California to stop allowing new internal combustion light vehicles in 2035

[hal2kilo]

It still has a very valid point.

The point in the film was that while yes - that is the goal - that ultimately what we are currently moving to will overall have very little impact in the long run.

The constant moving to lithium ion and other mining materials that you continue to dump onto the equivalency of slave labor and child abuse (similar to blood diamonds) isn't sustainable and all the logistics of all these materials extracting, shipping, building, etc... have a large carbon footprint that people just blissfully forget about.

But if that same labor is used for the clothes you wear, then it's A OK.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Where did you get the idea that people blissfully forget about it?

As far as the point that alternative energy also has costs, no shit. Doesn't change the fact that it was wildly wrong on a number of very basic scientific elements.

Such as?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

But if that same labor is used for the clothes you wear, then it's A OK.

Abso-fucking-lutely not. Where did I ever indicate such? I'm highly against exploiting global labor.

 

[fskimospy]

Such as?

First and foremost it claims the total life cycle carbon costs of renewables are comparable to fossil fuels when this is wildly wrong.

 

[mect]

Such as?

Its been awhile since I watched it, but there are many examples. I'll go through a few below.

1) It tries to make it sound like grid tied solar is bad simply because it doesn't completely eliminate fossil emissions. Just decreasing emissions apparently isn't enough. Renewables have to completely eliminate fossil fuels. That's just not realistic.

2) The solar technology it talks about is probably 20 years old. Modern solar is much more efficient to produce, especially as we start to move towards thin film solar panels. Current solar panels produce over 20x the energy needed to produce them over the course of their advertised life span, after which they are still able to generate lots of energy, just at a slightly reduced rate. So basically, it only takes about a year for a modern solar panel to pay back its production energy.

3) For electric cars, it bases its argument on the worst case scenarios (and old data at that) for grid electricity generation. Michigan has an extremely dirty power supply, but even theirs is getting better. Move that electric car to a state with a cleaner energy grid, and the picture gets much better.

Basically, Moore is trying to argue that since renewables aren't perfect, they just aren't worth doing. I agree with part of the message, that a focus on decreasing consumption is also important, but renewables are a promising way to mitigate our impacts. They aren't going to eliminate fossil fuel emissions immediately, but they can help.

 

[ElFenix]

What does that even mean?

it means you correctly read the thread title.

 

[zinfamous]

I'd be all for getting away from fossil fuel but doing it for no reason at all makes zero sense.
Do you actually have any counter argument here or do electric cars just give you the good feels?

lolwut?

 

[zinfamous]

The documentary you mentioned is filled with inaccurate information.

Michael Moore film Planet of the Humans removed from YouTube

British environmental photographer’s copyright claim prompts website to remove film that has been condemned by climate scientists

www.theguardian.com

The reason to get away from fossil fuels is to stave of catastrophic climate change. That's a good idea, right?

remember how conservatives are supposed to hate Michael Moore because he says mean things about them and their ideology that they don't like to hear?

lol, I guess they enjoy it when he lies to them, though. You know, just like their elected leaders and chosen media voices.

 

[1prophet]

It still has a very valid point.

The point in the film was that while yes - that is the goal - that ultimately what we are currently moving to will overall have very little impact in the long run.

The constant moving to lithium ion and other mining materials that you continue to dump onto the equivalency of slave labor and child abuse (similar to blood diamonds) isn't sustainable and all the logistics of all these materials extracting, shipping, building, etc... have a large carbon footprint that people just blissfully forget about.

That's only if you do the way it has always been done because reasons, but imagine if you question that and look for a better more environmentally sustainable way that is domestic and avoids all the pitfalls of using other countries with their poor human rights standards.

 

[woolfe9998]

Such as?

You might want to just look at any of the various articles on the subject of the scientific inaccuracy of the film.

