Rod:
I posted that video for the music, not the actual video. Like the lyrics, and in a way, the way people are talking about the new regs, “it’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine”.
Solid state batteries which are said to be 10 years away, are many times more effective then those today in every characteristic. That they are ten years away has more to do with our commitment then present technology. When arrived, EVs become the ultimate flex fuel vehicles religating petro to aviation, heavy haul and manufacturing alone… Look at all of the service personell who would be out of work due to low tech batteries and electric motors which last indefinitely with almost no maintenance. That’s where the legitimate fears should be, not that your car won’t growl when you step on gas.
So don’t be afraid of cars as we know them…be afraid of jobs as we know them.
The problem with the new regs is not the mandated decrease in emissions. Instead, the problem is the mandated technology. This all but guarantees that meeting the standards will cost car buyers (us) more than it could. Why not let the best (most economic) technology solve the problem, regardless of what it is?
I agree in the short term…very short term as we try to make gas motors more efficient. But at some point when manufacturers outside of the traditional automakers of electric cars with enough technology hit their stride, Walmart will be awash with cheap city EVs made in China but hopefully here from American non traditionals.
With all the strict safety standers required for new cars I don’t think there is such a thing as a cheap new car unless these little electric cars can get classified as something other then a car so they need not meet new car safety standards. In the U.K the little G Wiz electric car gets classified as a Quadricycle? a four wheel motorcycle so it doesn’t need to pass new car safety standards.
So the big question. Should small electric cars get a free pass on not having to meet new car safety standards?
I think that a “zero-emission” mandate, while (tenuously) logical in a place like the west coast (where very little e-power is coal-derived), is absolute folly for NE states like NY to adopt. With the prevalance of “old-school” coal-fired power plants, “zero”-emission cars will almost certainly INCREASE emissions of mercury, sulphur, and CO2; INCREASE acid-mine drainage of streams, and mine-subsidance issues, etc.
Look: at least 95% of an “un-smogged” car’s pollution has been done away with–all the ‘low-hanging fruit’ has been harvested, leaving only the expensive fixes yeilding marginal improvements. It’s time–in the never-ending quest to “save the earth”–to look elsewhere for gains.
(For example, how about taking the estimated costs of CARB compliance, and spending that instead on phasing out oil heat? I bet you could GIVE AWAY gas furnaces and still get a better “return on investment” than chasing ever-smaller returns from automobiles.)
"Should EVs be given a free pass…"
Not in my opinion if they are to be used the same way and in the same places as passenger cars.
If EVs were given “a free pass” on safety regs, I would hate to see how much it would cost in insure them.
The savings that might result from the use of electric power instead of gasoline would be exceeded by very high insurance costs.
This is the problem with ‘picking winners’. No need to give any technology a ‘free pass’, lay out the goals and let all those inventors loose to come up with the BEST solution, not the one that meets somebody’s preconcieved notion of what is best.
I do agree that it’s going to be tough for manufacturers to reach these new mandated goals. But I’m not so sure it’s impossible and that even far more efficient and less polluting vehicles are possible. But I’m also a believer that the manufacturers are NOT willing to do this on their own. They need to be pushed before it’s too late. And other technologies from other industries or even new industries are coming into the auto industry…Lithium batteries for one.
JT made some excellent points. Mandating what portion of new vehicles sodl must be of a specific type, despite the fact that the purchase price will be substantially higher, is, IMHO, folly. And as JT pointed out, one quick look at the marketplace shows a much higher cost differential than is being claimed.
There’s an axiom that “as California goes, so goes the nation”. I hope it doesn’t hold true in this case. If it does, than I’ll never again be able to afford a new car. I guess I’ll have to hold on to my curent vehicle forever. Even after it becomes an old oil-pusher with mileage very low relative to new government-sanctioned vehicles. My guess is that I’ll have lots of company.
The smog reduction theory behind electric vehicles is that they move the air pollution away from downtown. Power stations are located outside the San Fernando Valley, so electric vehicles would clear up the air in this thermal inversion bowl.
There is little overall gain in CARBON reduction when using coal generated electricity. The car owner’s fuel bill would be cut in half, however, in most cases. If elecric power is generated from burning gas there is a significant gain (50% or so) in cabon reduction.
This legislation is about letting urban Californian BREATH EASILY, not necessariy about reducing global warming by carbon reduction…
“With the prevalance of “old-school” coal-fired power plants, “zero”-emission cars will almost certainly INCREASE emissions of mercury, sulphur, and CO2; INCREASE acid-mine drainage of streams, and mine-subsidance issues, etc.”
While there will be some increase, it is more easily controlled at a few hundred stacks than a few million tail pipes. And new power plants don’t have to be coal, especially in the Northeast. This is a good opportunity to use wind farms or solar electric energy, augmented with natural gas when the other two can’t generate electricity.
Solar energy in the northeast? Not a good idea. Great Britain is facing a budget crisis, and one of the things they want to cut is the solar power incentives they’ve put in place. Guess how much: 0.44 pounds/kwhr! That’s about $0.69/kw-hr! That’s CRAZY! That’s money wasted.
A recent Scientific American article showed that EVs in the northeast result in higher CO2 emissions than regular hybrids. And this ignores the other pollutants and the damage caused by coal mining.
As long as consumers have a choice of what type of vehicle they are going to buy, California will unable to meet their emissions goals…
Solar energy in the northeast? Not a good idea.
In general for probably most homes you may be right…But MIT has actually built a couple of Solar homes in the Boston area with every good results. Much lower electric bills and only a 15 year payback in the materials. But you have to live in the right area and have the right exposure.
I’ve been looking into it. My house actually comes very close to having the perfect exposure. But the costs have to come down at least another 25% or our electric bills have to increase in order for it to be worth it. And Myself and only one neighbor have the correct exposure. The other 15 homes on our street don’t.
“Solar energy in the northeast? Not a good idea.”
It depends where. It might not be the best idea just east of the Great Lakes, but many other places have sunshine all year. But the idea is to couple solar power or wind power with methane power. When the sun isn’t shining, fire up the methane plant. Natural gas plants can be turned on and off fairly quickly, unlike coal fired power plants. This strategy makes solar and wind power effective for a power company to use.
Just as a sidebar, MASSIVE new deposits of natural gas have been found, much of it in the North-East! The wholesale price of N.G. has collapsed because of this…Many small natural gas exploration and production companies are facing bankruptcy because of this price collapse…Unfortunately, consumers have not benefited as the retail price for N.G. has not budged, creating windfall profits for the pipeline and supply companies…
As for solar, the price of solar panels has dropped by 50% as greatly improved manufacturing techniques and true mass production has flooded the market with panels…LED lighting, super-efficient refrigerators and low wattage flat screen TV’s and monitors can reduce household electrical loads to the point where an off-grid system is feasible…
Manufacturing CNG cars is not that much more expensive then gasoline cars, and existing gas station could install a CNG pumps no problem.
In my opinion the best GM EV1 was not electric but the CNG version, it had a range of 350+ miles and took 5 minutes to fill up with CNG , see Wikipedia close to the bottom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
I’d guess that on the minimal profit margins that the typical privately-owned gas station operates, the cost of installing a CNG refill station would be prohibitive…especially since it would take up valuable space on their lots that could be use dfor and additional gas pump, which is currently far more revenue generating. Most of them would close without the retail section as it is currently. That’s the only thing keeping w lot of them alive.
In ahort, there are some 227,000 gas stations in the U.S. I doubt if more than a tiny few would be willing to inatall a CNG station. They are, after all, small businesses.