New York To Mandate Zero-Emission Vehicles in 2035 (thehill.com) 184
All new vehicles purchased in New York will need to be zero-emission models beginning in 2035, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announced on Thursday. From a report: "We're really putting our foot down on the accelerator and revving up our efforts to make sure we have this transition -- not someday in the future, but on a specific date, a specific year -- by the year 2035," Hochul said at a press conference in White Plains, N.Y. After careening into the Chester-Maple Parking Lot in a white Chevy Bolt, Hochul announced a series of new electric vehicle (EV) initiatives for the state, beginning with the zero-emission requirement for 2035. To reach this target, she said that 35 percent of new cars will need to be zero-emission by 2026 and 68 percent by 2030.
All new school buses purchased will have to be zero-emission by 2027, with the entire fleet meeting these standards by 2035, according to the governor. "We actually have benchmarks to achieve, to show we're on the path to get there," Hochul said, stressing that the changes would not occur suddenly. New York is following in the footsteps of California in mandating zero-emissions vehicles by the year 2035. "We had to wait for California to take a step because there's some federal requirements that California had to go first -- that's the only time we're letting them go first," the governor said.
All new school buses purchased will have to be zero-emission by 2027, with the entire fleet meeting these standards by 2035, according to the governor. "We actually have benchmarks to achieve, to show we're on the path to get there," Hochul said, stressing that the changes would not occur suddenly. New York is following in the footsteps of California in mandating zero-emissions vehicles by the year 2035. "We had to wait for California to take a step because there's some federal requirements that California had to go first -- that's the only time we're letting them go first," the governor said.
Ready or Not!! (Score:4, Insightful)
We're going to mandate all our vehicles change from ICE to other forms....whether we and our grid are ready or not.
(We'll deal with the fallout then....what the hell, I won't be in office then)
Re:Ready or Not!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Hyper-Loop for all transport would be best. We could even fit some automobile/cars into the pods. Faster than trains AND planes (potentially).
The problem with Trains vs Planes is the cost of a train exceeds the cost of a plane, and is slower and doesn't have as many destination options. Planes are exceptionally efficient.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At least prior to COVID, it was the URBAN areas that actually carried the rural parts of the US on their bloody backs. We paid $500 billion a year sending military scum all over the world. Each year of that BS between 2001 and 2019 could have bought 10,000 miles of electrified rail, 50 nuclear power plants, free/cheap university education for those who wanted it, but we chose to toss it down the military toilet. Yay for 'murkah!
Canada has worse public transit (next to no electrified passenger rail, even
Re: Ready or Not!! (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s a leap from âoeurban areas carry ruralâ to blaming the rural areas for the war on terror.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, by all means...do what will make your life HAPPY and fulfilling.
Obviously, if you want socialism, etc....then the US is not for you.
It never has been, and God willing, it never will be.
That to give those of us a choice that want the individual to be the f
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, cattle ARE quite civically responsible, aren't they?
Re: (Score:2)
It literally was not. TBC is actively pursuing it. In the process of laying out the Hyperloop Alpha proposal however the main complaint was that it didn't go into cities, so TBC is putting more focus on Loop first (in-town) before Hyperloop (between cities). But they have been seeking approval for Hyperloop routes.
And I'm sorry, but if the system you're working on is so financially inefficient and bloated and unpopular that there mere existence of someone proposing an alternative technology IN ITS INFANCY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China, France, UK are all planning new nuclear capacity. Are they less rational than the US? Nuclear power is actually the safest form of power as far as deaths per kilowatt-hour.
And yes, I do have a choice. I can leave this rotten skankhole of a cuntery and move to France, that's not run by cowards who want to decentralize everything that's fun away.
Re: (Score:2)
What in your views are the benefits of centralization that we lose if we go more de-centralized?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
(We'll deal with the fallout then .... what the hell, I won't be in office then)
Yep. None of the people pushing this crap will be around when it all goes to shit.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! What, exactly does everything going to shit mean to you? Is this the fantasy where civilization collapses and you and your incel buddies take charge and rule over the remains?
