California is at it again
Discussion
No new diesel trucks after 2036 and no diesel trucks at all after 2042.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/28/california-bans-th...
A boost for Tesla and their electric semi trucks but I think a fight will be coming when New York, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Colorado follow California's lead.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/28/california-bans-th...
A boost for Tesla and their electric semi trucks but I think a fight will be coming when New York, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Colorado follow California's lead.
Years ago I would have said California was a comedy, unrealistic and fake influence because of stuff like this.
The only problem now is that the state has had global influence in hyping Tesla and as such played it's part in kick starting the acceptance of EV's. It would have happened anyway, but for sure the positive press and influence of California helped it happen sooner. If you want to get an idea off the ground, it's useful if a hundred Hollywood stars are propping it up - regardless of how much real world sense it makes at the time.
Influence is powerful, California trades in that entity.
The only problem now is that the state has had global influence in hyping Tesla and as such played it's part in kick starting the acceptance of EV's. It would have happened anyway, but for sure the positive press and influence of California helped it happen sooner. If you want to get an idea off the ground, it's useful if a hundred Hollywood stars are propping it up - regardless of how much real world sense it makes at the time.
Influence is powerful, California trades in that entity.
TheDeuce said:
Years ago I would have said California was a comedy, unrealistic and fake influence because of stuff like this.
The only problem now is that the state has had global influence in hyping Tesla and as such played it's part in kick starting the acceptance of EV's. It would have happened anyway, but for sure the positive press and influence of California helped it happen sooner. If you want to get an idea off the ground, it's useful if a hundred Hollywood stars are propping it up - regardless of how much real world sense it makes at the time.
Influence is powerful, California trades in that entity.
AI will soon be putting swathes of Hollywood peeps out of work. It's currency of influence will steadily diminish.The only problem now is that the state has had global influence in hyping Tesla and as such played it's part in kick starting the acceptance of EV's. It would have happened anyway, but for sure the positive press and influence of California helped it happen sooner. If you want to get an idea off the ground, it's useful if a hundred Hollywood stars are propping it up - regardless of how much real world sense it makes at the time.
Influence is powerful, California trades in that entity.
Some friends at Disney are already counting the days.
Something like CATL's new condensed battery at 500Wh/kg?
Almost twice the current best and due to enter mass production this year
Almost twice the current best and due to enter mass production this year
NMNeil said:
Funny that nobody has mentioned hydrogen yet, which would be the perfect solution for heavy road transport.
The rule is they are to be zero emissions, not that they have to be battery powered.
The article specifically states electric only a couple of times. Still, they’ve got a few years to work out how to distribute food and so on by levitation. Wonder if they’ve heard of PM2.5 particles - heavier big rigs weighed down with batteries is the last thing they need to help with tyre and brake dust…The rule is they are to be zero emissions, not that they have to be battery powered.
So 13 years notice for truck manufacturers to pull their fingers out and get cracking with some viable alternatives? Not sure I see a problem with that.
Unless of course you have your head in the sand and are one of the "fossil fuel until I die" mob, it's beyond clear that we need to move beyond dino-juice powered transportation.
Unless of course you have your head in the sand and are one of the "fossil fuel until I die" mob, it's beyond clear that we need to move beyond dino-juice powered transportation.
andy43 said:
The article specifically states electric only a couple of times. Still, they’ve got a few years to work out how to distribute food and so on by levitation. Wonder if they’ve heard of PM2.5 particles - heavier big rigs weighed down with batteries is the last thing they need to help with tyre and brake dust…
They have a rough idea of the hazards from tyres and brakes 
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/brake-t...
deckster said:
So 13 years notice for truck manufacturers to pull their fingers out and get cracking with some viable alternatives? Not sure I see a problem with that.
Unless of course you have your head in the sand and are one of the "fossil fuel until I die" mob, it's beyond clear that we need to move beyond dino-juice powered transportation.
EVs have been around for well over a decade - Merc and Volvo have electric HGVs but I’ve no idea how much they are or whether they’d work long distance or the environmental impact of binning existing HGVs and replacing them with lithium powered new trucks. I’m sure there’ll be a miraculous invention or new battery chemistry but so far it’s not looking hopeful. Hybrid could be an answer, but they’ve discounted that and gone straight for zero emission from what the article says.Unless of course you have your head in the sand and are one of the "fossil fuel until I die" mob, it's beyond clear that we need to move beyond dino-juice powered transportation.
They’d do better banning pickups and SUVs as personal vehicles.
andy43 said:
They’d do better banning pickups and SUVs as personal vehicles.
It may already be in the pipeline for California.https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/08/22/new-bill-wo...
NMNeil said:
Funny that nobody has mentioned hydrogen yet, which would be the perfect solution for heavy road transport.
The rule is they are to be zero emissions, not that they have to be battery powered.
Hydrogen production in the quantities required though is so far proving to be far from emissions free. As you well know, ya wee rascal. The rule is they are to be zero emissions, not that they have to be battery powered.
andy43 said:
NMNeil said:
Funny that nobody has mentioned hydrogen yet, which would be the perfect solution for heavy road transport.
The rule is they are to be zero emissions, not that they have to be battery powered.
The article specifically states electric only a couple of times. Still, they’ve got a few years to work out how to distribute food and so on by levitation. Wonder if they’ve heard of PM2.5 particles - heavier big rigs weighed down with batteries is the last thing they need to help with tyre and brake dust…The rule is they are to be zero emissions, not that they have to be battery powered.
deckster said:
So 13 years notice for truck manufacturers to pull their fingers out and get cracking with some viable alternatives? Not sure I see a problem with that.
