Ars Technica Article on Possible Upcoming Funding Changes for EVs and EV Infrastructure

[Firn]

There are 13 states and DC that have legislated following CA’s emissions rules, MA where I live is one of them. Stopping the sale of new ICE vehicles is a ban, as the old ones get wrecked or wear out they will not be able to be replaced with new ICE vehicles. Those folks who decided to stick with ICE will be forced to buy an alternative product forced on them by government.

https://www.ratchetandwrench.com/si...in-committed-to-california-emission-standards

Currently, these states remain committed to California’s standards: Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, and Maryland, as well as D.C.

There has been some pushback against adoption of California’s standards in Maine and Connecticut, though it is expected to be implemented. Though Nevada and Minnesota have been following California’s standards, neither has officially adopted them.

California also has rules for commercial truck sales that have not gained as much traction in other states. These standards would require an increase in electric commercial truck sales in 2024, with all sales being electric by 2045.

Best I can find is 11 states will implement a stop sale of gas cars, and they have claimed 2035 which is different than California's 2030. The point being that following California's emissions is NOT the same thing as following everything California's does. Emissions requirements and preventing the sale of new gas cars are not the same thing.

As for the "ban", NO, that is absolutely NOT the same thing, in no uncertain terms. Stop the fear mongering rhetoric. Claiming a state is "banning gas cars" and claiming a state is "stopping the sale of new gas cars" conveys two ENTIRELY different things and you know it. One of which dials the rhetoric to 11. That is straight fear mongering and is used for manipulation. Trying to rationalize that viewpoint is wrong.

This still fails to address the point. When there is a literal dirt cloud permanently hanging over your cities who is responsible to fix it? Everyone else should just deal with that so one can chose from two types of vehicles, one of which is causing the problem? Tragedy of the Commons still has to be addressed.

Sponsored

 

[broncoaz]

Best I can find is 11 states will implement a stop sale of gas cars, and they have claimed 2035 which is different than California's 2030. The point being that following California's emissions is NOT the same thing as following everything California's does. Emissions requirements and preventing the sale of new gas cars are not the same thing.

As for the "ban", NO, that is absolutely NOT the same thing, in no uncertain terms. Stop the fear mongering rhetoric. Claiming a state is "banning gas cars" and claiming a state is "stopping the sale of new gas cars" conveys two ENTIRELY different things and you know it. One of which dials the rhetoric to 11. That is straight fear mongering and is used for manipulation. Trying to rationalize that viewpoint is wrong.

This still fails to address the point. When there is a literal dirt cloud permanently hanging over your cities who is responsible to fix it? Everyone else should just deal with that so one can chose from two types of vehicles, one of which is causing the problem? Tragedy of the Commons still has to be addressed.

We can agree that what CA does impacts beyond the borders of CA. Eleven states, 13 states, regardless it’s more than just one state. MA just had to push back implementation on CA’s commercial truck sales restriction (ban) because it wasn’t feasible with the current product offerings.

https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/13220

Massachusetts has adopted the California Advanced Clean Trucks requirements specified in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, requiring manufacturers to meet California’s ZEV production and sales requirements. Beginning with model year 2025, manufacturers will be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual sales for Class 2b through Class 8 vehicles in Massachusetts. ZEVs include all-electric and fuel cell electric vehicles. For more information, see the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Low Emission Vehicle Program.

(Reference Code of Massachusetts Regulations 310-7.40)

When a popular option gets removed from the marketplace by government rules that is a ban on sales of a new product. Some states may start to look like Cuba by 2050 with people getting very creative to keep their ICE cars running. You may not see it as a ban, but I and many others do. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.

I don’t have all the answers for the brown cloud. Tailpipe emissions restrictions have certainly made the cloud less awful in many places. EV’s aren’t pollution free or carbon neutral, they just shift the emissions to a point source of whatever power plant feeds the mains. Renewables are only 21.4% of the grid, nuclear is 18.6% and fossil fuels are 60%. I feed my EV with home solar, but the panels still had to go through the process of getting from raw materials to my roof, not a pollution free process. I would like to see a renewed push for nuclear power, I think we have enough waste products from old plants to power the next generation.

