If electric cars are really better, why do you need to ban gasoline cars?

MakeItSimple wrote:

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.

You don't like it? Tough s-it.

MakeItSimple wrote:

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.

You don't like it? Tough s-it.

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

HRE wrote:

Which car companies does that leave you to buy from?

Definitely not Ferrari. I think they make a $75,000 profit on each car they sell.

HRE wrote:

noglacierforyou wrote:

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.

Monkey see monkey do wrote:

samcallan wrote:

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+

Its coming faster than you think.

Real Obvi wrote:

Also, if clean air is really better, why do we need to regulate pollutant emissions.

fisky wrote:

Let's do a little math here.

Let's assume that it gets "too hot" by exactly 2100 if the US continues as it is.

Let's assume that, somehow, not just California, but the entire US eliminates 100% of its passenger car CO2 emissions tomorrow... AND that there is ZERO increase in CO2 emissions from electricity production.

How long will the "too hot" date of 2100 be pushed into the future?

Forever? 100 years to 2200? I have an answer, but first, what's your guess?

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

Sactown runner wrote:

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.

EV owners won't want to keep their cars as long as ICE car owners. The technologies of EVs keeps improving rapidly as does the range of EVs. Owners will not want to keep their EV for any longer than 2 or 3 years. Also, the EV battery is so heavy. The battery of the EV Hummer weighs about 3,500 pounds or about the same as a Honda Civic. Imagine what that does to the suspension, struts and shock absorbers. The car will drive like crap after about 100k miles. Imagine after 200 miles. It will be bouncing up and down the road.

fisky wrote:

Let's do a little math here.

Let's assume that it gets "too hot" by exactly 2100 if the US continues as it is.

Let's assume that, somehow, not just California, but the entire US eliminates 100% of its passenger car CO2 emissions tomorrow... AND that there is ZERO increase in CO2 emissions from electricity production.

How long will the "too hot" date of 2100 be pushed into the future?

Forever? 100 years to 2200? I have an answer, but first, what's your guess?

runnerboy70 wrote:

Look..See this...This is what the Greenie wackos create...

Link:www.huffpost.com/entry/britain-to-see-...

fkkfkfkfkf wrote:

Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:

EV owners won't want to keep their cars as long as ICE car owners. The technologies of EVs keeps improving rapidly as does the range of EVs. Owners will not want to keep their EV for any longer than 2 or 3 years. Also, the EV battery is so heavy. The battery of the EV Hummer weighs about 3,500 pounds or about the same as a Honda Civic. Imagine what that does to the suspension, struts and shock absorbers. The car will drive like crap after about 100k miles. Imagine after 200 miles. It will be bouncing up and down the road.

Not really. The EV tech of the first model s isn't a whole lot different than today's. The tech around it changes.

As to the second point, it is a hummer. They were crap by 100k as an ice. I doubt much has changed...

KB in da house.. wrote:

Monkey see monkey do wrote:

There already has been a huge leap in the past 10 years. Electric cars are cheaper and have ranges 300mi+

Its coming faster than you think.

Way I see it is that EVs need at least 1000 miles of range. I want to be able to go to Montreal and back or new Hampshire and back without worrying about where I'm recharging and for how long. Need to be able to go to Florida non stop