Yeah, we found out what will actually happen after you self-described "preppers" were asked to just stay in for a couple weeks. What a joke!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, ICE vehicles will help [electrek.co] to stabilize [slashdot.org] the grid. So I wouldn't worry.
But it would also make sense to require ICE vehicles to be able to act as whole house generators. You just couldn't park it in your garage when it's hooked up like that due to possible carbon monoxide accumulation.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A 2-way (or "oxidation", sometimes called an "oxi-cat") catalytic converter has two simultaneous tasks:
Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2 CO + O2 â' 2 CO2
Oxidation of hydrocarbons (unburnt and partially burned fuel) to carbon dioxide and water: CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2] O2 â' x CO2 + (x+1) H2O (a combustion reaction)
This type of catalytic converter is widely used on diesel engines to reduce hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions. They were also used on gasoline engines in American- and Canadian-market automobiles until 1981. Because of their inability to control oxides of nitrogen, they were superseded by three-way converters.
Newer catalytic converters will manage NOx emissions but catalytic converters have been used to minimize CO emissions from the beginning. No doubt the CO is also reduced from the optimization of the combustion but the catalytic converter was likely the first system used to reduce CO emissions and is still used to lower CO emissions from what gets by the first systems for reducing CO.
Re:Ready or Not!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the grid won't be ready for all new cars to be electric in 2035, then it just won't be ready. Incrementally, we are talking about a less drastic change than, say, the mass availability of air conditioning, and the grid grew to accommodate without too much drama.
Note that is *new* cars, so up to half of the cars on the road would still be gas in 2045 (average age of a car is over a decade, the average car on the road today is older than the first Tesla Model S).
Of course, that assumes that the administration in, say, 2033 doesn't postpone or cancel the deadline...
Re: Ready or Not!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a fair point. For Cobalt and Nickel there's at least LFP, but alternatives to Lithium are not yet materialized, and ramping up the mining is a tricky prospect. We have the resources identified, but expanding mining is an enviornmental, regulatory and logistical nightmare.
Of course, that didn't stop petroleum extraction when we decided we just *really* needed it. Also, while we haven't hit the viable Lithium alternative for having batteries of comparable size/weight, at least there are options for
Re:Ready or Not!! (Score:5, Informative)
The grid is ready today, at least at the aggregate level. There may be isolated areas that need upgrades, but the system overall could handle this now.
The grid is sized for peak load, which takes place at around 6pm. The peak load is generally at least 50% more than the overnight load. I haven't attempted to do the the actual math, but eyeballing the charts here [eia.gov], you have to figure that at least 25% of the grid capacity is unused, and available provided you charge at off-peak times.
Americans drive about 3.2 trillion miles per year, and a Tesla uses about 0.24 kWh per mile. So we'd need about 800 billion kWh per year to power everybody. Total electricity consumption in the US is about 3.8 trillion kWh per year. 20% of that is 950 billion kWh. So the current spare capacity on the grid is enough for everybody to drive an EV.
As I said, this is in aggregate. It could be that some local grids require upgrades. But 10 years is plenty of time for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A move like this would mean something quite different in say Wyoming where people drive over twice as many miles per year on average and there is no public transport and everything is out of walking distance.
Re: (Score:2)
Night time generation tends to not be green generation (it's for sure not solar).
It's the mix of "we're going electric with our cars" combined with "we're removing the reliable base load night-time generation methods" that makes some of us sit and scratch our head.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Peak wind generation is at night, though.
And that actually presents a huge opportunity. There would need to be a way to dynamically change the charging rate for the cars, but if you have enough of them you can use the combination of wind and cars to simulate reliable base load power.
Most of the time you don't need your car to be fully charged every morning. Keep it at around 50% and you can suck up energy when it's plentiful, and forego charging for a day or so if the supply is low.
Combine that with a sli
Re:Ready or Not!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ready or Not!! (Score:5, Interesting)
> And that actually presents a huge opportunity.
