bobzilla said:
SV reX said:
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I think it is distasteful to respond to people's legitimate questions and concerns by calling them fetishists.
Its a discussion. Let people speak.
That's their MO. When they don't want to address the valid questions they go on the offensive. See the post directly below yours. Same E36 M3. Different day. Some people will never change.
Help help. I'm being repressed.
the white American male is the most repressed race there is.
/s
anyways you don't want to solve problems you just want to parrot "popular" anti California talking points to score internet points.
I don't ever care about this law. I'm more interested in the people who are at first telling everyone how terrible the government is for not doing its job and then when it does its jobs by setting tone and direction people yell " no not like that".
so funny.
dps214 said:
I'm not saying that there aren't going to be issues encountered. But it seems like people are confusing some things here. "No new ICE sales" doesn't mean that all existing cars disappear and everything becomes electric powered overnight. At that point the majority of vehicles on the road will still be gas powered. Yes the electric grid will need some upgrades to keep up at some point, but it's not like it all needs to happen next week...or even by 2035.
California averages around 2M new car sales per year. Even if they do not sell another EV or PHEV in the next twelve years, that 2M vehicle surge is going to overload an already overloaded infrastructure. I understand (they don't al need charged all the way), but millions of motorists using even 1/4 charge is a massive usage issue that needs addressed.
I'm not saying its insurmountable at all. What I'm saying is California does not have a history of looking ahead far enough to fix these issues before they become bgger and the costs are not free. People will be paying more for elecricity, more in taxes etc. People seem to forget that nothing is free, someone is paying for it.
Fueled by Caffeine said:
bobzilla said:
SV reX said:
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I think it is distasteful to respond to people's legitimate questions and concerns by calling them fetishists.
Its a discussion. Let people speak.
That's their MO. When they don't want to address the valid questions they go on the offensive. See the post directly below yours. Same E36 M3. Different day. Some people will never change.
Help help. I'm being repressed.
the white American male is the most repressed race there is.
/s
Once again, unable to participate in a discussion and instead results to insults. Bravo. Way to be a jackass when everyone else is having a decent discussion.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Updated:
Blue = ZEV Sales % So far
Blue line = best fit exponential
Red = ZEV Sales % Targets per ACC II Proposal
Blue line = best fit exponential
Red = ZEV Sales % Targets per ACC II Proposal
So, according to that graph, we don't even need the mandate. Mission accomplished. Or it's highly flawed and defies logic. To assume that growth would be linear would be a stretch. It assumes that the dots to the left of the graph and the dots to the right are the same market. They are not. The dots on the left represent early adopters who wanted EV's and they fit their lifestyle. They also fill a timeframe when existing infrastructure could support the charging with minimal investment. As you move to the right, the market requirements of an EV become more demanding (trucks, SUV's, less city, more suburb/rural.) As you move to the right, infrastructure upgrades become more costly in money and time.
If I start to exercise and eat better, I might lose 5 pounds this month. Next month I might lose 7. That doesn't mean that 12 months from now that I'll be losing 25+ pounds a month. Extrapolating gains from the low hanging fruit on the left side of graph and ignoring the challenges as we move to the right is either disingenuous or lazy.
In reply to 03Panther :
They mean everting to some, nothing to others. And it gets worse in a company- we had MHEV, which I never got a clear definition of what Medium meant.
It's almost a relief that full EVs are now called BEV.
Boost_Crazy said:
If I start to exercise and eat better, I might lose 5 pounds this month. Next month I might lose 7. That doesn't mean that 12 months from now that I'll be losing 25+ pounds a month. Extrapolating gains from the low hanging fruit on the left side of graph and ignoring the challenges as we move to the right is either disingenuous or lazy.
That's a flawed analogy. Losing weight doesn't work that way. But sales often does, especially when introducing a new technology that solves problems the older technology didn't. In this case, having to buy gas. What does the line look like for VCRs starting in the late 70s? How about DVD players in 1997, or smartphones a decade later?
I've been saying for a while that there are three critical factors holding EVs back: Price, range, and accessible charging. Once all three of those reach a point where they are acceptable to the majority of consumers, EV sales will take off. Right now, availability is a fourth factor, but that's temporary.
ProDarwin said:
Steve_Jones said:
ProDarwin said:
Its 12+ years away. Lots of time to overcome the hurdles, none of which seem to be technology limited. Its logistics, infrastructure, etc.
12 years ago the Audi A7 was released. Does that seem like a very long time, or not at all? Personally, I think 12 years will go by quickly.
12 years ago, EVs made up 0.5% of new vehicle sales. Things have changed a lot in 12 years.
Using data from https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/new-zev-sales
Taking a look at where that trendline goes over the next 12 years:
It may not be a long time, but small changes add up fast
Using this chart, between now and 2035 Cali will see a total of close to 14M new EV/PHEV. Using STM317's average of 15kWh per vehicle per day, thats an increase of 210 Million kWh every day in usage over today's need, with no other influences like new housing, new manufacturing etc. Even if it's 1/3 of that, we are talking 70 million kWh. That's not a small hurdle.
