Another EV thread. Portable Tesla charging stations
- Thread starter The Peeper
- Start date
...except none of whats in the pic will soon be illegal in CA. Gas will still be sold and gas generators will still be legal to use.
weeeeeeellllll. That’s not entirely true.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/cal...87bedd38-5952-11ec-8a94-c30e1afa4dce.amp.html
Its for sure true. Gas will still be sold and gas generators will still be legal to use. Neither of those things is false. None of whats in the pic will soon be illegal in CA. That generator will still be legal to use.
From your article...
Just like leaded gas was still legal in 1975 when they started requiring new vehicles to use only unleaded. Sure, gasoline and gas generators will be legal to use in 2025. But they won’t be in 2040. Well, they will because by 2030, CA won’t be able to supply its energy needs with clean energy & will be forced to relegalize some level of carbon energy.
Last edited:
1- it was a funny picture. the thread drifted, but that should be recognized.
2- 2040, or even 2030, is not 'soon' in my book. Maybe it genuinely is in yours, but I doubt it is if you are being honest. 8 years from now is not soon, and 18 for sure isnt. Nobody with a 10 year old says 'son, soon you will be at college' because the kid is in 3rd grade and that would be dumb to say.
3- maybe CA has to re-legalize some polluting energy creation processes in 8 years. Or maybe other sources improve in both creation and collection. Who knows- its 8 years from now which isnt soon. Technology now compared to 2014 is crazy different. Same with 2006 compared to 2014. 8 years is forever in tech right now.
I am not hoping CA succeeds and I am not hoping the state fails.
You just needed to insert a caveat. It’s not business as usual. They just need to brush up on small engine mechanics to keep their irreplaceable equipment functioning.
Hell, I hope they succeed, since they're going down that path anyway. If we can find a way to produce enough clean energy at a reasonable price to supply all our needs and can find a way to make charging a vehicle as convenient as filling it up, that's a huge win for all of us and the environment. I just think it's going to take a minimum of 40-50 years in the best-case scenario.
And 2030 is only 6 years after CA is banning the sale of gas generators and lawn mowers, and 2040 is only 5 years after the gas car ban becomes effective. So, I think that qualifies as soon.
And 2030 is only 6 years after CA is banning the sale of gas generators and lawn mowers, and 2040 is only 5 years after the gas car ban becomes effective. So, I think that qualifies as soon.
...or just buy the stuff new from stores across the border. Ehrenberg AZ is gonna explode with stores.
Unless they build 4 or 5 nuclear power plants, they will fail. It's the real clean energy.
Fossil fuels are still the most efficient source of power. Clean energy will come from innovation and market demand, not from government forcing it on its people. Energy is power, those who control the energy control the world.
you aren’t overly familiar with how CARB works are you? This is just the first step, not the last. How it proceeds is obvious to everyone else that’s been paying attention for very long. And people can say “they are just one state”, but that board has been essentially setting engine policy for the whole country for a long time.
How many species have been rendered into endangered and extinction with oil drilling and nuclear power? Because we are going to be down a shitload of birds with enough windmills and solar farms to run the country.
I agree this isn't the end in terms of what CARB is going to do. That has 0 to do with my initial or subsequent comments though. All my comments have been accurate, even if people dislike that reality.
The gas cans and generator on that vehicle are legal and there is nothing set to make them illegal.
And CARB has led the way for a handful of states' policies, but hardly the entire country.
I agree. I hope we can all find a way to move on to clean energy. I just think they're stupid as hell for thinking they can just make a law banning gas cars WITHOUT having a clean energy solution for everything that needs petroleum energy and it will work. It's sort of like the way they think if they just make a law to ban guns that's gonna fix that ol' gun problem. I need if present tax laws really worked we wouldn't need a whole bunch of new IRS agents would we?
Like I said I want to have a clean energy solution for everything but you have to make realistic goals with some realistic plans on how to get there.
ETA: I would 17ing love to have an electric vehicle. My son-in-law has one and it's great it's even more awesome that he never needs gas or oil or anything along the usual maintenance plan... but he still has to plug it into the wall. At least he does have solar panels already. Like I said before you have to plan ahead and he did.
Last edited:
this is the part where i know you totally misunderstood my comment. It wasn’t state regulation I was referring to. It was in what manufacturers actually build. Nobody sets up a separate assembly line for California. Those rules filter down to all the rest of us in the products we can actually purchase. The average small engine ships 30-40% off its power potential and often well off it’s optimal run settings in order to obtain carb approval. Buy a weedeater at Home Depot and I can get 20% more power out of it in about 10 minutes.
If you can’t see that this is the first step to not being able to crank an engine in that state at all, I really don’t know what to say back.
I'm someone that LOVES electric vehicles and have known it was a far superior way of making power since engineering school. I don't even find the 30 minute charging thing to be much of a detraction, since the vast majority of the charging would be done overnight by simply plugging it in at home, never having to stop for fuel. So, 30 minutes charging on one long trip is more than covered by the 20 stops at the gas station I'd otherwise take between the trips. So, I like the EV because it's better. It's a natural evolution.
I just don't think solar and wind are the answers for primary sources of providing that power, and over time and implementation will prove to be less "green" than the technologies they seek to replace.
