I know that many people think of Californians as nutbar tree huggers, but the reality is that in Southern California especially, air pollution is a real issue. It's not just the number of cars there but the air inversions that create the problem. Phoenix, AZ has a similar issue.
Usually, I prefer that the free market settles this kind of issue, but in this case I think it is fair for California to try to protect its people.
A big problem is about 10% of new car sales in the US are in CA. So what they do impacts the entire country (the reg that was passed has to be approved by the EPA---not sure I like that either in terms of federalism). Also, many other states have said they will follow the move.
I also suspect that the date will keep getting pushed back to the point that it will not happen in my lifetime short of some huge leap in technology or some crash in the oil production side.
Because they are not. The taxes on fossil fuels are already very high while electricity is often subsidized. Of course they only need to ban gas cars because they are afried even with those taxes and subsidies people wont go for the "better" product.
That's my take. I drove nearly 600 miles yesterday in about nine and a half hours. I stopped for gas twice. Neither refueling took longer than five minutes. I want no part of a car where refueling takes 5-6 times longer. If they get that worked out, and the cost down, it a different ballgame.
Setting aside pesky issues like the destruction of the planet due to global warming and ground level ozone and toxic tailpipe emissions, the auto industry has been holding on to the internal combustion engine for a couple of decades longer than necessary because it is simply more profitable. The internal combustion engine starts breaking down after 100k miles and rarely will the cost of repairs justify keeping a vehicle past 200k mi. EV engines do not break down over time the way the internal combustion engine does. Teslas are hitting 300, 400 and 500k without any engine issues. The batteries do break down over time and have to be replaced. But Tesla batteries have been getting 300-500k miles before needing to be replaced. Even with battery replacement cost going way up ($6-7k to $12-15k), you are still saving tens of thousands over the life time of a EV versus the internal combustion engine taking into account maintenance, repairs and having to buy a new internal combustion engine vehicle much more frequently than an EV. So, to be blunt, the internal combustion engine is a rip off compared to EVs and possibly one of the greatest consumer scams in history. That alone is justification for the government forcing obsolescence.
That’s great. However, what percentage of drivers will want to keep the same vehicle for 500k miles - especially with improving technology? I doubt drivers will hold onto EVs longer than they do ICE vehicles.
I know that many people think of Californians as nutbar tree huggers, but the reality is that in Southern California especially, air pollution is a real issue. It's not just the number of cars there but the air inversions that create the problem. Phoenix, AZ has a similar issue.
Usually, I prefer that the free market settles this kind of issue, but in this case I think it is fair for California to try to protect its people.
A big problem is about 10% of new car sales in the US are in CA. So what they do impacts the entire country (the reg that was passed has to be approved by the EPA---not sure I like that either in terms of federalism). Also, many other states have said they will follow the move.
I also suspect that the date will keep getting pushed back to the point that it will not happen in my lifetime short of some huge leap in technology or some crash in the oil production side.
I don't think of that as a problem...it's just the result. I am ok with that result. The date will likely move or concessions made, and I don't know how old you are, so I can't comment on whether it will happen in your lifetime or not.
Setting aside pesky issues like the destruction of the planet due to global warming and ground level ozone and toxic tailpipe emissions, the auto industry has been holding on to the internal combustion engine for a couple of decades longer than necessary because it is simply more profitable. The internal combustion engine starts breaking down after 100k miles and rarely will the cost of repairs justify keeping a vehicle past 200k mi. EV engines do not break down over time the way the internal combustion engine does. Teslas are hitting 300, 400 and 500k without any engine issues. The batteries do break down over time and have to be replaced. But Tesla batteries have been getting 300-500k miles before needing to be replaced. Even with battery replacement cost going way up ($6-7k to $12-15k), you are still saving tens of thousands over the life time of a EV versus the internal combustion engine taking into account maintenance, repairs and having to buy a new internal combustion engine vehicle much more frequently than an EV. So, to be blunt, the internal combustion engine is a rip off compared to EVs and possibly one of the greatest consumer scams in history. That alone is justification for the government forcing obsolescence.
That’s great. However, what percentage of drivers will want to keep the same vehicle for 500k miles - especially with improving technology? I doubt drivers will hold onto EVs longer than they do ICE vehicles.
You are right...well, with regard to people with money anyway. Hopefully those cars that the wealthier among us turn in will be used for a while by people who can only afford a used car.
