California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It • Hacker News Board

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#201

Post by nickpsecurity » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 4:24 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #196

nickpsecurity wrote: post #68

That she pushes hydrogen so much is disturbing to me. The source we need will either be water or polluting processes. Water is something we should be protecting and conserving with battles going on for it all over. Definitely don't need to be putting Niagara Falls worth of it into cars. The alternative is commercial production which is anything but ecofriendly. That it contains less energy than gasoline for same volu…

We use so much water that the amount to make fuel out of would have next to no difference. And it would cost barely any more to use desalinated water. Not that I think hydrogen is better than batteries.

Good point. Good and bad depending on how one looks at it.

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#202

Post by owen_griffiths » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:04 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #165

loudin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is why Tesla's home battery is going to be such a big deal in the near future. You could buy your own solar panel system and use it to charge your home battery, which would in turn power your electric car. You wouldn't be adding additional stress to the grid and it would probably be less expensive in the long-run. Not to mention that you'd be running on 100% renewable energy.

Anyone ever do the math on charging your car using a solar panel? I'm guessing that unless you have a massive solar panel setup, it would be tough to charge an electric car and get more than 50 miles out of it.

Nissan leaf has 24 KWhr pack, so a 5 KW solar system getting 5 hours of sun could charge it.

However, the cost of having 2 full batteries (ie panel - powerwall - car battery) would be massive in today's world, where batteries are already a huge cost.

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#203

Post by owen_griffiths » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:22 AM UTC

e28eta wrote: post #37

I wonder if the Chrysler CEO is trolling us: "Don't buy the 500e, you get a $45k car for $32k!"

He is definitely not serious - the reason they sell the car at 32k is that is the best price to get the required sales. If people don't buy at that price, they'll have to go even lower, and lose more money.

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#204

Post by OrwellianChild » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:23 AM UTC

wcummings wrote: post #172

OrwellianChild wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing the price of gas would incentivize more efficient vehicles for sure, but it is also incredibly regressive, impacting lower-income individuals disproportionately. The rich keep driving their Escalades since it makes little difference to them what the gas costs, but the poor can't afford to get to work... To the extent possible, it's best to try to avoid externalities like this, making a gas tax less appeali…

Public transit is cheaper for low income earners than driving and disproportionately used by them. Improving public transit is a much better solution. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...

Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge proponent of well-funded, and extensive public transit options... If you are advocating an expansion of public transit to counter the gas tax, I fear it may be more complicated than tit for tat...

In Seattle, where I live, for example, it is logistically and financially expensive to expand public transit. While the city is building out light rail, adding trolleys, and encouraging density, the city is growing too quickly for public investment to keep up. Moreover, the success of Amazon, Microsoft, etc. in adding great, high-paying jobs has the side effect of making the downtown core (where all the transit is) prohibitively expensive to live in.

More externalities... Thus, it comes to be that the poorer working class live further away, have to drive into the city for work, and would still be the hardest hit by a gas tax. Meanwhie, Microsoft provides a private bus/shuttle network to get its employees around from homes to its various campuses - the very people who could afford the extra cost of fuel.

None of this is bad, per se... It's great that there are all these good jobs available and that so many people are flocking to the city! The knock-on effects are to the detriment of the 50% living below the mean...

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#205

Post by jacobolus » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:34 AM UTC

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #198

cmurf wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it goes way back to California Emissions. California has legislated to drag auto manufacturers kicking and screaming to the contrary position for many years. I think it's unlikely engine efficiency, and battery technology would be as progressed as it is now without that. There is such a thing as government failure, just as there's such a thing as market failure. The problem with both is that perfect information,…

People were buying Hondas, Toyotas and Datsuns in the '70s. Part of that was mileage, some of it was price, part of it was ... a sort of rebellion. There was interest. The US automakers were just downright bellicose. No real surprise; they're huge organizations and turning a thing that large takes forever. This was so profound that Roger Smith of all people started the recently defunct Saturn marque. GM remains cast…

Recent story inre GM’s poor quality and high prices relative to Japanese automakers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9946385

I agree that high priced gasoline, fees for parking and road use, and changes to zoning and land use policy would be great, but perhaps we still also want some regulation of car emissions?

Do you have a link explaining how EPA improvements made cars less efficient?

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#206

Post by mullingitover » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 5:40 AM UTC

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #198

cmurf wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it goes way back to California Emissions. California has legislated to drag auto manufacturers kicking and screaming to the contrary position for many years. I think it's unlikely engine efficiency, and battery technology would be as progressed as it is now without that. There is such a thing as government failure, just as there's such a thing as market failure. The problem with both is that perfect information,…

People were buying Hondas, Toyotas and Datsuns in the '70s. Part of that was mileage, some of it was price, part of it was ... a sort of rebellion. There was interest. The US automakers were just downright bellicose. No real surprise; they're huge organizations and turning a thing that large takes forever. This was so profound that Roger Smith of all people started the recently defunct Saturn marque. GM remains cast…

> I think if you want clean air, $10 a gallon gasoline is a good start. This will be very disruptive.

