OT: CA Gov. Newsom bans sale of gas powered cars in 2035.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Clean39T

It isn't just that demand is high, it's that there are times during the year when those plants have to be there - at least with the current and likely 10-15 year state of our energy infrastructure. The capacity factors (how often the plants run) are going down for gas and coal plants anyway, but they are important facilities for grid reliability. Unless we as a society are willing to make drastic changes in our patterns of consumption, then we still need natural gas infrastructure for those couple of weeks each year where a high-pressure system in the Northwest brings cold temps and zero wind. We can shut down the coal plants and some of the dirtier gas plants in the west - but we need to replace them with a whole lotta wind and solar, and some long-duration storage, like pumped hydro. That is quite expensive - but it's worth doing. The alternative is an unlivable planet, so, uhh... maybe we close some tax loopholes and just get it done?

Thoughtful response(s). My point (and we may not be far apart) is that “car culture” is the problem - any car.

[bikinchris]

Seeing all these people who think generating electricity is dirty, but have no idea what is needed to keep billions of gallons of refined gasoline in the system is interesting.

[pasadena]

Originally Posted by xxtwindad

well, that explains a lot. I wanted a trailer for my two daughters. So, i posted “daddy seeking burley hook-up.” i got bombarded with answers, but it turns out i posted it to the wrong site. 😉

lol

[pasadena]

Originally Posted by bikinchris

Seeing all these people who think generating electricity is dirty, but have no idea what is needed to keep billions of gallons of refined gasoline in the system is interesting.

all internet arguments go to the extreme.
IRL, there is no either/or. You can and should be able to do both.
What the timetable does is create a lot of waste and forces hardships on many Californians.
It also creates a slew of major problems.

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Thoughtful response(s). My point (and we may not be far apart) is that “car culture” is the problem - any car.

Well, energy policy is kind of my thing - tracking it, not making it. I'm trying to share here, but at a level that is more easily digested. There are no easy answers to how to power our industrial society without destroying our planet. Anyone who thinks there are does not understand physics, politics, or personal behavior (among many other things that don't happen to start with P so I'm not listing them).

Yes, car culture is a problem - but it also is deeply embedded in our daily lives, even in Zoom Town USA. So is meat and dairy. Getting people to change what goes in their fridge though, even 10-20% would help, may be a bit easier than fundamentally shifting the built environment in suburbia. We should endeavor, of course, to do both. But let's not sit around arguing for years about which is better - we need all-of-the-above, and we needed it about thirty-odd years ago.

[Fixed]

It is about Global warming .

[Jef58]

I've been driving a Prius for 10 years and agree that something needs to be done about alternatives in gas powered engines. Where I live there is an explosion of huge gas guzzling pick ups and diesels so getting that mentality to change isn't going to be easy.

Some of the points about full electric, you do not need oil changes and the car is much simpler to build with less parts (meaning less raw materials). It is a start in the right direction, and (I think) turned over to the private sector to figure out it can happen if we don't look at it as a 100% conversion. There is no conceivable way to get free energy for the masses without impact on something. To be honest, I'm surprised Tesla actually stayed in business this long. Between bucking the oil industry and convincing enough people that the cars could actually work as daily drivers... I would like to see an even more affordable model out to go after the small compact $19k market.

[DeBike]

We humans love to think of ourselves as having much more power, control and influence over things than we do. Most of this so called environmental science is speculation and opinion. We do not have enough time in existence, nor vision of the future, to give us the knowledge or insight of the way the universe and nature work long term.

Watch George Carlin's skit on the destruction of the planet. I agree with him that the planet is going to be here, and be fine, long after human beings are gone.

One caveat, this post is nothing more than opinion.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by 54ny77

bummer. i was looking forward to retiring out there with a 427 cobra and a hitch mounted bike rack as my daily driver.

am sure newsome is being chauffeured by electric cars right now, doing his part for the people of course.

They aren't going to be 'banned'. It will be a combo of $ incentives, cost of fossil fuels, availability of fossil fuels, etc..type thing. You will STILL be able to drive your 427 Cobra around in 2035...just gonna be taxed YUGELY and gas will be hard to find...and EXPENSIVE...

[paredown]

Originally Posted by Clean39T

Well, energy policy is kind of my thing - tracking it, not making it. I'm trying to share here, but at a level that is more easily digested. There are no easy answers to how to power our industrial society without destroying our planet. Anyone who thinks there are does not understand physics, politics, or personal behavior (among many other things that don't happen to start with P so I'm not listing them).

Yes, car culture is a problem - but it also is deeply embedded in our daily lives, even in Zoom Town USA. So is meat and dairy. Getting people to change what goes in their fridge though, even 10-20% would help, may be a bit easier than fundamentally shifting the built environment in suburbia. We should endeavor, of course, to do both. But let's not sit around arguing for years about which is better - we need all-of-the-above, and we needed it about thirty-odd years ago.

Well said.

My lovely wife thought 'Drawdown' was a good manifesto--at least in his cataloging of the various solutions that are all ready at hand--including the car problem:

https://www.amazon.com/Drawdown-Comp...1296502&sr=8-2

[Davist]

Originally Posted by bikinchris

Seeing all these people who think generating electricity is dirty, but have no idea what is needed to keep billions of gallons of refined gasoline in the system is interesting.

I think the point was, simply plugging in an EV isn't necessarily clean...

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by DeBike

I agree with him that the planet is going to be here, and be fine, long after human beings are gone.

In the long-term geologic scale, sure.

In the biological-medium term scale, it's a damn shame how many ecosystems have been trashed, wildlife killed, and species driven extinct through no fault of their own other than having the misfortune of living in our current timeframe. Lots of our neighbors (meaning other species) are not fine now, and are not going to be fine. If you don't care about that, I guess that's your opinion.

Personally, I believe that other species have a right to exist.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by Clean39T

There are no easy answers to how to power our industrial society without destroying our planet. Anyone who thinks there are does not understand physics, politics, or personal behavior (among many other things that don't happen to start with P so I'm not listing them).

Yes, car culture is a problem - but it also is deeply embedded in our daily lives, even in Zoom Town USA. So is meat and dairy. Getting people to change what goes in their fridge though, even 10-20% would help, may be a bit easier than fundamentally shifting the built environment in suburbia. We should endeavor, of course, to do both. But let's not sit around arguing for years about which is better - we need all-of-the-above, and we needed it about thirty-odd years ago.

yes, this is spot on correct. even if you remove the political factors, which are hugely significant, there are no easy solutions to the position we now find ourselves in, locally, nationally and very much globally.

As mentioned, it's not an either/or thing, we need to work the problem from as many angles as we can, and get to it now.

the reality is though, passenger car emissions are pretty damn low on the list of priorities if we want to make a big dent and effect some real change.

on the transportation side, i would prefer to see a more aggressive push to electrify commercial transportation and let the passenger car sector lag behind. what would happen, for example if all California inter-state commerce needed to move via zero emissions vehicles?

[mhespenheide]

Former CA resident here.

In terms of future plans, I wouldn't be sure by any stretch that this actually happens by 2035 if at all. An executive order is easy to overturn by another executive order, or kick farther down the road.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

Former CA resident here.

In terms of future plans, I wouldn't be sure by any stretch that this actually happens by 2035 if at all. An executive order is easy to overturn by another executive order, or kick farther down the road.

Yes, and executive order that doesn't take effects for 15 years is obviously not designed to be real policy. It is political messaging, designed to signal the direction he would like the state to head. To the extent that it potentially gets people thinking about investing in more energy efficient vehicles, it can be a good thing, but to discuss it as though it were the binding, immutable policy of the state is missing the point.