California Makes Zero-emission Autonomous Vehicles Mandatory by 2030 (engadget.com) 138
Starting in 2030, California will require all light-duty autonomous vehicles that operate in the state to emit zero emissions. From a report: Signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on Thursday, SB 500 represents the latest effort by the state to limit the sale of new internal combustion vehicles with an eye towards reducing greenhouse emissions. In 2020, Newsom signed an executive order that effectively banned the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035. That same year, the state's Air Resources Board mandated that all new trucks sold in California emit zero emissions by 2045. "We're grateful for California's leadership in ensuring this will be the industry standard," said Prashanthi Raman, head of global government affairs at Cruise, in a statement to Engadget. "The AV industry is primed to lead the way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in cities, and it's why we've operated an all-electric, zero-emissions fleet from the start." Cruise backed SB 500 through its involvement with the Emission Zero Coalition, a group that also includes autonomous delivery startup Nuro.
AV Industry (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The AV club has a lot of political clout!
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing the incriminating evidence they've collected.
Re: (Score:2)
Globally, transportation is in fourth place after agriculture and industrial emissions (although in California in particular, I wouldn't be surprised if transportation was in first or second place). So getting rid of emissions from transportation is still important. It's not like we can just do one thing to solve this pro
Re: AV Industry (Score:3)
AV, not AV (Score:2)
Re:AV, not AV (Score:5, Funny)
Autonomous (Score:2)
There aren't any truly autonomous vehicles in operation though.
Will we see them by 2030?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And the electricity network will magically adapt to the heavier load, ofcourse. Or California turns into a version of Mad Max...
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect this will motivate more homeowners to install solar panels
Re: (Score:2)
In the future dystopia, things run on pig shit.
Too much solar, they need a mix (Re:Autonomous) (Score:2)
I suspect this will motivate more homeowners to install solar panels
There's already government mandates and subsidies driving plenty of people in California to install solar panels. The problem is that the mandates and subsidies do not cover any storage. Homeowners with solar panels on their roof found out that if there is an outage at the utility that they lose power, the solar panels cannot supply power to the home independent from the grid. Because there is a shortage of storage California utilities are constantly trying to manage the power flow in and out of the stat
Re: (Score:2)
>>This seems to be a common theme with Democrats, they create a problem, demand money to fix it, then when that doesn't work then they just demand more money to do more of the wrong thing. Democrats don't want hydro and nuclear power because that would solve the problem. Instead they want to spend money on making the problem worse, and that means more solar power, more windmills, higher energy costs, higher taxes, and more subsidies.
amazing number of strawmen you apply there
I suspect that you would re
Re: (Score:2)
citation: https://www.realclearenergy.or... [realclearenergy.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It appears you didn't read the entire article that was linked at the end of the page you linked to. The Democrat party has no intention to actually see any new nuclear power plants built. All they will do, at best, is keep kicking the can down the road by allowing existing nuclear power plants to remain operating.
Anyone serious about lowering CO2 emissions, and lowering energy costs, will support building new nuclear power plants in large numbers. There are very few Democrats that are serious about both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation definitely needed.
Because that sounds like uneducated, trolly horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I interviewed a lot of drunks who claim honestly that they don't know how they managed to get to their destination. I can only conclude autonomous driving was involved.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called Braille Driving: head in the general direction of your destination, and if you bump into something, then turn away from it. I see lots of odd scrapes on the side of walls; suggesting BD is rampant.
Back to the topic, if the technology is not made safe by the deadline, mass bleep could happen. If they pre-map key roads, then the aut
Re: (Score:3)
The deadline does not say that autonomous driving must be done, only that autonomous vehicles must not use gasoline or diesel. So if they don't make the deadline, then no autonomous driving. Not the end of the world, and will giver gig uber drivers more opportunity to ferry around people too lazy to walk two blocks to the store.
Re: (Score:2)
California has autonomous vehicles operating. They are truly autonomous, but they are geo-bounded to a very small area.
