In most places, electric cars do not cut down the pollution. They merely move it to somebody elses backyard, usually someone who is poor and powerless. Electricity may seem clean at the point of usage but not at the point of production.
We certainly should work on developing cleaner technologies for the production, distribution, and storage of energy. Meanwhile, though, most of the electricity powering those electric cars will come from the burning of fossil fuels.
What one needs to consider is the source of the electric power. In some states where hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, and solar power make up a large portion of the power distributed through the grid, electric cars may make sense now. In other states without those non-fossil energy sources, electric cars would not help and, in fact, might exacerbate the pollution problems.
What also needs to be considered are the pollution costs of the entire life cycle of the vehicle itself, from mining the minerals to creating the plastics to building the car to disposal. It is absolutely necessary that all aspects be considered. A new car might get 3 m.p.g. better mileage. However, how much pollution is thereby prevented compared to the amount of pollution created in the production of the new car and disposal of the previous one? Are we better off driving the old "gas guzzler" for fifteen years, or get a new one every five years? The answers are not self-evident, and the research must be done if we want to clean things up.
1
Steve, you are wrong. Even when considering that electricity produced in the dirtiest manner, i.e. from burning coal, electric cars pollute less than gas-driven cars after the math of the complete system is done. As the nation and the world move away from coal (California has no coal plants) the benefits of electric cars will soar.
In California, homeowners can elect to purchase their power entirely from clean sources like wind, solar, and hydro. That translates to driving on the sun's dime as it is the sun that produces those sources.
The fossil fuel industry and old-school auto companies will fight efforts like this to the death and they have their man and their political party to do their bidding. Watch the efforts in the coming days to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
Cudos to California and the rising numbers of countries that see the necessity to end the grip of dirty energy.
1
Either California should follow the lead of China, Norway, and the U.K. and ban gas cars starting in 2040 at the latest. Sorry, but you don't have a right to pollute
Lets first shut down all airplanes and trucks using fossils and take a look at the results.
1
It is inevitable if we are to continue to have cars that they will be electric powered,and hopefully that juice will come from hydro,wind,or solar,and not coal or other fossil fuels. Trick will be to make a car that all people who need one will be able to afford.
California could start by banning the sale of new passenger vehicles that get less 20 mpg. It rankles me when I see people in gas guzzlers. We have no excuse and should certainly know better.
1
RedRat says, "This is not a solution in the long term. Yes, natural gas powers many power plants, but it still produces CO2! It still takes carbon to move those vehicles. It doesn't matter if it comes from coal or natural gas, it still takes the same amount."
No, it doesn't always take the same amount of carbon to power an EV as it does to power a car equipped with an internal combustion engine. If your energy source is natural gas than your EV will burn less carbon than an equivalent ICE.
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php
1
Much of the opposition to EVs is not actually opposition to the technology. Some of it is simply opposition to the kinds of people who drive EVs — liberal Californians, environmentalists, techies, "latte-sipping West Coast elites".
1
Okay...let's say California bans registration of fossil fuel cars? What does that mean for people from out of state who want to road trip to somewhere in California? What does that mean for the countless high end cars owned by the ultra rich in California? What does that mean for border towns like Tahoe?
Zipping along Interstate 8 from Phoenix to San Diego I first passed APS's solar farm. Parabolic mirrors are used to boil a working fluid which spins turbines to make electricity. Heat storage in molten salt allows the farm to produce power into the evening hours. Next, near El Centro, I went past one of many solar panel farms, quietly producing megawatts of clean power. Finally on the outskirts of San Diego, the Laguna mountains seem to be sprouting with massive wind turbines, 1 megawatt and larger, which produce clean power 24x7, as well as creating jobs for Americans. Meanwhile the Dotard Dufus DOTUS in the White House calls for tariffs on imported solar panels, and got elected promising to help the coal industry. One political party in particular is consistently on the wrong side of history. It may be 10-20 years before electric cars are viable for the majority of consumers, but they already offer 200MPGe for early adopters. Watching a Youtube of a Tesla outrunning a Kawasaki Ninja was the turning point for me; Ferraris don't even try. Once they quit LOOKING like ugly little bugs, the reliability and economy of electric cars will bring about a wave of adoption resembling a tsunami. There's a lot of work to do between now an then on the grid; incentives are needed, but it's coming. If you haven't already, go drive one. Risk having your mind changed. And good luck California; the rest of us are proud of you for looking toward the future instead of the past.
6
Maybe California should also consider building sidewalks in their cities so people can walk, and safe bike lanes so people can get out of their cars. Think about it, in a City like LA with sun shining 300 days a year, almost every electric car could also be an electric bike if there was a safe riding infrastructure.
