2)
Citation needed.
In the last primary election for POTUS candidates I saw a shift in Democrat policies in real time. They started with trying to not even comment on nuclear power. Then came some comments on maybe funding studies for possibly considering next generation nuclear power. Then came the nonsensical comment that we should keep existing nuclear power plants running but not build new ones. If nuclear power is not safe then why keep old reactors running? If they are safe enough to keep running the
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily while y'all were faffing about with utterly unreliable "renewable" power sources actual scientists were hard at work designing way, way better nuclear reactors which are now being built all around the world.
That's a lot of shit. SMRs have been tried before and found uneconomical and impractical and nobody is building them now, although there are a few research projects and a lot of people insisting THIS TIME FOR SURE. Well, no, not this time either. There are per-unit costs to reactors that make SMRs not economical either, unless you completely shit on safety. And that in a nutshell is the story of nuclear power in general.
Re: Very stupid considering... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if those lakes drying up are supplying a nuclear plant with water for cooling, what do you think will happen.
We build air cooled nuclear power plants. Or, do you think we will run out of air?
Re: (Score:2)
According to the article you linked to in your post the decision to shut it down was mostly because the operator didn't think it was cost effective to make necessary safety improvements which would have extended its life.
Why "ALL", wny not most (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sort-of is. FTFA:
Under the new law, 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will have zero emissions by 2035.
So I assume these edge cases that you seem to think won't be solved in the next 15 years can be adequately handled.
And if it's so concerning, just buy a new ICE car in 2034. Problem solved for another 5 years or so, at least.
Check the definitions (Score:5, Informative)
I think that the "all" is just the tagline, there's exemptions in the nitty-gritty. It's just that "all" makes for better click-bait.
If you read the legislation, it specifies new *passenger* cars and trucks. The edge cases, assuming that a "passenger" car or truck works for them now, will likely simply do what happened when they passed rules mandating light trucks meet car requirements - the light truck market died and the drivers, rather than shifting to cars on average, simply shifted towards even larger trucks. I mean, remember when trucks like the ford ranger were around? I've seen proposals to bring them back, but in the proposals the damn things are as big as a F-150.
Anyways, it doesn't actually state that a ban will be in place in 2035, merely that it is the state's "goal" for all new vehicles to be electric by that point. It's definitely something that can be slipped, or have exemptions made, if 14 years of development doesn't catch most of the edge cases currently in place.
Reading the legislation further, it lists as *goals*, "where feasible", which is a loophole you can drive a truck through:
2035: off-road vehicles
2045: medium and heavy duty trucks.
In addition, you're looking at cars today lasting 12 years or longer. That's about 8% a year. So if you have a need for a fossil fueled vehicle, you can buy just before a ban, and you should have about 12 years to find a new alternative.
So, if they find that EVs work in 99% of situations, including trucking, as an example, they can simply write that the EVs aren't a replacement in 1% of situations, write an exemption for them, and life moves on.
For example, maybe some logging vehicle ends up being a hybrid(that's electric right? ;) ), rather than a full up EV.
In general though, I'm going to straight up say that EVs are already replacing around 90% of use cases, leaving only about 10% remaining. Tesla has demonstrated that 500 mile range EVs are possible, and with the spread of fast charging stations, range concerns are largely one of the past. There are still concerns about charging; but I figure that as EVs become more common, rental owners and businesses will start placing charging points for customers and employees. If solar power keeps expanding, we're going to want to charge during the daytime for most people anyways, so daytime(at work) charging might actually become the dominant method, with employees demanding charging as a benefit. The federal government might push this as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Poorly worded headline (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As the abstract mentions, this applies to new vehicles sold in the state. People can still sell used gas powered vehicles within the state as much as they want. In other words, this is not at all a ban on the sale or usage of gas powered vehicles.
Poorly worded headlines to drive page views? Say it ain't so Joe, say it ain't so!
Also, poorly worded headline to cater to increasingly conservative base of readership. If it bashes anything less conservative than Pol Pot, it will excite the base here.
Honest Eddies Auto Sales ... (Score:3)
worst strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
This do-nothing-now-and-ban-gas-in-2035 strategy is so ineffective at reducing gas usage that I imagine it was put forth and pushed by gas producers.
For contrast, an actually effective plan would be: immediatly increase gas (for any use, including hospitals for sick children rape victims hit by hurricanes with covid) tariffs by 15% of sale price, and repeat this annually
Re: (Score:3)
Re:worst strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Raising gas taxes alone may not be effective, but Norway shows how a change in the tax and incentives regime can drive EV uptake.
Stop with the "banning" (Score:2, Insightful)
Banning ICE car sales at some X point in the future really is just stupid. As if the government can force effective and affordable alternatives for every use to just appear on their time schedule and meet the needs in a realistic way. Markets will do this on their own. There is already huge demand and a bunch of companies working hard to develop the science and production methods to fill that demand. The biggest problems were, are, and will remain battery technology (and the power grid). Not just enoug
Re: (Score:2)
Banning ICE car sales at some X point in the future really is just stupid. As if the government can force effective and affordable alternatives for every use to just appear on their time schedule and meet the needs in a realistic way. Markets will do this on their own.