Re: (Score:2)
I am increasingly surprised at colleges, fairgrounds, etc. to see how many of those golf-cart type vehicles are still gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll never get it over the finish line (to 100% I mean) because none of the so-called, inappropriately-named 'AI' junk they use has any capacity whatsoever to reason, a quality which humans have innately and naturally and that most all people take for granted. We don't even understand how 'reasoning' or 'cognition' works, so we can't write software that does that. 'Deep learning algorithms', 'machine learning', and 'neural nets' are single-digit percentages of what a human brain is capable
CA politians (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, California pollution emissions requirements have FORCED compliance from US automakers when nothing else seemed to motivate them
Let's just admit that regulated capitalism is what works best for everybody and move forward, I suspect these requirements will be met regardless of the complaints that are issued from most automakers
If only we could get some love from the Dems to Tesla, instead of union mandated chest thumping, since they have also proven to be a huge motivator for the rest of the auto
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is competition from foreign makers in either cars brought in or cars made locally to their standards. e.g. Japanese [usnews.com] and Korean. [autobytel.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Zero-emissions in autonomous vehicles. At first it read like they were requiring vehicles to be autonomous... I don't think this part is a big deal, almost all the passenger vehicles right now in contention for being fully autonomous are either all electric or hybrid. What's tinier in the story but bigger overall is that 2035 is the date for removing all gasoline and diesel powered vehicles for sale (yes, you can still drive your old car after that date). For trucks, the date will be 2045.
It is a bit am
Re: (Score:2)
Overnight charging in a garage is only feasible if you have a garage
No, overnight charging is only feasible if you have a plug. You can have a plug without a garage.
The cost of adding plugs to the parking spaces at an apartment complex or condo isn't all that much, so it's going to be an easy differentiator to add as demand increases.
For on-street parking, someone's going to make a fortune with something resembling a parking meter with a plug on it. Again, not a huge cost to install and laws like this ensure there will be some demand.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of adding plugs to the parking spaces at an apartment complex or condo
You have to have a parking space at an apartment or condo to have a plug. Seattle (for one) is pushing for zero parking residential construction. The on-street parking is slowly turning into a war zone. Move a lawn chair reserving someone's 'reserved' space and risk getting shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the comedian said he solved his parking problem in San Francisco. He bought a parked car. I had a friend who would once or twice a month have to call towing to get a car removed from her driveway in SF.
Right now, down in San Jose, we have a parking problem in our condo complex. Basically people use their garages for storage, then use their one and only parking space for their car, then put a second car on the street. My own parking space has been used by a neighbor for years now, because I don't r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, I got along well in Helsinki, even if I had to transfer a few times. Also, in the city it's just as easy to walk, it's not spread out. For instance, when I got off the train about a kilometer from work, there were probably 40-50 people going to exactly the same place. In America, you'd probably have 5 people taking mass transit and the rest driving. Yes, even more people drove themselves of course, but the mass transit was a viable option and it was well used and the train, trolley, and busses h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These aren't the rapid chargers, and not designed for Teslas either (the Tesla users use an adapter). So the charge rate is a lot less than Tesla can handle. There are primary Tesla chargers elsewhere on the lot but further away. My car with a 30 mile range takes about 2 and a half hours for a charge; granted it has half the current capacity of some other cars. So a half hour for 200-300 mile range would not be on those chargers for sure, it would have to be a Tesla specific charger or one of their supe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming that autonomous vehicles will even be possible by then; if not, then the law will have no effect, and human-piloted gasoline and diesel vehicles will remain legal for another five years.
There are reasons to autonomous vehicles earlier than human-piloted ones. If we see autonomous vehicles approved by 2030, it's virtually certain we'll see them used in taxi-like services like rideshare. Such cars will see heavier usage than human-piloted ones and so will contribute more to tailpipe emission
Re: (Score:2)
"California Makes Zero-emission Autonomous Vehicles Mandatory by 2030 " ha haha lol 9 years tick tick tick
That's assuming it would actually happen.
This isn't the first time CA said it would mandate strict emission standard, and then postponed it under pressure from auto companies, effectively penalising the one company that took it seriously. I bet every auto company remembered what happened last time, and will count on the mandate being postponed for another 5-10 years by 2029.