Setting aside pesky issues like the destruction of the planet due to global warming and ground level ozone and toxic tailpipe emissions, the auto industry has been holding on to the internal combustion engine for a couple of decades longer than necessary because it is simply more profitable. The internal combustion engine starts breaking down after 100k miles and rarely will the cost of repairs justify keeping a vehicle past 200k mi. EV engines do not break down over time the way the internal combustion engine does. Teslas are hitting 300, 400 and 500k without any engine issues. The batteries do break down over time and have to be replaced. But Tesla batteries have been getting 300-500k miles before needing to be replaced. Even with battery replacement cost going way up ($6-7k to $12-15k), you are still saving tens of thousands over the life time of a EV versus the internal combustion engine taking into account maintenance, repairs and having to buy a new internal combustion engine vehicle much more frequently than an EV. So, to be blunt, the internal combustion engine is a rip off compared to EVs and possibly one of the greatest consumer scams in history. That alone is justification for the government forcing obsolescence.
That’s great. However, what percentage of drivers will want to keep the same vehicle for 500k miles - especially with improving technology? I doubt drivers will hold onto EVs longer than they do ICE vehicles.
That is actually the biggest reason why the internal combustion engine needs to go. Yes, people who have disposable income will want to buy the latest, greatest EV and will not hold on to their vehicles for 10+ years. The old EVs will then go to the secondary market, where they will be sold to low income consumers who are subprime borrowers and contract at high interest rates. Currently, these consumers have to buy complete buckets of sh#t (high mileage, late model, etc.) and end up spending thousands on repairs (in addition to all the problems that come with owning a vehicle that breaks down all the time). They actually end up spending as much a month on a 10 year old vehicle with 150k+ miles as people with good credit spend on a brand new and higher end vehicle due to the high interest rates and expensive repairs/maintenance. With EVs, these folks would no longer get screwed. They would have a reliable vehicle and would not have to worry about having to replace an engine or transmission or other expensive repairs that are common on high mileage internal combustion engines. The subprime/secondary motor vehicle market is possibly one of the most egregious and punitive wealth transfers in our society where people who are poor and do not have good credit get fleeced just so they can get to work and pick up their kids from school.
The answer is by most metrics, EVs are not better than their ICE counterparts.
They are generally better at straight line acceleration and of course emissions (although there is debate about total emissions used for lithium mining, transport, manufacturing).
The production EV Nurburgring race track record holder is the Porsche Taycan TurboS at 7 min 35 seconds. The ICE Production record holder is the Mercedes AMG GT Black Series at 6 min 43 seconds.
EVs are too heavy for fun backroad driving and the range is not great enough for long road trips. The Taycan TurboS is still fun, but it’s over $200K and the range is pretty bad.
EVs make great commuters and great SUVs/Trucks. Once the technology and infrastructure improves they will be better than ICE cars in every way, except for raw driving experience. A 250-300HP car that weighs less than 3,000 pounds (like a Honda S2000 or Lotus Exige) is more fun on the street than a 5,000 lb 800HP EV.
Their rationale is simple. Gasoline cars pollute the environment. They are the biggest contributor to climate change in California.
With regard to quality, someone might out of habit or ideology might hold onto gas cars without recognizing that they are costlier to operate, have worse acceleration, need more frequent repairs, cause more illness, etc. That's why companies advertise to generate brand loyalty as early as possible, because people then irrationally hold onto the brand. On the other hand, gas cars can be cheaper and will continue to be cheaper until electric cars are truly mass market items. Even now, Tesla has very high profit margins and could sell its cars a lot cheaper but doesn't have to lower the sticker price because of lack of competition.
Thats false. Electric cars require twice as much co2 to manufacture as gas vehicles .... 12 tonnes vs 6 tonnes. It takes 90,000 miles of driving before EV breaks even with GV. If you put 10 million new EV on the road you spew over 120 million tonnes of carbon into the air that wouldn't normally be there. These cars will completely overload an electrical grid that is already overloaded. So where is all of this electrical fairy dust coming from? Electric cars are bad for the environment.
Because they are not. The taxes on fossil fuels are already very high while electricity is often subsidized. Of course they only need to ban gas cars because they are afried even with those taxes and subsidies people wont go for the "better" product.
That's my take. I drove nearly 600 miles yesterday in about nine and a half hours. I stopped for gas twice. Neither refueling took longer than five minutes. I want no part of a car where refueling takes 5-6 times longer. If they get that worked out, and the cost down, it a different ballgame.
But YOU are a logical man and these people are not...
. With EVs, these folks would no longer get screwed. They would have a reliable vehicle and would not have to worry about having to replace an engine or transmission or other expensive repairs that are common on high mileage internal combustion engines. The subprime/secondary motor vehicle market is possibly one of the most egregious and punitive wealth transfers in our society where people who are poor and do not have good credit get fleeced just so they can get to work and pick up their kids from school.