3
Another "my way or the highway" California proposed mandate. Appears to be a pretty rigid and simplistic approach to an environmental problem that assumes that the regulator knows what's best for everyone. In fact, there are many ways to skin a cat and controlling pollution is not limited to one electrified panacea. If the goal is to reduce the carbon footprint, let's consider the least cost, least disruptive means to do so. That may include tax incentives for low carbon emissions that could include electric, internal combustion, and even yet to be discovered solutions. Keep your options open.
1
I just switched to a (cheap, 2nd hand) electric car here in LA, and it's clear that it's the way things are going to go. It's simply a much better vehicle, and driving one makes you aware of what smelly, disgusting things gas burners are. It's great to never have to use a gas station and deal with the toxic stuff, and it's a relief to know I'm not adding to our lousy air quality. Gas burners are a dead technology, and we certainly can iron out the infrastructure issues over the next quarter century, by which time electric cars will be so superior to gas burners that future Californians will laugh at those who ever opposed them. Burning gas kills, and we have to knock it off.
5
The Governor is finally mulling over a great way to shut down the California economy by banning the transportation polluters ! His wish list includes the 50 million gallons of gasoline and diesel being consumed by the 35 million registered vehicles of which 97% are not electric. In addition, he will need to consider shutting down those polluting airports of which California has more than 145 (inclusive of 10 major and 33 military, plus smaller, reliever, and general aviation airports) that are consuming 10 million gallons of aviation fuels every day to keep the airline industry and our economy running smoothly.
His relentless crusade against emissions has been a very effective camouflage to his relentless need for revenues.
The original landmark bill AB32 that was signed into law in 2006 when California was contributing 1% to the world’s greenhouse gases, has been ineffective in reducing California’s contributions to the world’s greenhouse gases. A decade later in 2016, according to the California Energy Commission we still contribute a miniscule1 percent. The cap & trade program that hits the motorists’ pocketbooks and has had little to no impact on the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions, but it has successfully extracted more than $7 Billion dollars of revenue from our citizens to fund a multitude of governmental pet projects.
1
I'quite amazed that you were able to pack many false statements into one post. Well done!
1
Until manufacturers produce electric cars that can go more than 200 miles on a charge and at an affordable price, say around $20,000 or less, banning electric cars is ludicrous. Even if more charging stations are added, it takes time to charge the cars. The charging time depends on the manufacturer, but from what I've read online, the minimum charging time is 4 hours. If this passes, the state will essentially be banning road trips. While this will be a boon to airlines and train travel, what about those of us who prefer to drive to our vacation spots? Also, what happens if there is a natural disaster and the electrical grid goes down, as has happened recently in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico? No place to charge your car = no way to evacuate.
This is a prime example of putting the cart before the horse.
4
When the electric grid goes down, gas stations loose power. When they don't have power the pumps don't work. In terms of infrastructure failures, electric cars fare about the same (or even slightly better in the case of roof top solar) than ICE-based vehicles.
1
All these concerns are absolutely valid. The headline is written provocatively. Fuel cars would be phased out over time. One successful example was phasing out cars that required leaded fuel. Older cars were grandfathered in. Over time, leaded fuel disappeared.
A side note for you. Are you aware that Tesla was able to extend the driving range of their owners in Florida by adjusting the on board software remotely?
Ah but where is the electricity coming from before it gets to your new car?
Even “green” solar panels are made in a very toxic chemical process. Be very careful with your nose, California.
The face is watching.
2
There's this new thing happening, and perhaps you've heard of it?? It's called renewable energy. In less than three years California will have 1/3 of its total energy demand supplied by renewables of all sorts, and in the next ten years, 50% supplied by renewables. California gets basically zero percent of its energy demand from coal fired power plants. Thought you should know.
Hi, CS,
Thank for the warning about the toxicity of producing solar panels. I promise to do some web research to see what I can learn about it. It’s difficult to imagine, though, that the toxicity of producing my solar panels, which will be powering my house and electric car with clean solar electricity for the next 20 years, is worse for humans and our planet than the cumulative toxicity — over the next 20 years — of continuously extracting, bringing to market, and burning the fossil fuels that my solar panels are replacing.
Sorry if I sound like I have my nose in the air. I’m just excited about the technologies now available that allow us to replace fossil fuels with much cleaner, renewable energy sources. And these technologies will surely continue to improve in the coming years.
Just what does the New York Times mean when it says that Russia "swayed" the 2016 election? Does it mean that Hillary Clinton would have been the winner of a fair election and the result should be overturned? Does it mean that the results of certain unspecified Congressional elections should be invalidated? These are serious allegations with profound consequences. The Times has a responsibility to pursue the truth, but it sometimes crosses the line between promoting the truth and feeding the narrative.
