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

#41

Post by e28eta » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 4:15 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #30

I don't get it. Mandating that auto manufacturers sell a certain percentage of electric vehicles seems a bit like legislating the weather. If CA really wants to push people into electric vehicles, why not manipulate the demand for electric vehicles? Perhaps add another dollar or two to the gasoline tax?

It makes sense to me: they're forcing the automakers to subsidize the R&D of electric vehicles from their profits on ICE vehicles, which seems like a normal thing for a business to do when it benefits the business.

Since conventional automakers don't seem to be willing to aggressively pursue EVs on their own, this seems like a reasonable approach.

Or, put another way, the consumers who continue to buy ICE cars, and in doing so create pollution, are helping to pay for the EVs that other people are buying.

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

#42

Post by Retric » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 4:17 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #32

California also has the worst electrical infrastructure in the nation, and is not doing something like "requiring the EV people who will stress it" to pay a tax for improvements, or if they wanted to be punitive, a tax on gas cars to pay for it, or anything other than saying what a great idea this would be and pushing for it on the environmental side. Given that converting all cars in CA to electric would seriously s…

It's odd that you think private companies who own and operate the Grid need public support to expand it. If demand increases they make more money which can pay for upgrades directly or in the case of large shifts pay down loans.

PS: A 2% change per year is actually well within normal variations.

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

#43

Post by emddudley » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 4:19 PM UTC

rhaps0dy wrote: post #22

>California emits only 2 percent of global greenhouse gases What? That's huge! California does not have 2% of the world's population, not even close! Looking at it another way, all the more effect the regulations there will have.

I've been wondering whether population is the right statistic to correlate greenhouse gas emissions with. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it with a measure of productivity? Producing 2% of the world's greenhouse gases is not bad at all if California performs 2+% of the world's greenhouse gas-producing activities.

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

#44

Post by marcosdumay » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 4:19 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #28

What is the comparison between using energy to generate liquid fuels from atmospheric CO2 (which would be carbon neutral) and trying to electrify the entire transportation sector? Those Los Alamos guys [1] said in 2007 they could get it down to $3.40 a gallon. Okay, maybe they were wrong and/or optimistic. But, still, there is some price point at which it is break-even. What is it? Five dollars? Ten? The advantages o…

Where's the electricity coming from? If your answer is natural gas, or oil powered generators, then no, there isn't a price point where it will break even.

Now if you can answer that question with nuclear reactors or renewables of any kind, then your logic probably applies. Yet, I doubt it will ever be the main fuel powering our transportation.

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

#45

Post by runamok » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 4:19 PM UTC

runamok wrote: post #34

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #2

Serious question: unless all the electricity for these vehicles comes from completely renewable and environmentally friendly sources, won't banning fossil fuel emissions from motor vehicles just externalize this pollution onto electric power plants? Is there data to show that the environmental impact will be somehow lessened?

A huge amount of energy in gasoline is wasted as heat. About 70%. Electric plants lose much less energy due to reusing the heat fairly efficiently. There are some losses due to power transmission there of course. Keep in mind some electricity that ends up in cars would/should come from renewable sources... http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

FYI the losses of different power plants vary greatly but are higher than I thought. http://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-compa...

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

#46

Post by T-A » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 4:21 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #30

I don't get it. Mandating that auto manufacturers sell a certain percentage of electric vehicles seems a bit like legislating the weather. If CA really wants to push people into electric vehicles, why not manipulate the demand for electric vehicles? Perhaps add another dollar or two to the gasoline tax?

Political expedience. Mandating that an unloved industry do X makes it the industry's problem. Trying to do Y yourself exposes you to criticism about choice of Y, ability to implement it and consequences of the outcome.

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

#47

Post by stephengillie » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 4:21 PM UTC

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #2

Serious question: unless all the electricity for these vehicles comes from completely renewable and environmentally friendly sources, won't banning fossil fuel emissions from motor vehicles just externalize this pollution onto electric power plants? Is there data to show that the environmental impact will be somehow lessened?

Stationary power plants can be optimized much more than a car. A car engine has to give optimal power at a range of torque and horsepower outputs, from starting out at a stop light, to passing people on the freeway, and maybe pulling a loaded trailer. A stationary plant can be optimized to be much more efficient at single rate of torque and horsepower.

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

#48

Post by wmf » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 4:21 PM 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!"

The car may cost $45K to make, but that doesn't mean it's worth $45K. Maybe it's worse than the cheaper gas version.

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

#49

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 4:23 PM UTC

emddudley wrote: post #43

rhaps0dy wrote: post #22

>California emits only 2 percent of global greenhouse gases What? That's huge! California does not have 2% of the world's population, not even close! Looking at it another way, all the more effect the regulations there will have.

I've been wondering whether population is the right statistic to correlate greenhouse gas emissions with. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it with a measure of productivity? Producing 2% of the world's greenhouse gases is not bad at all if California performs 2+% of the world's greenhouse gas-producing activities.

[deleted]

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

#50

Post by chris_va » Mon, Aug 03, 2015, 4:23 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #28

What is the comparison between using energy to generate liquid fuels from atmospheric CO2 (which would be carbon neutral) and trying to electrify the entire transportation sector? Those Los Alamos guys [1] said in 2007 they could get it down to $3.40 a gallon. Okay, maybe they were wrong and/or optimistic. But, still, there is some price point at which it is break-even. What is it? Five dollars? Ten? The advantages o…

The Green Freedom link was interesting, thanks for sharing.

It looks like the $3.40 number is contingent on some advances in material science enabling more efficient electrolysis. I also think they under estimate the cost of a new PWR nuclear reactor.