Credibility, once lost, is not so easily regained just by pretending nothing happened last time.
Re: (Score:2)
California is the state with a for-profit electrical company, that fails to maintain their power lines, and regularly burns down large swaths of forest when they fail, resulting in power outages.
ftfy, yw
Re: (Score:2)
Does it rain in your state between June and October?
Might be a clue what the difference is...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes those hot and arid states east of the Mississippi.
Re: (Score:2)
there are none so blind as those who will not see
Re: (Score:2)
Texas?
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen California politicians at work. The lights are on. But nobody is home.
ban DEALER ONLY SERVICE as part of that! (Score:2)
ban dealer ONLY SERVICE as part of that!
Electric Grid? (Score:2, Informative)
Did the bill include a rider mandating billions in investment in power generation and distribution? Because despite how much I endorse going to electric cars, we can't just flip a switch and go all electric on such a tight time scale without a massive investment in our electric infrastructure (I've seen estimate that it would need to have 3x current capacity to support an all-electric fleet).
Re: (Score:2)
Did the bill include a rider mandating billions in investment in power generation and distribution?
You're an optimist. Trillions is more likely.
A third of Californians rent, and many of them have no enclosed parking, and many have no off-street parking at all.
Anybody who believes that landlords are going to shell out thousands of dollars per unit for chargers (assuming there is a place to put it) without raising the rent on people living paycheck to paycheck to begin with (and after the last two years, landlords are either on the edge of bankruptcy - or over it) is hallucinating.
But this is, apparently,
To slow, and the wrong approach... (Score:2)
2035 and 2045? That's too damn slow. Just how much more damage will be done to the environment between now and then. There's already been suggestions that fire season won't be a thing anymore by 2030 because, by then, so much of our forests will have been burned away that no more fires will take. That is not acceptable, and EVs need to be rolled out quicker.
But Newsom's approach is bass-ackward. It reminds me of San Francisco's screwed up "transit first" policy which, while I wholeheartedly agree with
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring every gas station in California to install an electric car charging spot is actually a good idea. I don't think that it should necessarily be a supercharger, but it sounds like a great way to expand the charging network.
Of course, you would allow the gas station owner to get a nice cut of the charging fees to make the effort of installing it worthwhile. Who knows, the gas station owner might find that they're making a profit selling snacks to electric car owners and add more chargers.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else think the connection is weird? (Score:3)
Why connect autonomous and electric vehicles? I can't see the two have anything to do with each other. It's not like AVs emit more or less CO2 compared to human-driven vehicles.
Maybe robots don't care about how long it takes to recharge.
Re: (Score:2)
The state transit plan involves a lot of public rail transit for long trips, rather than building more highway lanes, because as it turns out it's a lot cheaper in the long run. But people are going to need to connect to the rail, and one way they will do that is in autonomous app-hailed taxis. These vehicles will make a lot of short, stop-and-go trips through urban areas where automobile emissions are already a concern.
Are emissions of autonomous vehicles a problem? (Score:2)
So, if I read this correctly, all autonomous vehicles on California roads after 2030 have to be zero emissions? Is pollution from autonomous vehicles a real problem in California? What about non-autonomous vehicles?
This makes sense (Score:2)
Wrong title (Score:2)
This title is outright incorrect. Zero emission autonomous vehicles will NOT be mandatory in CA by 2030. That sounds like all vehicles in CA must be zero-emission AV by 2030. That would be impossible in the next 9 years.
This title should read:
"By 2030 autonomous vehicles sold in CA must be zero-emission."
That's entirely manageable by their definition of zero emission and AV.
Re: Wrong title (Score:2)
Correcting myself here:
"By 2030 new autonomous vehicles sold in CA must be zero-emission."