Gov. "Moonbeam" at it again, this guy has done nothing his whole life but spin one nutty idea after another high speed train in central valley with no connection to Sacramento, water tunnels to deplete the delta .. so LA can grow more people
.. electric cars, play things for the rich.
I wonder what caused the latest crackpot idea ( I think I have the answer - majuana initiative, no doubt )
1
Other things he's done in his life -- rescued California from the biggest financial crisis in his history and turn a massive budget deficit into a surplus. And most of his "moonbeam" ideas from the 1970s? They included solar power, electric cars, carpool lanes....
8
If Moonbeam says so. Probably as likely to happen as his bullet train is. We'll all have charging stations only no electric cars to go with them.
Car and cows.
I stopped going to live sporting events when it seemed like everyone around me was drunk on his backside, hooting it up with friends and only minimally interested in the game. Besides, you see everything more clearly on TV at home.
4
In a state that produces OIL, it is not likely ton happen. Not only that, it would be government interfereing with free enterprise. "We are going to do away with free because someone wants to sell canned air". Just the switch from LPs to CD, people were more or less forced to dispose of their collections so someone could MAKE MONEY. I've got a clunker, it does pass smog tests and at my age I'm not about to get suckered into buying another car, that I couldn't afford even if I wanted to, I do believe is air quality (got lung cancer, thanks to ag spray, I think, and smoking) but let's not let Raegan's "government's the problem" take hold. There are 40 million people here with about 39.9 million cars. Ag pollution is the biggest problem, cows and airplanes next. Get electric jets, gasless cows and clean ag and then we can talk.
1
Thank goodness for our forward-thinking governor! If China and England are exploring gas- and diesel-free futures, California certainly should be as well.
6
The 'dirty little secret' here in SoCal is that 'night CO2 emissions' have gone up dramatically in the last ten years with the closure of San Onofre and the drought.
Diablo closes soon, as well, leaving a bigger hole to fill.
That hole is being filled with coal from out of state and an alarming number of new natural gas units.
Renewables (mainly solar) contribute close to half the demand at noon some days, but is single percentage points at night (demand peaks at 9PM) when the fossil fuel flows onto the grid. Cheap, reliable fossil fuel. Of course, all the electric cars get a break to charge "at night when rates are lower".... because fossil fuels are far cheaper.
At this point it's another California Shell Game... like the 'balanced budget' that ignores the trillion dollar pension gap. Or the "no ethanol in our fuel" mandate that contaminated water supplies across the state with the alternative, a toxic chemical called MTBE.
So, like most things, California's heart is in the right place, but they aren't so good at the nasty little implementation details.
2
And nothing ever changes. Nothing ever advances. The model T was the last word in cars. Where in the world does this kind of thinking come from.
That would be an excellent idea if the goal is to reduce California's population by a massive amount. Many people do not want electric cars.
Many people didn't want cars, preferred horses.
3
Nobody wants to breath in you exhaust. I hope they make it a jail sentence, as it is with any other toxic dumping, to be caught with a device that pollutes our communal air.
1
I hope they do not move our presidential primary. Early choices do not mean better choices.
Evidently the Pacific Research Institute has its head in the sand.
What will people do have no garage and have to park on the street? In SF and other heavily populated areas, it would be impossible for people to plug in their cars. A law requiring all vehicles to be electric may be the ideal, but it's not a real solution. Tax incentives and rebates for cars and trucks that are either hybrid or electric is the way to go.
Umm, You are aware there already are already a lot of street-side chargers in SF and other heavily populated areas? And you can charge your car at work, the grocery store, or even at a charging station (think gas station, but cleaner). I did it for years and now I also have a charger in my garage. Not that difficult
"The remarks have thrilled environmentalists who see tailpipe pollution — accounting for about a third of total greenhouse gas emissions — as a bane to both air quality and the climate." I think everyone — not just environmentalists — can agree that tailpipe emissions are not a good thing.
"While Californians have been the nation’s leading adopters, electric vehicle sales in the state amount to less than five percent of the total." Yes, that is correct — at five percent and growing. In October 2000, when I bought my first Prius, hybrid sales were at about zero percent. As the cost of EVs falls and as their range improves, sales will naturally grow. Why will people switch from cars with internal combustion engines to EVs? Because fuel cost per mile is much lower, and because electric motors are very cheap to maintain.
California is open-minded and unafraid of the future.
4
In CA, it doesn't matter what we think. Our one-party rulers do our thinking for us. In a place where they just decided a self-described X has the same legal status as a biological M or F, banning gas cars is, particularly for them, a no-brainer.