You're not the only one who's noticed... [ny.gov]
The most expensive offshore development rights lease in US history took place back in February.... for wind power off the coast of NY/NJ. The target is 9,000 megawatts by 2035.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, in order to "sell" this thing to the masses, you have GOT to quit thinking that the average person will do or wants to spend time actually thinking about how much charge they have in a car, to strategically plan out if they only need 50% on a given day vs a full charge for going on a long trip.
You need
Re:Ready or Not!! (Score:4, Informative)
As I said, this is in aggregate. It could be that some local grids require upgrades. But 10 years is plenty of time for that.
We've been trying to get our local grid fixed where we don't get blackouts every summer for twenty years. Ten years really is a drop in the bucket unless the state is willing to cough up the funds to dig up the roads and bury larger wires.
The problem is, there are a lot of neighborhoods that were put in back in the 1970s, when 60-amp service was the standard for homes. That won't cut it anymore, because people want air conditioners, they want EVs, etc. Even hundred-amp service is pushing it for people who want both, and that's the norm for most houses now. And when California decides to phase out natural-gas-powered clothes dryers, even 100-amp service likely may not cut it.
Don't get me wrong, this does need to happen, but I think folks drastically underestimate the cost of fixing California's last mile, and there needs to be money available from the state to subsidize the cost of making it happen, because when it comes to running new power lines under neighborhood streets, all those thousands of miles of roads aren't going to dig up and repave themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thermostats should be limited to 78ÂF for ACs ... Americans have a nasty tendency to be profligate with cooling.
78 is downright miserable even if you're not doing anything. Nobody is going to want to come home to a house that's 78. If anything the whole "turn your thermostat up to 78" nonsense is why we have grid stability problems in the late afternoon, when everybody's thermostats turn their houses cooler so that they'll be a tolerable temperature when they get home.
Both from a grid stability perspective and from a green energy perspective, we'd be much better off if people kept their houses somewhat cooler durin
Re: (Score:2)
78 is fine if you're healthy and not morbidly obese. Especially at lower humidity.
Americans are such pathetic wimps. Also, setback thermostats have been a thing for 40+ years.
Re: (Score:2)
78 is fine if you're healthy and not morbidly obese. Especially at lower humidity.
Lower humidity? In California? Surely you jest. Maybe inland, but the population is mostly on the coast.
Re: (Score:2)
LoL...I had the same thoughts...and I live in New Orleans. We know a thing or two about humidity.
And while it is pretty extreme here....you have pretty high humidity ANYWHERE in the SE of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ready or Not!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep...
We're going to mandate all our vehicles change from ICE to other forms....whether we and our grid are ready or not.
(We'll deal with the fallout then....what the hell, I won't be in office then)
Of all the complaints about EVs this always strikes me as the strangest.
Power demand has been rapidly increasing, both total and per-capita, since we invented power plants. Why does the invention of EVs suddenly break this trend.
If anything, EVs are one of the nicer new loads we can add to the grid [scientificamerican.com]. Unlike virtually every other significant source of power demand we actually have a lot of flexibility when we charge EVs. Not only can we charge off-hours when demand is low (or noon, when solar generation is hi
Re: (Score:2)
^^^
To a point. Gas stations typically can't pump gas during a blackout ... this was actually a huge problem after Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
And yes, we should be powering the grid from cleaner sources of energy. And yes, this includes nuclear power, no matter how much the anti-science cowards argue otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go you one better, a real hurricane...IDA.
That knocked down all transmission lines into the greater New Orleans area and suburbs.
There was NO power at all for a huge metropolitan area for over a month...and longer for other areas.
Stores and even gas stations, came back up with gasoline powered generators.
Individuals could drive outside the dark zone and bring gas i
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with EV mandates is that this is putting a much greater increase on demand. Looking at energy usage now we see that roughly 1/3rd is electricity, 1/3rd is transportation, and the last 1/3rd is things like heating, industry, and other smaller portions of total demand. If we shift all of our transportation to electric then that is doubling electrical demand, assuming no other changes in demand. This isn't calling for all transportation to shift to electric but even 10% of transport going electric is going to make a big shift in future electrical demand.