If it's model year 2031 or later, and an AV, it must be zero emission. You can still sell a used gas-burning AV after 2031.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people buy what they can afford at the moment. You can save a lot of money in your life if you have money to begin with. Owning a home is cheaper than renting, Buying a like-new used car that is in good working condition and has a warranty is cheaper than a clunker that constantly needs repairs. Shopping at Costco/Sams and keeping food in your second freezer is cheaper than buying from Dollar Tree. Having capital leads to increasing capital. Having nothing leads to nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If this were the 1980s, that would be a reasonable approach to cars. It isn't. Most old cars these days are very reliable.
For instance, I bought a 10 year old car for $4000 in 2008, and in the 11 years I owned it the total repair costs were under $1000. It also got a lot better gas mileage than newer cars.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but there is also a point where the TCO is much higher than it is to just get a newer car.
So if companies are in transition to all Electric by 2030 to meet California standards. By 2029 they will be only a small few New ICE Cars created. But by 2040 trying to find a good used ICE car is going to get harder to find all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect many would continue to drive an older pickup rather than any newer but smaller EV.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you save money by buying used ICE vehicles?
Insurance on a 8 year old $10k vehicle is lower than on a 0 year old $60k vehicle. I used to have to do this kind of math in order to stretch my limited budget.
Re: (Score:3)
> How would you save money by buying used ICE
> vehicles?
It's not always about saving money. There is still a decently-sized contingent of people in California who spend the extra money to maintain and drive pre-1975 beaters, pouring lead-replacement additives in with every tank when they fill up, because smog checks and unleaded gas are something something about communism. In other states, these are the same people who would be blocking superchargers with their pickup trucks and modding them to "rol
Re: (Score:2)
California is not stopping you from driving your old ICE Car in 2030, just making the sales of new ICE cars illegal.
Just like you stated people are still driving and trading used pre 1975 cars with leaded gasoline, and optional seat-belts. When you get your car approved each year, if you have an old car, many of the new rules and regulations do not apply.
Also wait for Electric Pickup Trucks to get on the market, that will probably fix the people blocking superchargers, as when they get back they find thei
Re: if you don't like it (Score:2)
Those numb nuts are running a state that is doing a better job at GDP than all the others. Almost as good as #2 & #3 combined. Have been for decades. Also Cali has unintentionally and indirectly lead and set the fuel standards in the US for the last 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
TCO won't have anything to do with the decision.
My money is on seismic disruptions to the gas distribution network driving people to go electric rather than deal with the flailing death of that industry.
The industry around gasoline is very competitive and has thin margins already. Once a few regional chains go belly-up because they can't survive a 10% drop in customers as people move to BEVs, the remaining ICE drivers will be forced to go to other chains, making them busier with longer lines. And likely in
Re: (Score:2)
I for one, welcome the opportunity to buy a used EV along with a reasonably priced replacement battery pack
And yes, I am sufficiently "full of myself" to believe I can drive as well as an automated system
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I am sufficiently "full of myself" to believe I can drive as well as an automated system
I used to develop a component for the self driving industry. I believe that you can drive better than an automated system. On the other hand, parents may want these systems because most teenage beginning drivers are worse than SAE Level 3 and higher. And the younger generation just isn't all that interested in driving, their social groups can already meet up without cars, unlike my generation where a car was an important part of teenage life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's true that never getting experience is a problem. but don't forget that people could learn to drive through simulators or under more controlled circumstances than we used to do in old days. I was driving at 15 and bought my first car at 16 and was coming home after dark almost every night (northern latitude in the winter time).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. driving simulators have been used for research and studies for about two decades now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While not for teenagers, simulators have been used in truck school for many years. And Iowa College of Engineering (largest driving simulation center in the world) has many case studies of drivers of all ages including teenagers. If you're looking for some American state with simulation training for new drivers, that requirement does not exist. Such a lack in legislation doesn't automatically confirm your premature conclusion of course.
There are several companies providing training simulators. These can be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite. This stuff was related to my old job, I've switched to something else though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Such delusion FUD to spread, your shame is apparent in using AC to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that gasoline is safe by any means, but we have a lot of experience at this point keeping it from exploding when we don't want it to explode.