What Michael Moore’s New Climate Documentary Gets Wrong About Renewables

This video polemic against the renewable energy industry, written and directed by long-time Michael Moore associate Jeff Gibbs, contends that the Earth has simply too many people. Along the way, it offers outdated views and no solutions.

www.forbes.com

Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s a gift to Big Oil

Planet of the Humans deceives viewers about clean energy and climate activists.

www.vox.com

Michael Moore's latest film is riddled with errors -- and millions are watching

The climate change documentary gets it so, so wrong.

grist.org

 

[woolfe9998]

First and foremost it claims the total life cycle carbon costs of renewables are comparable to fossil fuels when this is wildly wrong.

Yes, and it uses old and outdated renewables technology to make this point. The film is a total fraud.

 

[ultimatebob]

I'm amused how California thinks that we're somehow going to migrate the entire automotive industry to electric in just 15 years, considering that Tesla has already been selling electric cars for 15 years now and has only captured less than 2% of the existing car market. No other automaker has come even close to their sales numbers, and even that is a drop in the bucket compared to total automobile market.

If California really wants to help with electric car adoption, they should offer grants to support whatever company is going to the first to release a $20,000 electric car with a 300 mile range that also isn't a total shitbox. Until then, they're just a toy for rich urban hipsters.

 

[cytg111]

New cars right? How long do a gas guzzler live in Cali? 20 years? You are looking at a transition period of 30+ years. All that is being said is, you got 15 years to transform your assembly line from gas to EV. Is that too much?

 

[sandorski]

I'm amused how California thinks that we're somehow going to migrate the entire automotive industry to electric in just 15 years, considering that Tesla has already been selling electric cars for 15 years now and has only captured less than 2% of the existing car market. No other automaker has come even close to their sales numbers, and even that is a drop in the bucket compared to total automobile market.

If California really wants to help with electric car adoption, they should offer grants to support whatever company is going to the first to release a $20,000 electric car with a 300 mile range. Until then, they're just a toy for rich urban hipsters.

Laugh now, buy an E Car in 15 years. Much of Europe and Asia have made similar commitments and I don't think there isn't an Auto Manufacturer anywhere that isn't introducing an E Car in the next few years. ICE powered vehicles are being phased out.

 

[desy]

I don't think its an unrealistic goal however battery battery battery. The cars and the electrical support infrastructure exist just fine.
Finally I'd be surprised if heavy equipment and long haul trucking can be suited to EV only technology but I might be surprised

 

[Fenixgoon]

I'm amused how California thinks that we're somehow going to migrate the entire automotive industry to electric in just 15 years, considering that Tesla has already been selling electric cars for 15 years now and has only captured less than 2% of the existing car market. No other automaker has come even close to their sales numbers, and even that is a drop in the bucket compared to total automobile market.

If California really wants to help with electric car adoption, they should offer grants to support whatever company is going to the first to release a $20,000 electric car with a 300 mile range. Until then, they're just a toy for rich urban hipsters.

5th largest economy on the planet. California is cartopia in the US. There's a reason auto manufacturers don't give an F-U to CARB requirements - they'd be ceding a massive marketshare to whichever competitor(s) decided to be CARB compliant.

CA can always relax the rules, but this gives a giant kick in the pants that electrification needs to be done if you want to sell in 15 years time. Typical auto development cycles are around 5 years for a brand new model

 

[ultimatebob]

New cars right? How long do a gas guzzler live in Cali? 20 years? You are looking at a transition period of 30+ years. All that is being said is, you got 15 years to transform your assembly line from gas to EV. Is that too much?

It's not just the car industry that would need to adapt to this change. Think of the millions of houses and apartments out there with sub 100 AMP service that will need to be upgraded to support at least a level 2 car charger. Sure, the wealthier communities will be ready in time, but (once again) the poor folks get screwed.

 

[Paratus]

15 years seems like a reasonable number. It’s long enough to implement the necessary infrastructure changes but close enough to force those changes to start now.

It’s helpful to remember that in 2035 the mixture of cars on the CA road will still be mostly ICE giving more time for infrastructure upgrades.

