Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 218 posts

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

#91

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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…

I'm baffled by your inclusion of a link to a four year old anti-wind turbine rant in the Daily Mail at the end of an otherwise sane and sensible comment.

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

#92

Post by msandford »

tdaltonc wrote: post #25
danmaz74 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do those analyses also account for the energy needed to build the batteries? From the wikipedia link, it looks like they don't.

How big is that fixed cost in proportion to the fuel energy? Also, how much energy does it take to make a combustion engine?

It's not really a fixed cost. Batteries aren't good for forever. They have a limited lifespan.

An electric car could be thought of as a gas car with a very, very large, magical fuel tank. If a battery costs $20k (like a Tesla) and I spend $200/mo on gasoline then that's 100 months (simple interest) or about 8 years, before we even talk about the cost of the car or the cost of the electricity.

I know that this doesn't feel good to talk about, but economics is more about numbers than feelings.

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

#93

Post by aianus »

schiffern wrote: post #81
tfinniga wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the linked pdf: "We have limited our studies to nuclear power because its capital costs are lower than wind and solar-electric power, and it has significant environmental advantages over fossil energy sources, which are not carbon-neutral."

If that (huge) assumption is allowed for this technology, why not EVs? You can paint a very rosy picture of any transport technology if you assume away fossil fuels.

If I already own a perfectly good ICE car, as most people do, it's much less wasteful to start feeding it synthetic gasoline than replacing the whole car with an EV. And the benefits are immediate.

Edit: Also, the energy density of hydrocarbons is unmatched. Synthetic kerosene could be used to run 747's; battery technology can't do that.

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

#94

Post by revelation »

wcummings wrote: post #77
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?

>Perhaps add another dollar or two to the gasoline tax? If only, the gas tax is waaaaaaaaaay too low.

Thats kind of what happens when you don't ever adjust it in 50 years and it's a fixed dollar amount.

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

#95

Post by digitalzombie »

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?

Taxing gas will hurt a lot of people and wouldn't stimulate the economy since people will just stay home instead of travel.

And I don't recall that many people that can afford electric car such as Tesla. Nissan Leaf might be cheaper but it still a 100 miles range IIRC. You're basically asking poor people to buy two car. One for daily travel and one to travel say from LA to LV just to play some casino games.

edit:

I think what she and California is doing now is a much better way, mandate it.

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

#96

Post by aianus »

msandford wrote: post #92
tdaltonc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How big is that fixed cost in proportion to the fuel energy? Also, how much energy does it take to make a combustion engine?

It's not really a fixed cost. Batteries aren't good for forever. They have a limited lifespan. An electric car could be thought of as a gas car with a very, very large, magical fuel tank. If a battery costs $20k (like a Tesla) and I spend $200/mo on gasoline then that's 100 months (simple interest) or about 8 years, before we even talk about the cost of the car or the cost of the electricity. I know that this doesn't…

That economic analysis is flawed because you're ignoring the externalities of burning gasoline (health costs, climate change). Only if there were high enough taxes on gasoline to mitigate those effects, then you could accurately do that sort of dollar-cost analysis.

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

#97

Post by gertef »

knorby wrote: post #86
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?

I'm guessing here, but since fleet fuel efficiency standards have been around for awhile, making cars like hybrids attractive to sell, extending that concept is natural. I would love to buy an EV right now, but charging it really wouldn't be practical for me given where I live, so it isn't really a practical option, but I believe that could change in the future. As bad as gas prices could get, it still takes some inc…

CAFE is a farce, as it it forces manufacturers to design and build cars that no one buys. It's the wrong metric.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

> The CAFE achieved by a given fleet of vehicles in a given model year is the production-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per U.S. gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less (but also including medium-duty passenger vehicles—such as large sport-utility vehicles and passenger vans—with GVWR up to 10,000 pounds), produced for sale in the United States. "

(Bonus points for the stupidity of using "harmonic mean of mpg" instead of a simple "gpm")

Also, CA has to work around Federal pre-emption

> Through EPCA and EISA, U.S. law (49 U.S. Code § 32919) also requires that "a State ... may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards".

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

#98

Post by revelation »

fake44637 wrote: post #80
hire_charts wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that argument, you lose energy when gasoline evaporates during transportation. In both cases (electricity and gasoline) loss is marginal and can be mitigated by striking a balance between centralization and transport/power line distance.

I wouldn't call it marginal (it's about 7% for the eletrical grid). See https://www.nema.org/Products/Documents/TDEnergyEff.pdf

Merely refining oil into gasoline already has an efficiency of less than 90%.

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

#99

Post by gertef »

digitalzombie wrote: post #95
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?

Taxing gas will hurt a lot of people and wouldn't stimulate the economy since people will just stay home instead of travel. And I don't recall that many people that can afford electric car such as Tesla. Nissan Leaf might be cheaper but it still a 100 miles range IIRC. You're basically asking poor people to buy two car. One for daily travel and one to travel say from LA to LV just to play some casino games. edit: I t…

> One for daily travel and one to travel say from LA to LV just to play some casino games.

There are other ways to get a vehicle for a road trip, besides buying one.

There are also many plugin-hybrids now: 0 gaws for local driving, and a gas tank for long dries.

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

#100

Post by gertef »

e28eta wrote: post #41
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 i…

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

There are EV and plug-in hybrid options across many price ranges and car shapes.

Post reply on HN