Looks like CA drew the line on ICE engines 2035

[woodgeek]

So you see no cause for concern regarding the timing of these two stories?

None. Maybe you can explain the problem for me.

I charge my EV for roughly 5 hours per week. If a utility asked me to not do that (using 7 kW) during a power emergency, it would not inconvenience me in any way. In fact, I set up my car to never charge during that time of day (unless I tell it to by hitting an override button), so I never even need to worry about it anyway.

The govt is not telling me that I can't charge my EV then. If I had to, I would and no one would care. If I was road-tripping, and needed to fast charge then, I would.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Well then, enjoy it.

 

[begreen]

New battery technology concepts are a dime a dozen and fortunes can be made just on a hint of a new one. I suspect that something other than the current LNC batteries are going to appear but I am not betting my retirement funds on any of them.

Yes, that's why I added the caveat. My financial advisor once told me that the surest way to lose money was to invest in new battery technology. He used Bill Gates as an example. Instead, I bought 100 shares of a developing battery recycling company.

 

[SpaceBus]

How else can you guys modify your behavior in order to make somebody’s bad decisions less disruptive?

Maybe figuring out that battery thing before cutting out the ICE might have been a good idea?

As somebody who manages a small fleet I’m real interested in electric vehicles. I’d love to cut down on vehicle maintenance. It’s just not time for it yet. If your grid can’t take the load, maybe you shouldn’t push more people onto it.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a new vehicle. CA is only banning the sale of NEW ICE vehicles. Just like you can still get a nasty old stove, if you shop on the used market. The car police aren't coming to arrest you if you don't buy an EV.

This is one of the concerns that have always been in the back of my mind: my battery does not have eternal life. Having the grid charge and discharge it at their preference is something I'd be hesitant about.

I understand this may help stabilize things, but when my equipment ages sooner because of that, I would think that better (larger scale) batteries are a better solution.

I'm fine postponing charging (etc, as in CA now).

If someone else is paying for the wear and tear on the batteries, I don't see the problem. Or if the power company is paying me a higher rate to discharge the battery than I pay to charged it (or nothing if I generate on site power), which would also pay for the wear and tear on the battery. I think this would be a great way to shift to taxpayer owned power generation.

 

[stoveliker]

But there is the CO2 budget aspect too (see that video posted not too long ago about the CO2 break even point for EVs. This gets worse if the mileage gotten from an EV battery decreased due to non-driving aging of the battery.

 

[peakbagger]

BTW, I read this AM that Ca legislature voted to keep Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant open an additional 5 years.

 

[EbS-P]

Nobody is forcing you to buy a new vehicle. CA is only banning the sale of NEW ICE vehicles. Just like you can still get a nasty old stove, if you shop on the used market. The car police aren't coming to arrest you if you don't buy an EV.



If someone else is paying for the wear and tear on the batteries, I don't see the problem. Or if the power company is paying me a higher rate to discharge the battery than I pay to charged it (or nothing if I generate on site power), which would also pay for the wear and tear on the battery. I think this would be a great way to shift to taxpayer owned power generation.

Not a chance of publicly owned generation. To many CO-OP and municipal/regional power organizations have been hurt financially. When it comes to fossil fuel and nuclear generation scaling up reduced costs. Now I could see solar, wind and the new modular nuclear reactors as being an option for smaller publicly owned utilities. I have not looked at prices but I’m guessing larger installations would not have a financial benefit. And the installs could easily grow given you have the land for solar wind and more reactors.

 

[sneefy]

CA is only banning the sale of NEW ICE vehicles.

In the coming years I'll be very interested to see what CA does to registration taxes for ICE vehicles.

 

[SpaceBus]

In the coming years I'll be very interested to see what CA does to registration taxes for ICE vehicles.

It really doesn't matter, because customers that want to keep using ICE are in the minority. Much like people that prefer antiquated vehicle technology are also in the minority.

 

[sneefy]

customers that want to keep using ICE are in the minority.

Do you have a stat for this sentiment?

 

[EbS-P]

In the coming years I'll be very interested to see what CA does to registration taxes for ICE vehicles.

They already banned the registration (or it’s happening very soon) of light duty diesel truck without DPF. So that’s 2006 and before? Not sure what the rules for heavy duty trucks.