So, you're alright with your freedom to breath clean, fresh air being taken away from you by people that choose to drive vehicles that pollute?
3
As other commenters have pointed out, we're far from having enough plug-in charging stations -- or homes equipped with outdoor plugs -- to pull it off. Plus, there are range issues for long trips: i.e. how long it takes to charge the car and get back on the road. On the other hand, hybrid technology seems to be underutilized. Having driven a hybrid for several years, non-hybrid cars now just seem inefficient to me. Seems to me, pushing for greater adoption of hybrids -- and use of hybrid technology in a wider range of vehicles -- could make a major impact in the short term while the plug-in infrastructure problems are being addressed.
You are living in the past. We have electric cars with plenty of range. They mostly charge at night when we have A TON of electric capacity to spare. It will take a few years to replace all the cars, as not everybody is read to to buy new ones, just as it will also take a few years to add chargers and any additional electric power plants. But you are lying to yourself if you are in the market for a new car now and think it is not doable.
1
As others have mentioned, apartments, condos, etc. don't -- in the present -- have external outlets. (Which is why I don't have a plug-in car. ) If you can't charge overnight at home, the car isn't much use. With more people living in non-single family homes in our increasingly crowded state, that's a big deal.
And there is still a range issue: 100 to 200 miles for most electric cars. That's fine for a daily commute, but how about a long road trip? Especially with multiple drivers, people routinely drive more than that in a day. Seems it's a challenge at best:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1111505_electric-car-road-trip-lesso...
All those are major kinks that will need to be resolved before having an electric only car is a viable solution for everybody.
Try pulling a boat or trailer with an electric car. How about trucks that need internal combustion power to effectively operate?This kind of naive regulation would cripple many industries that depend upon powerful vehicles. If you want to move to cleaner vehicles simply tax gas and diesel more than the current situation. Fuel guzzlers would pay a pollution tax and electric cars users would reap incentives. A simpler solution that doesn't force consumer behavior but achieves a desired outcome.
2
There are a few models of electric cars that can pull a boat or trailer right now. No vehicle category needs internal combustion. That is a ridiculous assertion. I drive an electric car everyday, there is an electric bus that also goes the same route to work. Or you can take an electric train. Mercedes has been testing their electric semis in Germany since the beginning of the year. If there is not an electric car in your vehicle category yet, wait a few years and I am sure there will be plenty. This ban is being considered for many, many years down the road, so you have plenty of time.
2
California should not ban fossil fuel cars. How many people will die on Highway 80 on the way to Tahoe when they close it because of blizzard like conditions over Donner Pass and the 3 hour trip from the Bay stretches to 10 hours and the charging stations are covered in 20 ft of snow as they would have been this past winter? Electric cars are great when you live in Palo Alto, where it's sunny and 75 degrees year round. They remain untested and unproven in cold and snowy weather. And, after the recent natural disasters, need we be reminded of how fragile our power grids are. One big earthquake and oops, no power for weeks.
2
no power for weeks.
SEE the bicycle lobby coming to a neighborhood soon.
I would remind everyone that electric cars are powered by electricity and where does that come from??? It comes from power plants that are mostly powered by fossil fuels unless you live in a state with lots and lots of hydro, nuclear(Oh, dear...so sad), or wind. All you are doing is removing the pollution from your immediate tailpipe to a very large smoke stack some miles away.
This is not a solution in the long term. Yes, natural gas powers many power plants, but it still produces CO2! It still takes carbon to move those vehicles. It doesn't matter if it comes from coal or natural gas, it still takes the same amount.
3
RedRat writes: "It comes from power plants that are mostly powered by fossil fuels unless you live in a state with lots and lots of hydro, nuclear(Oh, dear...so sad), or wind."
Not so much in California. 36% of electric power is derived from natural gas, which isn't very polluting as long as it's produced in a new plant and not sourced from fracking. Only 4.13% of California's energy comes from coal and 0.01% from oil. The remainder is hydro and renewables: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
Overall, California is moving quickly towards obtaining more and more of it's electricity from cleaner sources. Coal will most likely be phased out in the next few years.
I agree with many of the commenters that electric cars will only work depending on where you live and whether your vehicle has commercial needs or not. And, we certainly need to continue increasing our mass transit infrastructure. However, increasing the number of electric vehicles to the greatest extent that we can is also necessary, in combination with the above, to reducing our emissions to the lowest point possible.
2
California's electrical grid has become cleaner every year, at around 1/3 renewable currently. Not to mention the fact that batteries and power plants are significantly more efficient than a small combustion engine. In fact it would eliminate most of our pollution if the much more efficient power plants were the ones burning by gasoline, and then we charged all our vehicle batteries with that. But of course we don't need gasoline at all, and California has been steadily moving that direction every year.