It’s also helpful to remember that as the grid goes green (worldwide) the CO2 intensity of resource collection and manufacturing of BEVs also decreases. (Besides folks need to realize that ICE cars require a lot of CO2 intensive mining and manufacturing)

Finally mass production lowers the price of BEVs just like it does for every other vehicle. Tesla’s were down below $40k last year. Hybrids have come down to $22K. I’m sure in 15 years there will be 2020 $20K price equivalent options.

 

[mect]

It's not just the car industry that would need to adapt to this change. Think of the millions of houses and apartments out there with sub 100 AMP service that will need to be upgraded to support at least a level 2 car charger. Sure, the wealthier communities will be ready in time, but (once again) the poor folks get screwed.

How many poor people buy new cars?

 

[nakedfrog]

I don't think its an unrealistic goal however battery battery battery. The cars and the electrical support infrastructure exist just fine.
Finally I'd be surprised if heavy equipment and long haul trucking can be suited to EV only technology but I might be surprised

I wonder if that's why the thread title specifies "light vehicles". I would wager a guess that includes neither heavy equipment or long haul trucking, but maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Looking at the top... say... 25 cars sold in the US we got a loooooooooooooooooooooong way to go is all I can say.

There is some VERY slow progress. I'm about to buy a plug in hybrid SUV - so there is that... but full on electric? Naw.

Imagine an apartment complex of 200+ residences with electric vehicles that need to plug in somewhere. It's simply not reasonable. Thats one of the reasons why I think we should start developing hot-swap batteries for cars.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Looking at the top... say... 25 cars sold in the US we got a loooooooooooooooooooooong way to go is all I can say.

There is some VERY slow progress. I'm about to buy a plug in hybrid SUV - so there is that... but full on electric? Naw.

Imagine an apartment complex of 200+ residences with electric vehicles that need to plug in somewhere. It's simply not reasonable. Thats one of the reasons why I think we should start developing hot-swap batteries for cars.

Hey guys, installing infrastructure for more electric vehicles is crazy talk. But here, unload and load a few hundred pounds of batteries. Oh, store them? Umm, sure, toss 'em over there in the corner.

WRTTOP, go for it CA, lead the way.

 

[hal2kilo]

Hey guys, installing infrastructure for more electric vehicles is crazy talk. But here, unload and load a few hundred pounds of batteries. Oh, store them? Umm, sure, toss 'em over there in the corner.

WRTTOP, go for it CA, lead the way.

Yep, ran that scenario through my head several times and all those issues pop up. It would also lock down technology, to a certain standard too early in the evolution of the battery technology.

 

[mect]

Looking at the top... say... 25 cars sold in the US we got a loooooooooooooooooooooong way to go is all I can say.

There is some VERY slow progress. I'm about to buy a plug in hybrid SUV - so there is that... but full on electric? Naw.

Imagine an apartment complex of 200+ residences with electric vehicles that need to plug in somewhere. It's simply not reasonable. Thats one of the reasons why I think we should start developing hot-swap batteries for cars.

I agree that swappable batteries would have been the way to go, but I'm afraid its maybe too late for this, but maybe not. It would make so much more sense. Normal driving around? Just run around with a 40 kwh battery. Going on a road trip? Throw in a 200 kwh battery. No need to worry about hauling around all that extra weight for your normal every day driving. No need to worry about battery charging speeds. Lots of benefits, but no one seems to have the will to force electric cars towards standardizing battery systems.

Having said that, apartments would actually be the cheapest areas per residence to build up charging infrastructure, since you don't have as long of runouts. Also, people keep talking about level 2 chargers being a necessity, but for the majority of Americans, level 1 chargers would be fine. Level 1 is good for up to about 70 miles of driving per day, and on the occasions someone needs more they could go hit a level 3 charger. This wouldn't work for everyone, but it would work for the majority.

 

[cytg111]

It's not just the car industry that would need to adapt to this change. Think of the millions of houses and apartments out there with sub 100 AMP service that will need to be upgraded to support at least a level 2 car charger. Sure, the wealthier communities will be ready in time, but (once again) the poor folks get screwed.

I think that EV's 15 years into the future will simply charge somewhere on their own, no user needed.