The point is to tell the market if it wants to sell cars in NY it will need to provide them. And the same requirements are now becoming common across the Western world so the market has just been given a big incentive. So the market should be able to deliver, surely?
Re: (Score:2)
>"The point is to tell the market if it wants to sell cars in NY it will need to provide them. And the same requirements are now becoming common across the Western world so the market has just been given a big incentive."
There is already a demand and it is growing on its own. It doesn't need an artificial deadline.
>"So the market should be able to deliver, surely?"
Perhaps. But maybe not what everyone wants or needs. It is more likely many consumers will be hurt- not only by prices being artificiall
Re: (Score:2)
There is already a demand and it is growing on its own. It doesn't need an artificial deadline.
There's also a significant issue with respect to CO2 emissions. A change in pricing of carbon would send a much bigger signal that people would like a lot less.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning ICE car sales at some X point in the future really is just stupid. As if the government can force effective and affordable alternatives for every use to just appear on their time schedule and meet the needs in a realistic way. Markets will do this on their own.
You are massively contradicting yourself there.
So you think in 2035 that all New Yorkers will just sit around wringing their hands and be all "woe is me I have no car", or maybe the market will provide a solution?
Unserious solutions from unserious people, again. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is virtue signalling by politicians looking to get re-elected, not the plans of serious people. A serious person with a plan would set goals that start with, "Before I leave office..."
I noticed a lot of this in the Democrat primary for POTUS candidate, a lot of people with 10 year plans. 10 years, so you mean after your time in office and your successor had 2 years to flush it down the toilet? That's not a serious plan from a serious candidate. These people set a goal 15 years out? How many of the
Re: (Score:2)
If so, no politician should promise nuclear power as the time to build will probably exceed the time they are in office.
We just saw a bunch of unserious morons claim we can get cars in New York to zero carbon in 15 years so this isn't a hard limit on seeing serious promises from politicians. If unserious politicians believe an unserious promise for solutions can get votes then a serious politician will realize that serious promises will get votes too.
We were able to build nuclear power plants in under 8 years before so we can do it again. I also pointed out earlier that any long term goal will have milestones along the way
Let's Start With The Basics (Score:2)
So to encourage the early adoption of EV among the general population, how about a few other things:-
- a law or ordnance that requires that from say 2025 onwards, all commercial car parks must have EV charging in a minimum of 10
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't something a bit like this done in London, UK, with the "Congestion Charge"?
I mean, ish?
The congestion charge was there to tackle congestion (it only delayed it by a decade), and I think they adapted it to then give breaks to EVs. There's also ULEZ which specifically taxes emissions. Saddiq is unfortunately very weak on environmental issues.
Re: (Score:2)
>As many have pointed out, a wholesale switch to EV from ICE will require a significant expansion of the existing electricity grid
This argument doesn't actually hold much water, though, because for one utilities are constantly working on their infrastructure already - it's not like demand for electricity hasn't been growing all this time - and for two utilities are aware of and have been considering the deployment of EVs for over a decade at this point. Yes, the electrical grid will need upgrades... but
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. There will just be "exceptions" to the law for certain connected people/groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Great news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily (Score:4, Informative)
1. ICE vehicles use 20-50lbs of copper.
2. Copper doesn't need to be mined necessarily; it can be recycled.
3. Technology changes. As certain commodities get more expensive, substitutes or workarounds are found.
Re: (Score:2)
So create more copper with all that free solar energy and nuclear fusion. Sheesh... do I have to think of everything for you?
Re: (Score:2)
The following is my take.
And you look like a fool now, not saying you are.
You have two choices:
1. Get mad at people posting facts that make you look like credulous fool.
2. Get mad at your news sources you trust that made you look like a credulous fool
UID less than half a million, 27 level achievements, and whoever told you there is not enough copper in the world made a to
Cu vs Al wiring (Score:3)
Indeed, Copper is better than Aluminum in some ways, worse in others. For example, nearly all of the elevated wiring in the USA is aluminum with a steel core for strength, as most of the electricity travels along the skin anyways. It actually ends up being like using hydrogen for fuel(though less extreme).
Anyways, strengths of copper:
More ductile/flexible(at a gauge for a given power level)
Doesn't expand/contract as much with temperature change
Lower resistance by gauge(thickness)
Pretty corrosion resistant
Re: (Score:2)
Electrics are still too expensive. If only because there aren't nearly enough used ones in the market.
Will there be enough used ones in the market by 2035? 13 years seems enough to get more of them in there. Also, irrelevant to the situation at hand, because they are not banning the sale of used gasoline vehicles. So new gasoline vehicles can be sold through December 31, 2034, and given the average age of vehicles in the US fleet (over 11 years now) a goodly portion of those vehicles will remain in the used market until 2046.
All assuming the interesting parts of NY aren't underwater and we're all talking ab