3
RedRat,
It matter a huge amount between coal and natural gas.
The two aren't even close.
I note you also don't mention solar in your comment?! Because...?
Yes, the idea is to remove the pollution from our tailpipe to a cleaner burning, or green source better yet, generation plant.
It needs to start somewhere and quickly.
1
A couple of years ago I put solar panels on my roof, installed a level 2 charging station in my driveway, and bought a 2016 Chevy Volt. It’s a comfortable, quiet, peppy car that I love. Since almost all my driving consists of short trips around town that I can make entirely on electricity, I go for months without visiting a gas station. So far, in its lifetime, my car has driven 205 miles for every gallon of gas used. My solar panels generate enough electricity to charge my car and power my house too.
If California had electric charging infrastructure as widespread as gas stations are, I would have waited for the all-electric Bolt.
4
My point is, after a significant up-front investment, my solar panel/Volt combo is turning out to be a great deal for me. But I realize, as other readers observe, that much work would need to be done to make the same opportunities available to every Californian. I would like our state to set a goal for converting from gas-powered cars to electric ones and use that as an impetus for making the public investments and policy changes that will obviously be needed to make the goal a reality.
2
can you IMAGINE the RENT for someone living in an apartment ? As it is now, renters pay through the nose for everything, inlcuding keys, laundry, pets and even the holes in the wall to hang a picture. Electric cars and solor roofs are great IF you own a home--about 49% of Californians--or less.
I rent an apartment and charge my car in a normal 110 outlet. It works fine, and costs me about 1/6th what I would be paying in gas.
2
In most places, electric cars do not cut down the pollution. They merely move it to somebody else's backyard, usually someone who is poor and powerless. Electricity may seem clean at the point of usage but not at the point of production.
By all means we should work on developing cleaner technologies for the production, distribution, and storage of energy. Meanwhile, though, most of the electricity powering those electric cars will come from the burning of fossil fuels.
What one needs to consider is the source of the electric power. In some states where hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, and solar power make up a large portion of the power distributed through the grid, electric cars may make sense now. In other states without those non-fossil energy sources, electric cars would not help and, in fact might exacerbate the pollution problems.
What also needs to be considered are the pollution costs of the entire life cycle of the vehicle itself, from mining the minerals to producing the plastics to maintenance to disposal. It is absolutely necessary that all aspects be considered. A new car might get 3 m.p.g. better mileage. However, how much pollution is thus prevented compared to the amount of pollution created in the production of the new car and disposal of the previous one? Are we better off driving the old "gas guzzler" for fifteen years, or get a new one every five years? The answers are not self-evident, and the research must be done if we want to clean things up.
8
The sources for California's electric power are fairly clean and getting cleaner all the time:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
2
Not true. Power plants burning 100% fossil fuels powering the current generation of electric cars would still significantly reduce pollution. This is because power plants are more efficient at extracting that energy than small internal combustion engines that waste most of that energy. And batteries are more efficient at delivering that electricity to the vehicles motors. Of course, no state in the US has power plants using 100% fossil fuels, so the benefit is even better and continuing to increase at a rapid pace
1
Re banning non-electric cars in California:
There are so many millions of non-electric cars in California currently and so few charging stations that this is currently a huge non-starter of an idea. This a change that is going to have to be made over a period of time that will be in decades, not years or months. There is not even the manufacturing capability currently existing worldwide to produce the number of electric cars needed, by just the residents of California, to replace gas and diesel based cars. The power grids will have to increase capacity too, to handle charging all of those electric cars daily.
and don't forget we'll soon? have the bullet train from fresno to Stockton to alleviate our transportation woes.How many of those billions could have been used to GIVE AWAY eletric cars to the poor? Thankfully, governments MOSTLY talk about stuff, but rarely actually do anything.
You can plug your electric car into any electrical outlet over night, and most people only drive a daily commute that would take a few hours on a regular outlet. There is currently a large amount of charging capacity during the night time hours that is also not being utilized. We could substantially increase the amount of electric cars charging without adding a single new power plant. So this a definitely not a non-starter. We can start today.
Maybe you didn't read the article, because the timeline suggested IS decades. Manufacturing capacity is a non-issue, since every electric car sold is a gas burner not sold. That's how manufacturing works.
1
Most electricity, which is used to not only operate but to make electric cars, is generated using fossil fuels like natural gas and coal. About 20 percent comes from nuclear power and only about 15 percent comes from renewable sources. We have a lot of work to do.
Most the pollution in the US would be eliminated even if we did not increase the percentage of renewable power plants. That is because power plants are much more efficient at generating electricity than small internal combustion engines that waste most of the energy they generate. So if all the cars where powered by batteries using electricity from power plants (renewable or not), we would still reduce most of our pollution.