 

[sneefy]

They already banned the registration (or it’s happening very soon) of light duty diesel truck without DPF. So that’s 2006 and before? Not sure what the rules for heavy duty trucks.

Yeah, that's why I'll be curious to see what happens.

It's pretty obvious that Nevada will get tons of sales of ICE vehicles when (if) the CA stop-sale mandate goes into effect. But the state of CA will have to make it punitive somehow to own an ICE vehicle in the state. So the easiest move without an outright ban (which would be wholly unworkable for a long time to come) would be to make the registration taxes unaffordable.

 

[SpaceBus]

Do you have a stat for this sentiment?

Here's one source, but there are many.

Study Expects More EVs Than ICE Vehicles Will Be Sold By 2033

We know this is going to happen eventually, but isn’t 2033 a bit too optimistic, even considering the prediction only refers to the US, Europe and China?

insideevs.com

For other obsolete tech, just look back at when the EPA enacted the Clean Air Act and everyone abandoned older vehicles without catalysts after a short time. Furthermore the average age for any vehicle on the road is 11.8 years. Which means in another 13 years, when the CA ban is proposed to go into effect, there will be even less. Then you factor in financial incentives to upgrade, just like in the "Oil Crisis" of the 70's, people will be shifting to vehicles that are cheaper to operate. I know everyone gets in a twist about how expensive EVs are now, but is that any different than any other emerging tech? Tractors used to be only affordable for the biggest, most profitable farms, now they are extremely commonplace in rural areas. EVs have been on the road in large numbers for ten years now, that's going to increase exponentially, especially as there will be less ICE options available from MFGs moving forward. If you haven't noticed, the big automakers have been shifting to PHEV and EVs for the last five years. Chevy is unveiling multiple EVs this year and Ford has announced the 7th gen 2023 Mustang will be the final Mustang generation to have ICE options. The signs are everywhere, even if you don't want to listen.

By and large the public has spoken, and they want less pollution and cleaner transportation.

 

[EbS-P]

Yeah, that's why I'll be curious to see what happens.

It's pretty obvious that Nevada will get tons of sales of ICE vehicles when (if) the CA stop-sale mandate goes into effect. But the state of CA will have to make it punitive somehow to own an ICE vehicle in the state. So the easiest move without an outright ban (which would be wholly unworkable for a long time to come) would be to make the registration taxes unaffordable.

You are assuming the current dealership model continues. I think Tesla killed it. Online sales of new cars is the future. And that ICE vehicle options are available and be better option than the plug in hybrid. Yes Nevada and AZ will see increased sales and businesses operating from their but I think you will see more regulations.

 

[sneefy]

The signs are everywhere, even if you don't want to listen.

OK, you're obviously not someone to engage with on this form. Got it.

 

[sneefy]

You are assuming the current dealership model continues. I think Tesla killed it. Online sales of new cars is the future.

Fair point. Ford is following suit with the Maverick, largely driven by predatory sales practices by dealerships in the current state of low supply and high demand. I'll bet it'll be a slower death than we think, though. Dealerships are surprisingly powerful when it comes to lobbying. But, yeah, it will happen eventually.

 

[begreen]

AAA polls driver sentiment regularly on EVs. The poll on "Will your next car be an EV?" has grown from 15% to around 25% in just 2 yrs. The trend is pretty strong as more options show up. By 2025 every car company will have several EVs to choose from. That will also drive the trend along with better batteries and charging infrastructure.

A Quarter of Americans Say Their Next Car Will Be an EV

A quarter of Americans surveyed say they will buy an electric vehicle as their next automobile as gasoline prices soar to record levels.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[stoveliker]

I recently bought a new (to me) car (for my wife).
I looked a lot at Carvana. However, I do want to test drive, I do want to feel the car, see the car.
It did not feel right to test (the model) at a dealer, then buy elsewhere.
I know Carvana has a return policy (I know there are some news stories about "disasters", but that'll happen with any large quantity, I think overall they are doing fine), but I don't like spending this much money on something I have not seen.

So I bought it at a dealer (because 2.5 years old, 17k miles, warranty etc.)