From the article I posted: EV charging currently accounts for less than 1 percent of the grid’s total load during peak hours. In 2030, when the number of EVs in California is expected to surpass 5 million, charging is projected to account for less than 5 percent of that load, said Buckley, who described it as a “small amount” of added demand.
California had about 18m vehicles in 2010 [dot.gov], so maybe 25 million in 2035?
Assume every last vehicle was electric then 25%, far from doubling.
Charging up EVs isn't going to move peak demand but it will move total demand quite a bit. That might mean we don't need more power plants or more power lines but it does mean what is there has to work a bit harder. With cars that burn gasoline a power outage means people can still drive to work, use the car to shelter in place, or get out of town for a bit. If the cars are all electric then that makes a power outage a far bigger issue, needing faster responses and moving more resources.
The "work a
Re: (Score:3)
Assume every last vehicle was electric then 25%, far from doubling.
Um, yes, I was saying double would be a worst case (or best case?) scenario if all transport moved to EVs. That means every plane, train, and automobile. The rate of increase in electrical demand will go up if there's a shift to battery-electric vehicles. There's an increase in demand just because of more people and then by mandating a shift to battery-electric vehicles we see that increase in demand go up even more because now people are charging BEVs instead of buying gasoline.
Also remember that it takes less oil to run a power plant to charge an EV than using that oil in an ICE directly.
And like I said, that 25% number literally assumed every last vehicle in California went EV (and probably overestimated the number of vehicles). Based on that article (which could be wrong) the doubling estimate doesn't seem realistic.
The "work a bit harder" doesn't really matter.
Of course it matters. If this electricity is from fossil fuels then that means more fuel. If this electricity is from renewable energy then it means added capacity because the capacity factor is set by the wind and sun, not by an operator pushing a throttle. Power transmission is about peak demand. Power generation is about peak demand when dealing with something that burns fuel like natural gas, coal, or even uranium. If the intention is to shift to renewable energy while also shifting to battery-electric vehicles then it's not about peak demand any more, or not only peak demand, the energy produced is now proportional to peak power output.
That's not quite right. Power generation is always about peak demand since that's the generation infrastructure you need to build, renewables included.
The fun part
Re: (Score:2)
Get ready... or get left behind. Progress will continue with or without you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you wait for the grid to be ready, you will be waiting forever.
The grid can't wait until 2035 but it will be okay (Score:2)
There is no way that the transition to EVs will take another 13 years. We will hit the crossover point, where over half of all cars sold are EVs, within about three years.
EVs are on an "S-curve" of disruption and are in the fast part of the curve now. You would have to use the power of government to force people to stop buying EVs to change it now.
This video makes the case. If you are impatient skip to around 12 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e9BwVOmFZ8 [youtube.com]
I'm an EV early adopter. And I just go
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. All the targets are ludicrously far in the future.
ICE boxes are only sensible for a niche market now, and won't make any sense for anyone in two years.
Re: (Score:2)
So based on your final statement, about 45% of the US is buying his fear mongering.
Transit vs Teslas (Score:2)
Good step, I hope this won't be used as an argument for disinvestment in transit and electric trains. "Electric cars are clean enough." Or against things like congestion charging.
Even if electric cars are less polluting (depending on how the electricity is generated), they're still extremely SPACE inefficient, and maintaining roads is in itself polluting.
Save our trains!
Re: (Score:2)
Good step, I hope this won't be used as an argument for disinvestment in transit and electric trains. "Electric cars are clean enough."
Found the person who's never been to NYC. No, this won't be an argument against mass transit, the MTA does a good-enough job of that by itself.
Crime on the trains has increased post-covid. Fares go up while routes go down. They get millions of dollars in subsidies every year from the state, and construction projects that get granted go way over time and over budget 100% of the time....and yes, we're talking about a "sin tax" (i.e. congestion charging) to make up the MTA's budget deficit. All of that said, t
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah blah.
I've lived in NYC for 12+ years, and ride the subways and buses regularly ... I honestly don't see a huge crime problem compared to 2019, and I routinely ride transit home late at night. I'm just not a coward like you, apparently. Stop beLIEving everything that the trash media like the NY Post and Daily News feed you.