1
I think it might someday be practical to have a partial ban that would only be for urban areas.
Pure electric cars are still not practical for California's remote desert and mountain areas.
The talk of electric-only cars brings to mind the memory of how for years the oil /fossil fuel lobby has successfully - probably permanently - hamstrung viable mass transportation options in California. Just try to get from one end of the state to the other affordably and in a reasonable amount of time in something other than a car or plane. And forget getting around a city efficiently on a bus/trolley. San Diego has grown to a population of roughly 1.3 million people and is the 8th largest city in America, yet it lacks efficient and effective mass transportation, which has in turn created a virtual parking lot on all of its major thoroughfares and freeways.
2
If the government is willing to buy everyone new electric cars, then sure, this would be a good idea. Otherwise, it is unrealistic and elitist to effectively ban people who can't afford new(er) cars from commuting to/from work, family, and god-forbid, NATURE, which so often can only be accessed by driving. Public transportation improvements would help, but they are also incredibly expensive to implement in many places (e.g. LA County).
Two problems with banning electric vehicles:
1) Enlarging the grid so that it can handle the extra demand would be a massive undertaking.
2) Brownouts and power outages. Imagine a massive earthquake in either L.A. or the Bay Area that knocks out power for days, weeks or even longer. In an all electric vehicle state, the use of all trucks and automobiles would grind to a halt.
6
They day I get an electric car, solar panels go on top of my roof. In fact, in the future there will be less reliance on electrical grid in any state that has massive amounts of solar power.
1
You do understand that the pumps at your local gas station would be out of order?? Right??
1
The banishment of carbon fueled cars is coming. But not until the transportation infrastructure is able to support efficient alternatives like high speed intercity and local train systems, robust bicycling infrastructure, cheap solar power, and, of course, self driving smart electric autonomous cars - (which will minimize congestion and eliminate traffic lights*). Meanwhile freeways continue to be uselessly expanded, gas companies and car manufacturers, lacking incentive, will resist and block inevitable progress.
*ie, your google map instructions should be talking to your car not you.
2
It's a ridiculous idea that is too far to the left.
This is not Communist China!
3
And China is not Communist. The times, they are 'a changin'.
5
Exactly, like seat belts and airbags
4
"The lag here is the consumers" -- for good reason: dearth of charging stations, low mileage ranges, and high price. I have a friend who would love an electric car and can afford it, but his apartment complex lacks charging stations. Full stop there. I would love one and own my own house so I could charge it, but I can't afford it.
Solve those three problems, and consumer demand would soar.
7
I drove an electric car for years with no charger in my apartment complex. If you live in a metro area, it is already doable. There are chargers on the street, in parking garages, grocery stores, workplaces, shopping malls, etc. Some of these, like the ones near metro stops or in large shopping areas are even free to use as well! Also, if you live in an apartment, you should contact a company like Evercharge.net. They install and maintain chargers at no cost to your apartment building, only charging you a monthly bill for your electricity use. If you live in a house, most of the electric companies will give you a large rebate to install the charger in your garage. You could even use a regular outlet if you charge your car at night and have the average commute that most people do.
OK by me. My wife's car has 172,000 miles on it and mine has 272,000, so we're ready to start phasing out.
2
Banning them will undoubtedly be counterproductive to the goal -- the backlash would be staggering. I think it would be a better idea to "encourage" people to switch using taxes and incentives. An additional yearly registration tax based on non-electric mileage, higher gas taxes, and incentives for owners and dealerships who use electric cars could go a long way. Make it increasingly, prohibitively expensive to stick with carbon fuel cars and people will make the right decision.
4
When fossil fuel cars are 'outlawed', will there be provisions to make electric cars affordable to the general public? Will there be a significant upgrade to the public transportation system so people can get to work? What about the amount of exhaust put out by airlines or shipping industries? What will become of the massive refineries which dot the California coast or the behemoth drilling platforms? And since you can't afford to live close to work due to the staggering cost of housing here, will there be a sponsored building boom which will benefit the working class so those who can afford their electric cars will have staff to work for them? Mr Brown had best address a few other issues before he tries to catch up with China's push to eliminate the fossil fuel problem.
2
What a strange way to interpret that English language law (which I probably voted No on, if it was a State Proposituon). I believe the law was pushed by people who did not want bilingual education in state achools and did not want ballots and voter information booklets printed in other languages.
Despite the law, the official name of San Jose, CA is San José. It is on the city letterhead that way, with the accent mark over the e. Many of the names of towns, cities, mountain chains, historic missons, etc. are Spanish because Spain owned California for centuries before US citizens moved to the area in large numbers to pan for gold. The place names were not changed when ownership changed.