I think dealers do have a place.
See e.g. also this story.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/unhappy-2022-tesla-model-3-owner-gets-major-buyer-s-remorse-sells-it-after-two-months-195087.html

A story. This is not to indicate some general truth. (I'm not saying Tesla's are crap.) This story may even not be the whole truth of the case (i.e. misleading from a certain agenda). But the reason (the "feel") of why this person sold the car is why it makes sense to have a place you can put your hands on a product before you buy it.

The legal processes of buying a car thru a dealer may very well change. But I suspect there will be "outlets" (not discounts, but factory owned "stores"), and that is a legally different continuation of the dealer, aka (new) car lot.

My $0.02

 

[sneefy]

AAA polls driver sentiment regularly on EVs. The poll on "Will your next car be an EV?" has grown from 15% to around 25% in just 2 yrs. The trend is pretty strong as more options show up. By 2025 every car company will have several EVs to choose from. That will also drive the trend along with better batteries and charging infrastructure.

A Quarter of Americans Say Their Next Car Will Be an EV

A quarter of Americans surveyed say they will buy an electric vehicle as their next automobile as gasoline prices soar to record levels.

www.bloomberg.com

Yeah, I'm hoping to make the shift to an electric commuter vehicle probably two cars from now. A few years ago I considered a used Nissan Leaf as off-lease units were DIRT cheap.

I think the growth of that sentiment will slow. Especially as the infrastructure is not there and I don't believe it will be by the desired CA targets,.

I recently bought a new (to me) car (for my wife).
I looked a lot at Carvana. However, I do want to test drive, I do want to feel the car, see the car.
It did not feel right to test (the model) at a dealer, then buy elsewhere.
I know Carvana has a return policy (I know there are some news stories about "disasters", but that'll happen with any large quantity, I think overall they are doing fine), but I don't like spending this much money on something I have not seen.

So I bought it at a dealer (because 2.5 years old, 17k miles, warranty etc.)

I think dealers do have a place.
See e.g. also this story.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/unhappy-2022-tesla-model-3-owner-gets-major-buyer-s-remorse-sells-it-after-two-months-195087.html

A story. This is not to indicate some general truth. (I'm not saying Tesla's are crap.) This story may even not be the whole truth of the case (i.e. misleading from a certain agenda). But the reason (the "feel") of why this person sold the car is why it makes sense to have a place you can put your hands on a product before you buy it.

The legal processes of buying a car thru a dealer may very well change. But I suspect there will be "outlets" (not discounts, but factory owned "stores"), and that is a legally different continuation of the dealer, aka (new) car lot.

My $0.02

I agree that I need to test drive it first. That is, unless returning it is free and painless like a pair of pants on Amazon.

I had a Dodge Avenger as a rental once. It was the worst driving car I've ever experienced. Second wort was a Nissan Versa. You can't get that sense on paper. As much as a car is an appliance in some ways, I do care how they drive.

Objectively, Teslas have awful reliability despite high typical owner satisfaction. So Teslas might be objectively crap, but subjectively awesome. When I read stories about foam corner trim like what you'd find at Home depot used as a production-line fix for fitment issues, It gives me pause.

 

[SpaceBus]

OK, you're obviously not someone to engage with on this form. Got it.

I do love some irony. You have participated in a few threads discussing the fact that EVs are taking over with lots of data points. Just like tractors eliminated the use of livestock for labor, so will EVs eliminate the market for ICE vehicles. There are still horse enthusiasts, but only fringe communities such as the Amish rely on them. There will always be ICE enthusiasts out there keeping the flame burning, but they will be a fringe group. EVs started in the fringe, but are rapidly approaching the mainstream.

 

[Ashful]

Objectively, Teslas have awful reliability despite high typical owner satisfaction. So Teslas might be objectively crap, but subjectively awesome. When I read stories about foam corner trim like what you'd find at Home depot used as a production-line fix for fitment issues, It gives me pause.

Mixed bag. Like any startup, esp. based entirely on development of new tech, there have been growing pains. I do enjoy poking fun at a few friends and family with Tesla's, who started their ownership bragging that they'd never need maintenance, and have subsequently had to visit their dealership twice as frequently as me. It's not "maintenance", it's recalls, repairs, and updates... but they're driving twice as far to get it, and waiting twice as long in the process.

But I'm really only having fun with them. Despite these issues, which honestly could have and should have been fully expected with new tech from a new company, it's tough to make any legitimate argument that this isn't ultimately the direction we need to go. The analogy between tractors and horses 100 years in our past, brought up a few times now in this thread, is a good one.