BTW - I'm all for the congestion charge. Soak the drivers with a bucket of ice water. But, yes, increase service, implement CBTC on all lines, get rid of conductors and use t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not now? (Score:2)
> All new school buses purchased will have to be zero-emission by 2027
It's surprising this isn't happening already...
1) lots of stop and start where EVs kill it compared to ICE
2) in-city driving where the quiet EVs will be a serious public relations
3) huge areas under the cabin for batteries
4) low duty-cycle use - 1.5 hours then 5 off then 1.5 hours, lots of time to recharge even at Level 2
Re: (Score:2)
My bus route in high school was 65 miles from garage to school, then 13 miles back to the garage. Can the electric bus do that with tire chains through snow at -20 F? This is New York State, not Georgia.
What about cabin heat? Powered off the batteries or have a small oil furnace?
Re: (Score:2)
Other than in extremely rural areas (basically the US West), such long commutes to school should be avoided. Build more local/neighborhood schools.
I wonder if the cabin heat issue can mostly be avoided with a well-insulated cabin, pre-heating, and "air lock" doors. A child at rest emits around 50W of heat. Multiply this by 40 and you get 2kW of heat for "free." Batteries and motors aren't 100% efficient, so you get some heat for "free" there as well.
Re: Why not now? (Score:2)
Are you fucking kidding me?
I live in the city of Pittsburgh. The school is about 5 miles away. The school district expects my kid to make a 75 minute bus ride to get there. Yes! Pickup at 615 am, drop off at 800 am.
Fuck that! I can drive him there in the car in 15 minutes and be home in another 15 minutes...or less...which is exactly what I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why not now? (Score:2)
Yeah. Like I'm going to put a kindergartener on a city bus, full of the type of people that ride a city bus. Get real.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why not now? (Score:2)
If my kid is 10 and still in kindergarten, the little fucker deserves to ride the bus with the rest of the losers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The answer to your question is yes. They can.
You'd prefer to buy a cheaper bus with smaller batteries, but a bus is a big flat floor that can hold a LOT of batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
It kills me when I see urban diesel school buses. All your points above are good, but you miss the really big one: Diesel buses pollute like crazy, and idle in front of our schools, where tiny people we care about walk around them at tailpipe-height.
Re: (Score:2)
They've tried this with tractors (Score:5, Insightful)
In farm country all new tractors are sold with pretty intense emissions systems and scrubbers (because, you know, NOx is a huge issue in rural north dakota). The SCR costs a fair amount to charge, and the added complexity (and expense to fix that complexity) makes it very difficult for small and medium sized farmers to use the new equipment.
So what has happened? The market for used equipment has exploded. A tractor produced before the standard went into place costs appreciably more now than it did when it was new, driven by demand from farmers that can't accommodate the newer emission equipment. I expect the same will happen with highway vehicles, you'll see a robust market for used parts unless electrics are truly ready for prime time (maybe they will be, but it's just as possible they remain very expensive and the price of electricity makes them prohibitively expensive to run).
In any case, the burden of it will almost certainly fall on the lower class and lower middle class. They're least able to absorb the cost, and lose the most proportional to their income to either comply or skirt the laws. It makes much more sense to do this by using subsidies and letting natural attrition do its work, rather than hard mandates in my opinion. At least until the population of ICE vehicles has declined appreciably.
Re: (Score:3)
Electrics are ready for prime time in every way except cost and that all comes down to battery production capacity and we that is going to shake out in the next 2-5 years.
Really all other aspects of electric cars are known and fairly mature technology. We know big automakers can produce the vehichles themselves in enough numbers, they're less complex than modern ICE vehichles, the only bottleneck in terms of production and price is battery packs.
Seems as though every major automaker in the past 18 months h
Re: (Score:2)
same thing in the long haul trucking biz. Everyone wants a pre-2000 chassis
because they are not mandated to carry all the tracking bullshit.