Despite the law, ballots and voter information is printed in several different languages and the State DMV booklets are available in several languages too.
It seems the law is being implemented in a haphazard way. I had no idea it was being used to control how people spelt their names in California. A very odd thing to go strictly English on. Considering that the English language has many adopted words and phrases from French and other languages which have special marks over letters, it is silly to insist those marks are not valid in person names, forcing people to anglicize their own names.
Many conservative State Propositions originate from conservatives who moved to the state during WW2 from southern states to the San Diego area.
1
I have a Volt and love it. However banning non electric cars in CA. is extreme.
2
Regarding the proposed elimination of the federal deduction for state income taxes: yup, if that goes through we are going to be triply screwed. Californians already pay a very large share of federal income taxes and get very few benefits from those federal taxes. Most of a good portion of the federal income taxes paid by Californians support states that have no or very low taxes and really on Congressional allocations of federal income to their states to keep their states running, or as I call them, the Welfare States which do not pay their own way.
So, the Republicans have decided to make residents of states with state income taxes pay for the tax cuts for the 1% and for corporations. I cannot express myself about this proposed *best and bigly* tax reform without expletives that would ban my comment. So I leave it to you, readers, to supply all the worst expletives you know.
13
We already pay for the 1% and corporations with prop 13. One example is how the Disney corporation is dealt with by Orange county According to the O.C. Register the appraised value of Disneyland in Anaheim is .37 cents a square foot. Is it worth more and will it ever be appraised at its current value? Another example Now that Amazon has bought Whole Foods does that mean all these food markets will have appraisals brought up to current market value as a result in change of ownership? Perhaps when pigs fly
Electric cars: Brown is no fool. He knows that the time has not come to ban non-electric cars. California is moving in the right direction, however. The future of cars is electric; we just need to move the technology along a little faster.
12
California has the best car culture in the world. Ban them in Connecticut.
As a life long Californian and Democrat, as well as being protective of our environment and natural resources, I feel that banning non-electric cars - even over time - would be intrusive on our rights. It would be the other extreme, too much toward the left, of what we are barely tolerating from this alt-right dictator of sorts sitting in the Oval Office. As it is, we here tend to drive fuel efficient vehicles, car pool, and use public transportation in our cities as much as is feasible. We endorse measures and laws that help promote the health and welfare of all our populations. But telling us, again over time, what car we must drive...that's a "No" from this individual.
3
If you want to get rid of something, at least have the public's input also. That's the problem today. I feel like we just can't get these people we call our government to give us a voice on these decisions they're making for US and OUR LIVES. But Non-Electric cars? Cars matter to people in this world I think there should be some type of talk among the people who can be affected by this out of the blue ban.
Re: Electric Cars. As soon as the car makers can make a 4wd/AWD car that can drive 250+ miles each way into the Sierra for a day of skiing I'm in. It needs to be able to carry equipment & gear for four people as well.
9
You can already do that with a few models today. Your capacity doesn't need to be 500 miles. There are chargers in between and several models have a 300+ mile capacity and AWD
That is the definition of a first world problem
I bought a Chevy Volt in 2012 and I love it! Most EV drivers feel the same way and we will never go back to driving cars powered only by gasoline. The relatively low sales numbers to date have several causes. In the case of GM, their engineers have produced great EVs, first with the Volt and now with the all-electric Bolt, but their marketing people and dealers are not promoting these cars. On the other hand, Tesla is selling its EVs as fast as it can make them. We will probably soon reach a tipping point in the popularity of EVs, as is happening in places such as Norway. It would be smart for California to nudge the inevitable along. Once most people switch to an EV, they will be glad they did.
4
Are electric cars really clean? It seems nobody is asking what the environmental footprint of battery mass production is. Can batteries be fully recycled? How is the vast demand for electricity supposed to be fulfilled? A dozen additional nuclear plants per state? Are we talking of a "clean air" utopia, that comes at the cost of polluted soil and waters and nuclear waste that needs to be locked away for the next 100,000 years? I don't buy it, unless these questions are answered.
17
About 40% of electricity in California's today (literally today!) was produced by renewable energy http://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html
Yeah, it's ugly. The Tesla crowd doesn't like to talk about the 45,000 pounds of CO2 in a single Model S battery pack.
And, coal still supplies up to 1/3 of US power supplies.
At this point it's a shell game... but a shell game that's very profitable for Tesla shareholders. But, a loser for air quality and the utility ratepayers.
We'd all be better off with CAFE standards and driving better and better hybrids.