Last edited:
My question is this:
The problem seems to be with “dirty” energy and emissions. But there is NO cleaner option. What everyone portrays as “clean” is just as harmful (if not more) than what they’re railing against. To me, it’s quite disingenuous to play the pot/kettle role like they are. So what are they going to do that’s so much better for the earth?
They’re trading one problem for another.
The problem seems to be with “dirty” energy and emissions. But there is NO cleaner option. What everyone portrays as “clean” is just as harmful (if not more) than what they’re railing against. To me, it’s quite disingenuous to play the pot/kettle role like they are. So what are they going to do that’s so much better for the earth?
They’re trading one problem for another.
That's not even a myth, it's a lie. Electric cars are much cleaner than combustion engine cars. Even taking into account the nasty stuff that goes into the batteries and how it's produced. Even with that, the net environmental payback is generally about a year, unless your electricity is generated by coal in which case it's 5 years.
So even considering everything that goes into the construction of an EV and the eventual disposal of it AND the source of energy that is required (because we all know coal is the major source of electricity most everywhere), they’re still cleaner? Can you provide the actual stats?
Coal produces 21.2% of electricity in the USA. And yeah, considering everything payback is 1-5 years.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Factbox: Lifetime carbon emissions of electric vehicles vs gasoline cars | Reuters
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Factbox: Lifetime carbon emissions of electric vehicles vs gasoline cars | Reuters
I’m going to be honest, after reading the article and your links, I’m still not convinced. There also seems to be no consideration for the pollution for an EV after it’s done with. The lack of that data is concerning.
Also, the materials needed for the batteries aren’t common and will eventually dry up.
Having said this, I’m not an opponent to EVs. I am an opponent to the thinking that anything-but-EV is the future and that’s the direction groups are leading us in.
Power scenario 1: 100% hydroelectric
Break-even point: 9,200 miles
Power scenario 2: U.S. average energy mix (23% coal-fired, plus other fossil fuels and renewables)
Break-even point: 14,800 miles
Power scenario 3: 100% coal-fired
Break-even point: 89,000 miles
Also, the materials needed for the batteries aren’t common and will eventually dry up.
Having said this, I’m not an opponent to EVs. I am an opponent to the thinking that anything-but-EV is the future and that’s the direction groups are leading us in.
Power scenario 1: 100% hydroelectric
Break-even point: 9,200 miles
Power scenario 2: U.S. average energy mix (23% coal-fired, plus other fossil fuels and renewables)
Break-even point: 14,800 miles
Power scenario 3: 100% coal-fired
Break-even point: 89,000 miles
Do you have any better evidence to support your position that EVs are dirtier than combustion engines? Of course, you don't. The real answer for the short term if everyone would put aside political agendas is short-range plug-in hybrids. Cheaper and easier to produce than an EV. The batteries are much smaller, so much less rare metals have to be imported from China. For day-to-day driving, they're almost like an EV with very little gasoline usage. But for trips, they turn into a pretty efficient gasoline/hybrid vehicle.
Do we really need a study showing the effect of those rare metals disposal? I’m not sure if there is one and I’m not going to search for one. You seem to be getting agitated that your thinking is questioned. Chill. My thinking isn’t affected by politics; it’s affected by common sense. Again, I’m not railing against one option over the other. I’m railing against the all-or-none religion of EV-only evangelists and their thinking that EVs are saving the world. They’re not; they’re merely another option.
So, your common sense trumps any studies or data. Got it. Sorry, but your common sense is vastly exaggerating the very real issues of production and ultimate disposal of EVs vs combustion vehicles (which aren't exactly clean to produce or dispose of themselves). I totally agree that the current move to full EVs within the next 15 years is a huge and costly boondoggle that we're all going to pay for (hell, CA can't even produce all the electricity they need today, much less what they're going to need by 2035 and going forward).
Last edited:
The studies don’t compare the types of vehicles from creation through disposal and after. Does that not bother you or at least cause you to step back and ask yourself why they don’t include that into their studies? You even seem to cherry-pick the numbers you used by choosing to use the numbers of 28% coal-produced energy. That doesn’t include the effect countries and areas with 100% coal-produced energy have. It jacks your number WAY up.
You’re also not considering data mentioned in the source links that seem to brush off data from experts claiming EVs aren’t any cleaner.
I’m done pointing out your failed reasoning. Football beckons. Hail State!
You’re also not considering data mentioned in the source links that seem to brush off data from experts claiming EVs aren’t any cleaner.
I’m done pointing out your failed reasoning. Football beckons. Hail State!
Separate assembly lines exist right now. Brands sell gas and electric trimmers, hedge clippers, snow blowers, leaf blowers, etc etc.
What youre saying won't happen is already happening.
I seem to remember people not wanting wind turbines off the coast up around Martha’s Vineyard not too long ago. I would assume since there isn’t a demand that it’s because it isn’t viable. Given our government’s proclivity to fund all options (including the failed solar options) that it isn’t worth the investment.
You know the reason(s) why it wasn't supported off the coast in MV. Inconsistency is alive and well in all of us.
Its the not in my backyard mentality. Same thing with several projects to improve the power grid in the Northeast by adding some power lines from western New York and they keep getting blocked because people don’t like power lines.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.