Re:They've tried this with tractors (Score:4, Informative)
So what has happened? The market for used equipment has exploded. A tractor produced before the standard went into place costs appreciably more now than it did when it was new, driven by demand from farmers that can't accommodate the newer emission equipment. I expect the same will happen with highway vehicles, you'll see a robust market for used parts unless electrics are truly ready for prime time (maybe they will be, but it's just as possible they remain very expensive and the price of electricity makes them prohibitively expensive to run).
Your post is great except for the final part in parenthesis. I had a Nissan Leaf between 2013 and 2016 and based on my electricity bill, I was paying about $1 a day to drive it approximately 42 miles round trip between home and work. I estimate I needed 3 gallons of gasoline per day for the same drive. At the time gas was approximately $2 a gallon, so the electric car was a big win for me in terms of cost to drive. It also didn't need a single repair during the time I leased it. I wish I could make the same claim about my gasoline powered car during those years. I loved the Leaf and so did all my friends, but I needed to get down to one car when the lease ran out and my parents lived about 120 miles from me so the Leaf wasn't practical (estimated range was 90 miles on a full charge). I ended up getting a new gasoline powered car but my experience owning an EV was great and I would get one again.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt your experience is what most people have experienced, which is that over the last decade or so an EV was hands down cheaper to charge than a similar gas vehicle was to fuel up. No question.
I work in the utility industry, and this year has been pretty brutal for electricity prices. Most people don't have any idea because their electric bills are typically fixed rate for several years, but at some point the cost of power is trued up and paid for. Wholesale power prices have been, on average
Re: (Score:2)
1. Electric cars have lower maintenance costs. Very low brake usage due to regenerative braking, only 2-3 moving parts in the motor and transmission.
2. Higher energy costs (EV driving not being essentially free) will encourage people to buy more efficient, lighter electric cars (like Leaf, Tesla Model 3, VW ID3) vs 5000 lb+ behemoth SUVs that seem to be the norm in the USA.
Um... all new tractors are like that (Score:3)
Plus, the cost of the medical treatment from breathing all that smog far outweighs the cost of switching. If you're on
Re: (Score:2)
Given a properly-designed electric car (modular battery units), it should actually be more durable and easier to repair than an ICE car. Electric motor: 1 moving part, 100 lb. ICE: dozens of moving parts, 300+ lb. EV transmission: two gears, under 50 lb. ICE transmission: 100+ lb, many moving parts. Once we start selling non-luxe electric cars, basically the EV equivalent of a Honda Civic or Hyundai Elantra, repair should be easier. A lot of the problems with (say) Teslas aren't intrinsic to them bei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are partially right, but not for the reason I think you think you are.
Any body / interior parts are essentially the same in an EV as in a ICE vehicle. Suspension / brakes / tires should be purchased new in any case. That leaves any work on the engine (yes, the EV also has an engine) and transmission. There simply aren't that many parts you need to replace. There is no transmission, no exhaust system, no air intake system. The Chevy Bolt EV engine has a total of 18 moving parts, and that includes every b
Banning the sale, not the ownership (Score:2)
The ICE car dealers of MA, CT, NJ, and PA are looking forward Jan 1, 2035.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't see why. They'll be out of business by then, since nobody is going to be buying ICE cars after 2025 or so. Only idiots buy gas burners if they can make an EV work for them.
And EVs don't have that recurring revenue model that gas cars do. No brake jobs (mostly), no muffler replacement, no oil replacement, no new plugs or wires, fewer air filter replacements, and just generally much fewer repairs, if you adjust for the time-on-market of the car companies/models involved. The service desk is not goin
Political posturing FTW! Screw reality! (Score:2)
Anyone proposing legislation that doesn't mandate a change until 10+ years in the future is feeding you a line of B.S.
By the time 2035 rolls around, how many of the original proponents of the legislation do you figure will still be in office, calling the shots? Any legislation like this is subject to change if someone else takes control and decides it needs to be postponed, struck down, or modified.
But even putting that aside for a minute? America's entire financial system is based on essentially free marke
Re: (Score:3)
Every problem you cited though comes downn to one thing, one real problem to be solved, battery production and that answer is Coming in the next 5 years.