Instead they will have to worry about replacing batteries and drive motors. It isn't like Tesla are know for reliability and they are all pretty much brand new. Who knows what they will be like at 15 years. And most of the other EVs have no track record at all. Go price out some EV extended warranty and note how it costs as much as an ICE. That is what OEMs think of how reliable the cars will be.
We are pretty close to the inflexion point where cost of ownership of EVs will be less because of electricity costs. But paying 5k more upfront and getting it back over say 7 years is a tough sell for a lot of people.
That's my take. I drove nearly 600 miles yesterday in about nine and a half hours. I stopped for gas twice. Neither refueling took longer than five minutes. I want no part of a car where refueling takes 5-6 times longer. If they get that worked out, and the cost down, it a different ballgame.
But YOU are a logical man and these people are not...
Cuz the world is dumb. Enough people with fried brains actually believe the nonsense government pushes through. No justification for banning gas powered vehicles. EVs still have a ways to go before they make sense. Solid state may be the answer but that's been bogged down for whatever reason. You can bet your house they won't bother to switch the military to switch to battery power. And they contribute so much to emissions problems. One tank has the emissions of 200 cars.
For the mouth breathers (and the OP) let's make this simple. In the next ten years or so, you will be unable to buy an ICE car, like it or not. AT some point fairly soon thereafter, you will not be able to legally operate an ICE car on roads in the US. You will be unable to get ICE cars repaired, you will be unable to buy gasoline for ICE cars, the entire market and infrastructure are going to make a switch to support charging infrastructure and BEV maintenance.
Nobody who matters cares whether you like it or not. It's going to be great for the economy, great for the country, great for every set of lungs on the planet, a small step forward for the world.
That’s great. However, what percentage of drivers will want to keep the same vehicle for 500k miles - especially with improving technology? I doubt drivers will hold onto EVs longer than they do ICE vehicles.
That is actually the biggest reason why the internal combustion engine needs to go. Yes, people who have disposable income will want to buy the latest, greatest EV and will not hold on to their vehicles for 10+ years. The old EVs will then go to the secondary market, where they will be sold to low income consumers who are subprime borrowers and contract at high interest rates. Currently, these consumers have to buy complete buckets of sh#t (high mileage, late model, etc.) and end up spending thousands on repairs (in addition to all the problems that come with owning a vehicle that breaks down all the time). They actually end up spending as much a month on a 10 year old vehicle with 150k+ miles as people with good credit spend on a brand new and higher end vehicle due to the high interest rates and expensive repairs/maintenance. With EVs, these folks would no longer get screwed. They would have a reliable vehicle and would not have to worry about having to replace an engine or transmission or other expensive repairs that are common on high mileage internal combustion engines. The subprime/secondary motor vehicle market is possibly one of the most egregious and punitive wealth transfers in our society where people who are poor and do not have good credit get fleeced just so they can get to work and pick up their kids from school.
You're naive if you think that the secondary market will change. The buyers you cite will still pay the high interest rates in addition to paying higher prices for used EVs. The cost of repairs on the 150K mile, 10 year old vehicle will be offset by the initial price of the vehicle. It's ludicrous to believe it will solve that market.
In addition, electric cars will be a much higher portion of new car sales in 2050 because of California's action. In California, they are already 16% of the market.
I had no idea it was that high, tbh. That number does include plug-in hybrids (and fuel cell, but those are a tiny fraction of the overall number).
Instead they will have to worry about replacing batteries and drive motors. It isn't like Tesla are know for reliability and they are all pretty much brand new. Who knows what they will be like at 15 years. And most of the other EVs have no track record at all. Go price out some EV extended warranty and note how it costs as much as an ICE. That is what OEMs think of how reliable the cars will be.
We are pretty close to the inflexion point where cost of ownership of EVs will be less because of electricity costs. But paying 5k more upfront and getting it back over say 7 years is a tough sell for a lot of people.
Electricity costs will go up or some component of EV ownership will have to. The taxes collected from gasoline will need to come from somewhere.
I know that many people think of Californians as nutbar tree huggers, but the reality is that in Southern California especially, air pollution is a real issue. It's not just the number of cars there but the air inversions that create the problem. Phoenix, AZ has a similar issue.
Usually, I prefer that the free market settles this kind of issue, but in this case I think it is fair for California to try to protect its people.
A big problem is about 10% of new car sales in the US are in CA. So what they do impacts the entire country (the reg that was passed has to be approved by the EPA---not sure I like that either in terms of federalism). Also, many other states have said they will follow the move.
I also suspect that the date will keep getting pushed back to the point that it will not happen in my lifetime short of some huge leap in technology or some crash in the oil production side.
There already has been a huge leap in the past 10 years. Electric cars are cheaper and have ranges 300mi+
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.