My hybrid SUV has a big battery pack with a lot of potential energy - inside the passenger compartment - inches from where my children are tethered. Crashed Teslas have burst into flames, then burst into flames again long after being extinguished.
Not saying I wouldn't buy an electric car (can't afford it), but it's something to think about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
With a snap of your fingers, Thanos?
Re: (Score:3)
Want to save the Earth? Kill off between half and three quarters of the population. Stop vaccinating people. Stop providing assistance to areas experiencing drought and famine. Let people die. Fewer people means fewer resources used means less pollution. Oh, wait... You meant "save the Earth for humans".
I'm taking this as sarcasm, but the people who emit the highest amounts of CO2 and cause global warming aren't the same people dying in poor parts of the world. The world could lose the poorer half of its population and it wouldn't make a dent in green house gasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Want to save the Earth? Kill off between half and three quarters of the population. Stop vaccinating people. Stop providing assistance to areas experiencing drought and famine. Let people die. Fewer people means fewer resources used means less pollution.
That will backfire, badly. People who have a moderate level of wealth and education, enough that they can be certain that their children are going to live to adulthood, have few children and invest heavily in them. People whose lives are uncertain have large families. Drought and famine isn't going to kill enough people to substantially reduce CO2 emissions (especially since the people who will die are those who already generate the least CO2), but it will create more population, and the refugees will dest
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that it bears mentioning that most visions offered by 'green' political parties require significant reductions in populations since they deny the use of nuclear power
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's true.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be less obvious these days, but from the early 70's through the next couple decades (until solar and wind become a majority share of energy generation), the green movement (including greenpeace) have been so anti nuclear that they forced the world into a position where we would either fail to provide food for our population, OR rely heavily on coal power generation
The US, under President Carter (a nuclear engineer who would have preferred nuclear generation) was forced by greenpeace and other peopl
Re: (Score:2)
* Until the number of Gas Stations drop to service only a few locations, where you need to travel 10 - 20 miles to get a fill.
* Also there is going to become a point where your aging ICE care will be much more expensive to maintain, finding replacement parts to keep it going will get much more difficult.
* Garages who will be able to fix your car, will have skills and supply chain transition to EV market.
* Your car will just be a junker while everyone else has fancy new car (if it is going to be your daily d
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly think that you're going to be able to buy a used fully autonomous gas powered vehicle by 2030 that isn't just some one-off prototype?
I'd be stunned if any fully autonomous vehicles were actually available for retail purchase by then, gas OR electric powered. This is just some more stupid green virtue signing from Governor Newsom.
Re: (Score:2)
oh you poor deluded troll, whatever motivated you to single out rsilvergun?
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't been able to find the exact details of SB500. If I am registered in Arizona, can California prevent me from using my vehicle in California?
I would think there has to be some federal law blocking them from doing so.
Answered my own question https://leginfo.legislature.ca... [ca.gov]
(i) (1) Commencing January 1, 2030, TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED BY FEDERAL LAW, any autonomous vehicle with a model year of 2031 or later and a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 8,501 pounds shall only be operated pursuant to a deployment permit pursuant to Article 3.8 (commencing with Section 228.00) of Chapter 1 of Division 1 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations if the vehicle is a zero-emission vehicle, as defined in Section 4425
Re: (Score:2)
any autonomous vehicle with a model year of 2031 or later and a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 8,501 pounds
Sounds like you'll be OK if it's not autonomous or weights at least 8501 pounds. Bro trucks [staticflickr.com] FTW!
Back during the Obama administration, it was rumored that the federal emissions/mileage standards would be tightened up for cars and light trucks. Our local GM dealer began ordering some of these and couldn't keep the on the lot. Very popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically Arizona is a an interesting example, since U-Haul for example is headquartered in Arizona precisely to be able to license all their trucks nationally under Arizona law.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether it's legal or not, once all vehicles have to be zero emissions in 2035, good luck buying gasoline in California.
(And good luck charging your electric car. Changing all vehicles to electric will double the load on the grid, and we're already experiencing rolling blackouts.)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.waste360.com/recyc... [waste360.com]