Honda and LG have announced a $4B plant in NC
GM and LG announced 3 more battery plants with a $2.5B DOE Loan (free markets?)
Panasonic announced a $4B plant in Kansas and already looking at another in OK
Samsung and Stellanis announce $2.5B plant in Indiana
Toyota doing a $2.5B battery expansion
Tesla is already working on announced more gigafactories
And that's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if you could jump on a moderately fast electric train (say averaging 120 mph -- a train is an EV with essentially unlimited range) from California to Utah, then use an app to rent an EV for the last 100-150 miles of your trip.
How many people have RVs? Why can't people camp the old-school way, with a tent that's packed in their car? Given fast enough recharge times, you'd just have to stop for half an hour every 200 miles -- not the end of the world. Maybe we'll bring back the eat-in roadside dine
Slashdot, home of the luddites. (Score:5, Insightful)
EVs are coming, get onboard. A view of the future for you:
The price of fuel will keep going up.
Charging time will go down.
The powergrid will grow to deal with the load.
EVs will get cheaper, and have longer range.
You will own an EV. (Unless you REALLY like driving 20+ year old cars.)
You will probably even like your EV.
Re: (Score:3)
Am I weird that I want an electric 20+ year old car?
I basically want an NA Miata with 150hp electric drivetrain, but none of the tracking and nannyfeatures of (say) a Tesla. Keep weight under 2700 lb, which should be possible -- although a battery is heavy, an electric motor and one-speed transmission are much lighter than an ICE + multi-speed transmission.
Most electric cars in the US are bloat-barges loaded with unnecessary safety/comfort features. Most aren't even cars -- they're SUVs with the form fact
Re: (Score:2)
Am I weird that I want an electric 20+ year old car?
I really want a Citi car. (1974-1977)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a used leaf for $9k. It's not a fun car to drive, but it's WAY, WAY cheap to drive. If it's for driving around town, the range is FINE.
Hell, you can get an i-Miev for $7k, and depending on the sate, get a subsidy which lowers that number.
Re: Slashdot, home of the luddites. (Score:2)
My current car is a 2007. So that's what, 15 years old already.
I recently put $15K into it...so I expect to drive it another 10 years if i live that long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cheap cars from China are coming. And a bunch of them are going to aim for $20k - $25k.
It's going to be the 70's and Japan all over again.
The protectionist rebate in the "Inflation" law will slow that down somewhat, but it's not going to stop it.
USPS (Score:2)
Good thing the USPS adjusted their order for electric postal tucks from 10% to 50%, but I still feel they could have gone with a more elegant design:
https://www.caranddriver.com/n... [caranddriver.com]
Re: (Score:3)
a more elegant design
It's utilitarian. Form follows function. Great forward visibility, even of very short pedestrians. Just enough of a hood to access maintenance points without a cabover design. What's wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong? It's really expensive and it's not a commodity car. I live in a city and most of the USPS vehicles are commodity cars. DeJoy is burning money intentionally to cripple the USPS. He should have bought a bunch of Bolts with left-hand drive for the first purchase year, and not made any commitments for next year in this rapidly changing product-space.
In NYC, where will all the EV's plugin ? (Score:2)
Re:CA and NY are having a contest (Score:4, Insightful)
On the bright side, owning a car dealership on the New York/Pennsylvania border will likely be SUPER profitable if they actually end up going through with this.
Odds are that whoever is in charge of the New York government in 2034 will realize that electric car adoption isn't as far along as they hoped, and will postpone the "ban" for a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spoiler alert: It's Florida
Re: (Score:2)
I so want to say "Dude, have you BEEN to Alabama?" But I've been to Alabama and Florida and... OK, well, you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been studied extensively and the consensus is:
Most industry experts agree that the nation's electrical grid is up to the task of supporting EVs. However, successful EV adoption will rely not only on investments in the grid itself, but also on how and when EV drivers use it to charge their vehicles.
"The simple answer is yes," says Jeff Allen, executive director of Forth, an EV advocacy group. The full answer is a little more complicated. "I think what the California situation highlighted is that we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)