1
Batteries can be completely recycled. Electric plants usually have extra capacity at night, since they have to be prepared for the peak demands of the day. So a lot of the electricity needs of electric cars can be met by the unused capacity at night. And nuclear is not renewable and totally unneeded. We have been shutting them down and replacing them with solar and wind for years now.
If you did even a little research you would know these things.
I have always grappled with the prospect of banning gasoline entirely. On one hand it would be GREAT for future generations as far as our contribution to ridding our the state of an obvious culprit to the filthy air. On the other hand we have traveled so far down the road of individual automotive independence, that our economy would crash if we demanded this luxury be gasoline free (at this time) due to lacking infrastructure as well as the issue with dealing with VERY TOXIC spent batteries. Incentives would certainly coax many toward electric. Im not sure electric is the answer, even though it is cleaner and certainly (on the surface) a step in the right direction. One thing is for certain, we cannot and MUST NOT continue to burn fuel at the rate we are.
There is a technology for energy storage that is being HIDDEN from us. It's NOT a battery, it's a CAPACITOR technology. There is a thing called a "double layer" capacitor, which could be combined with C60 molecules ("fullerenes"), to provide MOLDABLE shapes of energy storage for electric vehicles WITHOUT BATTERIES. No lithium required!
But this is NOT being developed yet, as the "economics" of depleting the market for lithium-ion batteries isn't finished, AT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENSE. Look into it, as I know it sounds, to many, like a new idea. It isn't, but the car manufacturers haven't yet bled our bank accounts sufficiently.
"Planned obsolescence" has NEVER gone away fro the automotive industry.
2
Another hidden technology: CAPS LOCK.
3
Have you ever seen a capacitor discharge?? It would make those puny lithium battery fires/explosions look like a cap gun beside a real gun! Wonder what size it would have to be to give a reasonable distance and time for an automobile.
Why not just ban cars altogether? After all, the electricity to power electric cars has to come from somewhere, and manufacturing the cars themselves also causes greenhouse gas emission. Californians could walk or bike to work or shopping. And think of all the jobs to be created for high-school dropouts, moving around goods in handcarts. Alternatively, admit that CA, like the USA and globe, is overpopulated, and do something about that.
6
Yeah, somebuddy oughta do somethin aboudit.
When electric "big rigs" are perfected, THEN we can discuss phasing out fossil fuel-burning vehicles. Most of our goods move through the state on trucks (many mindlessly idling when they aren't actually driving). Start there, Governor!
11
Tesla, Nikola (different company), Ford, Cummins, and a raft of other companies are working on battery and/or fuel cell heavy trucks. All the normal improvements that come along with electric cars apply, and the problem of battery weight becomes less of a downside when you're talking about an 18-wheeler. Charge time will be a major problem with battery-based systems, though battery swapping could solve that problem. Fuel cells alleviate charge time issues but have inefficiencies at the production end. Either way, it's all-electric drivetrain.
There's no better application for electric drivetrains than heavy trucks, IMO.
Mercedes has been testing electric Semis since the beginning of the year in Germany. Cummins demonstrated one this month. Tesla is revealing one next month. It looks like people are working on the problem
Do it!! Electric cars are great! Build the power stations and ban the gas cars.
1
Ban gas cars first, diesel is 30% less greenhouse gas and highly fuel efficient. It is a smart transitional clean step. Also the newer GDI gas cars are highly dirty smoggers and conspicuously un-regulated by CARB and EPA. CARB: you are throwing stones in your glass greenhouse.
1
No, CA should ban cars.
3
This would be a hardship for apartment dwellers. Very few apartments have electrical outlets allowing people to charge their cars. Same for folks living in condos, or who lack garages.
8
John – I'm sure any law passed would include provisions for requiring apartment complex and condo owners to install electrical outlets to allow residents to charge their cars. As for folks whose homes lack garages (like my apartment in San Francisco), there are lots of great options being explored. One example is installing chargers on light poles (of which there are of course many) since light poles already have the required electrical infrastructure. Google "light pole electric vehicle charging" and you will find lots more info about this.
And yet there are several companies that will install chargers in apartments at no cost (or maintenance) to the apartment owners. If you live in an apartment that will not allow these companies to install a charger for you when it doesn't cost them a dime, I would suggest moving. If you have a condo and live in California, no one can stop you from putting in a charger and you can get a big rebate from your local electric company for doing it. If you have no garage, you will have to be creative, using workplace, or grocery store, or public parking chargers. But it is doable, I did it for several years before I had a charger at home.
Re the tilde. In NY in the seventies, when I went to register my first company, it had a tilde (Mañana) and it was not accepted so had to lose the tilde.
2
Because you can't type Mañana on an IBM Selectric.
2