 

[woodgeek]

Do you have a stat for this sentiment?

I think it is fair to be skeptical. I'm not going to google surveys, or cite the exponential increase in market share over the last ten years. Every exponential slows down at some point!

But the history of tech adoption is pretty information rich. HD TVs replacing tube TVs. Color TVs replacing BW ones. People buying washing machines. Replacing gas lights with incandescents, or incandescents with CFL/LEDs for that matter. Flip phones for smart phones.

These follow a classic 'S' shaped curve, with rapidly falling prices and improving tech as sales are booming. And ultimately plateauing at nearly complete adoption.

There are a few technologies like LaserDisks (from the VCR era) that 'fail' to find universal adoption. But not many.

The rapidity of the (S shaped) adoption curve varies with the new technology. Some are slow (landline telephones) and some are fast (smart phones). And people study the data to try to understand why it is sometimes fast, and sometimes slow.

Example 1: For landlines, it was slow bc of the cost of building out the infrastructure. And the poor economics of reaching the last customer in a capitalist model. So govt gave it a shove at the end.

This sounds like your concern re EV adoption slowing on the way to completion, and that is reasonable. Govt will probably step in to subsidize putting L2's in apt buildings and public parking lots in cities. And will probably give EV manufacturers a shove to build (and maintain) DCFCs. If they don't do these things, adoption will be hindered.

Example 2: Clothes washing machines also took a surprisingly long time to catch on. It was not a matter of cost or performance, so this was a mystery. The prior technology was tedious hand washing by human labor, by yourself, your spouse, or your servants. This was difficult enough that many people didn't wash their clothes as often as we do today. And 'rich' people could afford servants to keep their clothes perfectly clean and spotless, and used that as a signifier of social class. Clothes washers were deemed 'inferior' to hand laundry, so wealthy early adopters had little incentive to adopt them.

People do wrap up a lot of their identity/status in their cars, more so than a smart phone. So people who judge EVs as inferior to ICe cars for some reason will have a stronger than normal incentive to resist the change. This could also slow adoption for some people.

We shall see!

 

[sneefy]

I do love some irony. You have participated in a few threads discussing the fact that EVs are taking over with lots of data points. Just like tractors eliminated the use of livestock for labor, so will EVs eliminate the market for ICE vehicles. There are still horse enthusiasts, but only fringe communities such as the Amish rely on them. There will always be ICE enthusiasts out there keeping the flame burning, but they will be a fringe group. EVs started in the fringe, but are rapidly approaching the mainstream.

I think you miss my meaning. I have participated and do so willingly, including with those which with I disagree. But I prefer to participate with less toxic individuals.

If that comment surprises you, read your own post history.

 

[sneefy]

Mixed bag. Like any startup, esp. based entirely on development of new tech, there have been growing pains. I do enjoy poking fun at a few friends and family with Tesla's, who started their ownership bragging that they'd never need maintenance, and have subsequently had to visit their dealership twice as frequently as me. It's not "maintenance", it's recalls, repairs, and updates... but they're driving twice as far to get it, and waiting twice as long in the process.

But I'm really only having fun with them. Despite these issues, which honestly could have and should have been fully expected with new tech from a new company, it's tough to make any legitimate argument that this isn't ultimately the direction we need to go. The analogy between tractors and horses 100 years in our past, brought up a few times now in this thread, is a good one.

I have no problem with growing pains in tech. My career is tech. But I have little tolerance for such issues with a car. Tesla's flagrant disregard for doing things responsibly is a big turn-off.

 

[sneefy]

I think it is fair to be skeptical.

This sounds like your concern re EV adoption slowing on the way to completion, and that is reasonable.

We shall see!

Yeah, I'm fully acknowledge naturally a skeptic. Definitely not a techno-optimist. I've read too much science fiction for that, lol.

I'm also pretty risk averse and conservative (small c) so the current jumping off the cliff towards electrification is problematic. The EV infrastructure shift will be a massive undertaking. More broadly, until we fully embrace nuclear (or invent an alternative that has low cost AND low raw material requirements (mining) AND is rapidly scalable) mass electrification simply won't happen anywhere near the proposed targets.