It's interesting to think about how, due to the price inelasticity of gasoline, every penny in price increase results in a certain number of bankruptcies. My pet economic theory is that the gas price spike in the summer of 2008 is what tipped over the first domino in the global financial crisis. That was just a $2-3 per gallon spike. You're seriously advocating a $7+ dollar spike? If by disruptive, you mean collapse of society, sure. That would be very disruptive.

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#207

Post by ArkyBeagle » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 6:26 AM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #206

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People were buying Hondas, Toyotas and Datsuns in the '70s. Part of that was mileage, some of it was price, part of it was ... a sort of rebellion. There was interest. The US automakers were just downright bellicose. No real surprise; they're huge organizations and turning a thing that large takes forever. This was so profound that Roger Smith of all people started the recently defunct Saturn marque. GM remains cast…

> I think if you want clean air, $10 a gallon gasoline is a good start. This will be very disruptive. It's interesting to think about how, due to the price inelasticity of gasoline, every penny in price increase results in a certain number of bankruptcies. My pet economic theory is that the gas price spike in the summer of 2008 is what tipped over the first domino in the global financial crisis. That was just a $2-3…

It is beyond interesting.

I don't think $10 gasoline would cause a ..."zombie apocalypse" level perturbation, but it would doubtless be bad.

I, perhaps surprisingly, agree wholeheartedly with your pet theory.

I have also read more than one (monetarist) economist who holds your pet theory, with a few modifications - the oil price spike was interpreted by the Fed as inflation so they did nothing to ease the money supply, worsening ( or some say starting) the whole shebang.

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#208

Post by ArkyBeagle » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 7:03 AM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #205

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People were buying Hondas, Toyotas and Datsuns in the '70s. Part of that was mileage, some of it was price, part of it was ... a sort of rebellion. There was interest. The US automakers were just downright bellicose. No real surprise; they're huge organizations and turning a thing that large takes forever. This was so profound that Roger Smith of all people started the recently defunct Saturn marque. GM remains cast…

Recent story inre GM’s poor quality and high prices relative to Japanese automakers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9946385 I agree that high priced gasoline, fees for parking and road use, and changes to zoning and land use policy would be great, but perhaps we still also want some regulation of car emissions? Do you have a link explaining how EPA improvements made cars less efficient?

This glances at it a bit.

http://jalopnik.com/5551040/why-old-cars-suck

Spark control was much more primitive, carbureted engines just were not good candidates for all the complexity of hoses and such, gas of varying quality would clog catalytic converters... the technologies were just in an intermediate state. There were all "add parts" improvements.

Japanese cars could be better but frequently were even much more complex.

They might meet EPA off the lot, new, but after five years... I had a 1979 Buick Regal (normally aspirated, 3.8 L V6 ) that was getting like 8 MPG when I sold it in 1993 or so. No mechanic in three states could find anything wrong.

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#209

Post by gambiting » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 7:54 AM UTC

Htsthbjig wrote: post #137

gambiting wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the fact that millions of people live in flats, condos, terraced houses with no private parking spots and they can't charge their cars overnight. Here in UK the vast majority of people I know live in places where it would be impossible to take out a charging cable at night, so the only option is...charging at work? But who will foot the bill for installing chargers at literally every single parking spot everywher…

I have an expensive American electric car and use it in Europe. Before buying it I was worried about all the things you mention. Now that I have been using it for some time normal cars look crazy outdated to me. Going to some place(gas stations) just to fill the tank. Why? It should be in my home, like with my electric car. Lots of European houses have natural gas installations on homes, so why can't we just plug our…

>>Impossible to take a charging cable at night? In the UK?.

I used to live in a terraced house, and sometime I would park right in front of my door and sometime I would have to park 100m away. In any case, if I ran a cable from my door to my car I'm sure it would get cut sooner or later, just like wing mirrors get broken every now and then. If you live in the 4th floor of a condo, how do you connect then? And I don't understand what you mean by natural gas. Cars that can run on gas use LPG, so you would need to liquify the gas coming for your cooker somehow.

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#210

Post by gambiting » Tue, Aug 04, 2015, 8:00 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #154

gambiting wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the fact that millions of people live in flats, condos, terraced houses with no private parking spots and they can't charge their cars overnight. Here in UK the vast majority of people I know live in places where it would be impossible to take out a charging cable at night, so the only option is...charging at work? But who will foot the bill for installing chargers at literally every single parking spot everywher…

"Parking is not Free" Those parking spots already cost a lot of money. Setting up chargers is not unreasonable. Heck, bundle it into the price of the car for home use. A thousand dollar bump, paid over time, not a big deal.

Say you live on a street like this: http://i.imgur.com/uAAhXUc.jpg

Houses there can cost half a million pounds and more. They are not cheap by any means. Yet the only parking is on the street - and sometimes you park in front of your door, sometimes down the street, you can't possibly run a cable down from your door. So what do you do? Does the city council install 50x chargers along the curb for everyone? Why would the residents agree for a bump in their council tax to do that? They are already driving cars, there's nothing wrong with them, why pay for this?

I'm not saying I'm against the idea of electric cars. I love them. But it's going to be super hard to do properly, because most people don't live in places with their own driveways and can't run cables from their homes.