 

[XENOILPHOBE]

I’ll be interesting to see what happens to EV’s in the next couple of presidential cycles. The push pull of different administrations increasing then relaxing then increasing regulation roller coaster makes it hard for the manufacturers to plan on long term strategies and develop new product. EV’s have a foothold in the car market and those who have them generally are enthusiastic about the experience, saving money, and environmental benefits. Those people will be looking for new EV’s going forward. Unfortunately moves like this may slow the pace of EV development, but I think everyone is all in on battery tech. Relaxing restrictions on domestic mining and battery production should be a good thing. Lithium mining is a dirty business and it doesn’t seem fair to just pilfer the third world where there are no environmental regulations, we can mine it cleaner here. As for the lack of subsidies, EV’s should be able to stand on their own in the marketplace without the freebies. Hopefully we’ll see prices continue to drop and charging networks expand.

Many people feel the effective bans on ICE that CA is implementing and that impact other states are a step too far. People like choice rather than having someone force what is perceived as a more expensive car that limits their freedom of movement shoved down their throat. The coming fight should be interesting, it’s not just a state’s rights issue because it impacts interstate commerce.

As for military and government using EV’s, in places where electricity is cheap the government should be utilizing EV’s to save the taxpayers money. Here in MA with high grid rates I’d rather see them in a hybrid ICE vehicle. As for military uses in combat zones, EV’s are a terrible idea. Dinosaur juice is extremely energy dense and easy to transport with other supplies, getting electricity to the front lines and long recharge times just isn’t feasible. Unless they want to make the Abrams tanks nuclear powered or build nuclear generators for the battlefield, there is no way to go EV and keep them combat effective. 300 gallons of diesel (37.1 kWh per gallon) per eight hours is equivalent to 11 MWh per fillup, or what most decent size home solar systems produce in a year. Typical consumption for an entire war appears to be about two gallons per soldier per day, so we deploy 100K soldiers it equates to 200K gallons per day, or 7,420 MWh per day.

Small fusion reactors could replace the fuel, but even then these things are sitting ducks in drone warfare. The lithium batteries cooking off after a strike would be an added hazard, the VA would have to have a PACT Act II to cover the numerous pulmonary injuries from the off gassing.

7.5MWh per day... damn that is an expensive electric bill.

 

[Tony Burgh]

I remember the outcry about little Japanese cars in the 70’s and 80’s. Same political rhetoric. Technological progress will go on with or without the US. By 2000, a lot of retired steelworkers were driving Nissans and Toyotas.

 

[broncoaz]

I remember the outcry about little Japanese cars in the 70’s and 80’s. Same political rhetoric. Technological progress will go on with or without the US. By 2000, a lot of retired steelworkers were driving Nissans and Toyotas.

The Japanese cars proved to be better and cheaper than the US made cars. When EV’s are meeting similar metrics of better/cheaper and have enough of a range/charging speed combination to permit 10 minute fuel stops every 300-400 miles the adoption rate will go up. The perception of range anxiety, especially in trucks towing trailers, is keeping a lot of people in ICE. I have to answer stupid questions from friends and family all the time, almost always about range or charging.

 

[Scorpio3d]

It's not just EV technology. If we don't continue to invest in EVs, we'll concede all battery technology to the rest of the world; we'll concede the entire automotive industry (when the rest of the world is operating spaceships with wheels and we're still building slightly-improved Model-Ts, the rest of the world will stop buying from the US automobile manufacturers); we'll concede improvements to the electrical distribution grid; we'll concede most space energy technology (most spacecraft operate on photovoltaics and batteries and this will be true for decades); there are dozens and dozens of other technologies and industries.

We'll concede the future.

Amen to that!

I also find it quite interesting that they are talking about taking away California’s ability to make its own emissions laws, but on other things they say they are giving the power back to the states??
Typical political double talk. This happens on both sides.

Sponsored