Put another way.... the average home in Cali averages between 4-9000 kWh per year. Average that out to 6k and that's about 17kWh per day. That means those 14 million new EV's will have a similar load to adding over 4 million new homes. Can their current infrastructure handle 4M new homes in the next 12 years? For reference the entire US added 1.6 million new homes last year.
STM317
PowerDork
8/25/22 12:46 p.m.
Boost_Crazy said:
So, according to that graph, we don't even need the mandate. Mission accomplished. Or it's highly flawed and defies logic. To assume that growth would be linear would be a stretch. It assumes that the dots to the left of the graph and the dots to the right are the same market. They are not. The dots on the left represent early adopters who wanted EV's and they fit their lifestyle.
I'd argue that early EVs purchased by early adopters were either small hatchbacks that mainstream buyers didn't want to buy, or expensive toys that mainstream buyers couldn't afford to buy.
What we're beginning to see now, are electric (and PHEV) pickups and crossovers that are more likely to appeal to mainstream buyers than what's come in recent years. So it's not as if there will be no increase in demand for EVs. Every major OEM is cranking out EVs as fast as they can, and they're all being snatched up immediately by consumers. There's obvious demand for more of these new EVs (and PHEVs) now that they're becoming available in a form factor that people actually want. Projecting increasingly strong demand seems reasonable to me for the time being. Especially in a location that so heavily incentivizes them.
Fueled by Caffeine said:
bobzilla said:
SV reX said:
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I think it is distasteful to respond to people's legitimate questions and concerns by calling them fetishists.
Its a discussion. Let people speak.
That's their MO. When they don't want to address the valid questions they go on the offensive. See the post directly below yours. Same E36 M3. Different day. Some people will never change.
Help help. I'm being repressed.
the white American male is the most repressed race there is.
/s
anyways you don't want to solve problems you just want to parrot "popular" anti California talking points to score internet points.
I don't ever care about this law. I'm more interested in the people who are at first telling everyone how terrible the government is for not doing its job and then when it does its jobs by setting tone and direction people yell " no not like that".
so funny.
Why don't you stop projecting your inadequacies and actually READ my berkeleying posts. Just try it. Put away the condescension and try to be objective for once and maybe stop attacking people from behind the safety of your keyboard.
Putting aside the issue of power demand, where are we on production? Are we producing enough of these rare earth minerals to produce the batteries? What about the microchip issue we have been dealing with for the last 2 years? Can manufacturers even produce enough to meet this demand? If they do, who will be able to afford it?
STM317 said:
Boost_Crazy said:
So, according to that graph, we don't even need the mandate. Mission accomplished. Or it's highly flawed and defies logic. To assume that growth would be linear would be a stretch. It assumes that the dots to the left of the graph and the dots to the right are the same market. They are not. The dots on the left represent early adopters who wanted EV's and they fit their lifestyle.
I'd argue that early EVs purchased by early adopters were either small hatchbacks that mainstream buyers didn't want to buy, or expensive toys that mainstream buyers couldn't afford to buy.
What we're beginning to see now, are electric (and PHEV) pickups and crossovers that are more likely to appeal to mainstream buyers than what's come in recent years. So it's not as if there will be no increase in demand for EVs. Every major OEM is cranking out EVs as fast as they can, and they're all being snatched up immediately by consumers. There's obvious demand for more of these new EVs (and PHEVs) now that they're becoming available in a form factor that people actually want. Projecting increasingly strong demand seems reasonable to me for the time being.
Annnndd, the manufacturer is controlling this; if they make EV they sell EV because people are going to buy new cars.
In reply to STM317 :
It's just a terminology thing. There is no consensus on what is or is not an EV. For example, the Federal Government considers PHEVs and even standard hybrids to be EVs:
"All-electric vehicles—also referred to as battery electric vehicles (BEVs)—plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) all use electricity to improve vehicle efficiency. In colloquial references, these three vehicle types are sometimes called electric cars, electric vehicles, or simply EVs even though some of these vehicles still use liquid fuels in conjunction with electricity. BEVs and PHEVs are also referred to more specifically as plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs)."
For the purpose of this mandate, it appears that BEVs, PHEVs, and Fuel cell EVs will all be allowed. It is poorly worded. And the media is just being too lazy to read the mandate, or they're being intentionally sensational.
I'm trying to find a better word, but this whole thing is just- stupid. Words matter. I thought this was just bad reporting, but I saw wording in the actual mandate that said gasoline engines were banned but plug in hybrids count as electric vehicles. Despite the fact that they have internal combustion engines. That use gas. It's easy to reach your goals when you just need to redefine the terms. I really should eat more healthy. Today I'm going to call my cheeseburger a salad.