I agree - 2036 for diesel big rigs and zero emissions by 2042. That is more than enough time to figure out how to address this or change the rules to suit what is possible. But given the shift to EV's, this makes a lot of sense. However, exactly how many Californian administrations will come and go before this time is up? I guarantee that it will get amended and changed and most likely pushed out. The progress on the reduction of emissions has been pretty constant and I remain confident that there will be some pretty big shifts before we get there. Someone else mentioned it, but the geography of California is pretty unique and it suffers in certain areas with very high pollution due to this. The Central Valley is one such example:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data
Given the importance of the Central Valley in transportation and food production, it makes a lot of sense to take action to try and get this reduced. I am fortunate to live in a location where the air quality is very good, but I can see how bad it is in certain locations. And when its bad, its really very bad. Isnt this what governments are supposed to do? Ensure that there is a level playing field for all people and businesses as well as making sure we dont destroy everything on the way? Or is this just an opportunity to criticize the Peoples Republic of California?
NMNeil said:
andy43 said:
They’d do better banning pickups and SUVs as personal vehicles.
It may already be in the pipeline for California.https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/08/22/new-bill-wo...
off_again,
As a lifelong Californian, I have some comments. First off, if California's push toward requiring EVs for every vehicle in the state on its way to banning petroleum result in the 40 million vehicles hooking up to the already taxed electric grid in this state, our already frequent blackouts will become daily occurrences. And combined with the progressive rules on "sustainable" energy sources, less power for the grid will be available, resulting in even more blackouts. Already more than 50% of diesel transportation trucks are not eligible to enter the Port of Los Angeles to pick up or deliver loads coming from or going onto ships in the harbor. And with nearly 40,000,000 vehicles in California, can you even imagine the landfill that will be required to handle the toxic EV battery packs when they expire and can no longer be recharged? I hate to think about time bomb with the leeching of toxins into the ground and water table? California policies are always related to political capital and short term goals related to getting elected in a progressive state, not to sensibility.
As a lifelong Californian, I have some comments. First off, if California's push toward requiring EVs for every vehicle in the state on its way to banning petroleum result in the 40 million vehicles hooking up to the already taxed electric grid in this state, our already frequent blackouts will become daily occurrences. And combined with the progressive rules on "sustainable" energy sources, less power for the grid will be available, resulting in even more blackouts. Already more than 50% of diesel transportation trucks are not eligible to enter the Port of Los Angeles to pick up or deliver loads coming from or going onto ships in the harbor. And with nearly 40,000,000 vehicles in California, can you even imagine the landfill that will be required to handle the toxic EV battery packs when they expire and can no longer be recharged? I hate to think about time bomb with the leeching of toxins into the ground and water table? California policies are always related to political capital and short term goals related to getting elected in a progressive state, not to sensibility.
tberg said:
off_again,
As a lifelong Californian, I have some comments. First off, if California's push toward requiring EVs for every vehicle in the state on its way to banning petroleum result in the 40 million vehicles hooking up to the already taxed electric grid in this state, our already frequent blackouts will become daily occurrences. And combined with the progressive rules on "sustainable" energy sources, less power for the grid will be available, resulting in even more blackouts. Already more than 50% of diesel transportation trucks are not eligible to enter the Port of Los Angeles to pick up or deliver loads coming from or going onto ships in the harbor. And with nearly 40,000,000 vehicles in California, can you even imagine the landfill that will be required to handle the toxic EV battery packs when they expire and can no longer be recharged? I hate to think about time bomb with the leeching of toxins into the ground and water table? California policies are always related to political capital and short term goals related to getting elected in a progressive state, not to sensibility.
I realise that the seabed depth is a challenge but there is sufficient coastline to generate enough renewable electricity for the number of vehicles you mentioned. That's where EVs come into their own, they are so damn efficient, relative to any other form of propulsion, that the actually quantity of electrical energy needed is far less that you might imagine.As a lifelong Californian, I have some comments. First off, if California's push toward requiring EVs for every vehicle in the state on its way to banning petroleum result in the 40 million vehicles hooking up to the already taxed electric grid in this state, our already frequent blackouts will become daily occurrences. And combined with the progressive rules on "sustainable" energy sources, less power for the grid will be available, resulting in even more blackouts. Already more than 50% of diesel transportation trucks are not eligible to enter the Port of Los Angeles to pick up or deliver loads coming from or going onto ships in the harbor. And with nearly 40,000,000 vehicles in California, can you even imagine the landfill that will be required to handle the toxic EV battery packs when they expire and can no longer be recharged? I hate to think about time bomb with the leeching of toxins into the ground and water table? California policies are always related to political capital and short term goals related to getting elected in a progressive state, not to sensibility.
As an example, the 30 million or so cars in the UK can be powered from about 10 GW of continuous power. As I understand it, the medium term targets for offshore wind power in California are far in excess of this.
Secondly, why would anyone dispose of batteries that are already known to be near 100% recyclable, using low temperature methods?
Both of your 'gotchas' are the usual hurdles that are wheeled out time and time again as to why EVs won't work. Truth is, both can be solved using existing technology, so the only real hurdle is funding and legislation, i.e. human constructs, not physical barriers.
Edited by GT9 on Thursday 4th May 06:56
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff