Electric vehicle mandate in California

[colliehauler]

California has a mandate for electric vehicles in the future. Just read with the extreme heat PG&E will have rolling blackouts because of power shortage. Noticed this in previous years as well.

Do you think requiring electric vehicles is putting the cart before the horse in not having a updated power grid to handle the increased demand of charging electric vehicles?

[Reisender]

ShinerBock wrote:

Reisender wrote:


Meh. Might be a little early to make conclusions on cost of operation. Cab companies all over the world are buying EV’s to lower operating costs. Our local airport Taxi fleets are all Tesla model S’s. There not cheap, and they report huge decreases in operating costs.

Wait till they start building them and then do the math. Might be a surprise.

I am not making these conclusions based on assumption. I am making them based on the DOE research I posted earlier that shows that the cost of energy will increase significantly as more BEV's are on the road to pay for and maintain the infrastructure needed to operate that many BEV's. As I posted earlier, PG&E is requesting millions of dollars increases and BEV's still make a small portion of the market. Imagine if that were 50 or even 75%. PG&E would have significant rate increases and energy will likely cost as much as diesel does now.

Also, these trucks aren't like cabs. One major difference is that these trucks have weight requirements and if a BEV truck weighs almost twice as much then that is less product it can legally carry meaning they will need twice as many trucks to do the same job. You may need even more trucks depending on range constraints and PTO provisions. These fleets would also have to buy chargers for every truck in their fleet to charge at once or create a new positions for someone to swap out trucks to charge at night.

This is all backed up by people who have researched it for the DOE in those presentations I posted.

Meh. Guess will have to wait and see. We'll meet back here in 10 years and see how much of the heavy industry has switched to Electric. The mining industry will lead the way on this one so it might take awhile to sift down to farm machinery etc.

The technology can change a lot in 10 years. In the 2005 to 2010 era the big 3 all agreed that EV's would probably peak out around 100 miles due to battery energy density and packaging etc. Thats why Chademo and CCS were stuck at 50 KW for so long. When Tesla tried to get them to plan for 250 KW charge rates in the standards. They were dis-invited to the talks and effectively told to let real car companies figure it out. Which is why today we have the three charge standards in North America. Chademo, CCS and Tesla. Tesla went with 250 KW and the others...didn't...until a couple years ago when they realized they would need faster charge rates to sell cars. To this day most non Tesla EV's only charge at 70 to 100 KW vice the humble model 3 that charges up to 250 KW. In 10 years range has literally quadrupled and Lucid motors is now advertising their new wheels with 500 miles range by 2022.

Technology has a way of coming back to bite those in the ass that say something can't be done. Thats why Boeing is full of former Space X engineers who stood up to Elon Musk and said you would never be able to land a rocket...on a barge...and then use it again...and again......

Just sayin.

[time2roll]

fj12ryder wrote:

time2roll wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
"OK except there is no mandate for anyone to buy anything. There is NO MANDATE to buy low emission vehicles. Are you having trouble with reading comprehension?"

Kind of a use of lawyerese there. People won't be forced to buy electric vehicles, but manufacturers will be forced to offer fewer and fewer non-electric vehicles. Sounds pretty much a Catch-22.

Like requiring windshield wipers, seat belts and now air bags? Those used to be options and now we are stuck paying for those every time. The cost just keeps escalating.... where is my freedom?

Nice sidestep. But not quite the same thing.

It is about people dying or rather prevention.

Google says:

The researchers said estimates show between 90,000 and 360,000 deaths per year in the U.S. are linked to air pollution. Experts have long been aware of air pollution's ability to spread far from its source. Feb 14, 2020

[fj12ryder]

time2roll wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
"OK except there is no mandate for anyone to buy anything. There is NO MANDATE to buy low emission vehicles. Are you having trouble with reading comprehension?"

Kind of a use of lawyerese there. People won't be forced to buy electric vehicles, but manufacturers will be forced to offer fewer and fewer non-electric vehicles. Sounds pretty much a Catch-22.

Like requiring windshield wipers, seat belts and now air bags? Those used to be options and now we are stuck paying for those every time. The cost just keeps escalating.... where is my freedom?

Nice sidestep. But not quite the same thing.

[ShinerBock]

Reisender wrote:


Meh. Might be a little early to make conclusions on cost of operation. Cab companies all over the world are buying EV’s to lower operating costs. Our local airport Taxi fleets are all Tesla model S’s. There not cheap, and they report huge decreases in operating costs.

Wait till they start building them and then do the math. Might be a surprise.

I am not making these conclusions based on assumption. I am making them based on the DOE research I posted earlier that shows that the cost of energy will increase significantly as more BEV's are on the road to pay for and maintain the infrastructure needed to operate that many BEV's. As I posted earlier, PG&E is requesting millions of dollars increases and BEV's still make a small portion of the market. Imagine if that were 50 or even 75%. PG&E would have significant rate increases and energy will likely cost as much as diesel does now.

Also, these trucks aren't like cabs. One major difference is that these trucks have weight requirements and if a BEV truck weighs almost twice as much then that is less product it can legally carry meaning they will need twice as many trucks to do the same job. You may need even more trucks depending on range constraints and PTO provisions. These fleets would also have to buy chargers for every truck in their fleet to charge at once or create a new positions for someone to swap out trucks to charge at night.

This is all backed up by people who have researched it for the DOE in those presentations I posted.

[time2roll]

What if the cost goes down :E Diesel is not free, diesel maintenance is not cheap either.

[Reisender]

ShinerBock wrote:
Agriculture is big business in California. This mandate would have a significant impact on the farmers which would likely cause the food they supply to go up. Then there is the construction companies which likely cause the cost of the building they build to go up. Same goes for aggregate haulers which will make the cost to make and maintain roads to go up. Freight haulers as well and many other occupations. This will all be passed to the end user of course and will cause the cost of living to go up in a state that is already hard to live in for the middle class.

Then you have the increased cost of utilities because the power needed to charge these trucks will require major overhauls of the utility lines going to their facilities. Some may be able to go solar, but many will not have the extra land or capital for extra land to go solar. It will take a lot of solar panels just to charge one of these trucks let alone a fleet of 50 or more.

Meh. Might be a little early to make conclusions on cost of operation. Cab companies all over the world are buying EV’s to lower operating costs. Our local airport Taxi fleets are all Tesla model S’s. There not cheap, and they report huge decreases in operating costs.

Wait till they start building them and then do the math. Might be a surprise.

[ShinerBock]

Agriculture is big business in California. This mandate would have a significant impact on the farmers which would likely cause the food they supply to go up. Then there is the construction companies which likely cause the cost of the building they build to go up. Same goes for aggregate haulers which will make the cost to make and maintain roads to go up. Freight haulers as well and many other occupations. This will all be passed to the end user of course and will cause the cost of living to go up in a state that is already hard to live in for the middle class.

Then you have the increased cost of utilities because the power needed to charge these trucks will require major overhauls of the utility lines going to their facilities. Some may be able to go solar, but many will not have the extra land or capital for extra land to go solar. It will take a lot of solar panels just to charge one of these trucks let alone a fleet of 50 or more.

[time2roll]

fj12ryder wrote:
"OK except there is no mandate for anyone to buy anything. There is NO MANDATE to buy low emission vehicles. Are you having trouble with reading comprehension?"

Kind of a use of lawyerese there. People won't be forced to buy electric vehicles, but manufacturers will be forced to offer fewer and fewer non-electric vehicles. Sounds pretty much a Catch-22.

Like requiring windshield wipers, seat belts and now air bags? Those used to be options and now we are stuck paying for those every time. The cost just keeps escalating.... where is my freedom?

[time2roll]

Will be interesting to see if that mandate on large vehicles even holds up. I hope it works out as a lower cost and cleaner alternative to the exiting diesel fleets. No such vehicles even exist at this point that I know of. Although I agree setting GVWR at 8500 seems low. May not stop out of state companies from running diesels into CA. May push some fleet operators to move out of CA. But then CA has been doing that since the the 1970s. Hold onto you 350/3500 truck.

[fj12ryder]

"OK except there is no mandate for anyone to buy anything. There is NO MANDATE to buy low emission vehicles. Are you having trouble with reading comprehension?"

Kind of a use of lawyerese there. People won't be forced to buy electric vehicles, but manufacturers will be forced to offer fewer and fewer non-electric vehicles. Sounds pretty much a Catch-22.

[fj12ryder]

time2roll wrote:
Same as you voting for Trump in 2016 and I have to live with that.

If you did vote for the "guilty parties" then you are, in effect, forcing people to do things. No straight answer is answer enough.

[ShinerBock]

Yes, there is a mandate passed by CARB in June saying that diesel trucks and vans sold have to be zero emissions. It starts out with only a small percentage in 2024 and then increases to ALL vehicles later which forces people to only buy certain type of vehicle regardless if it fits their lifestyle or not.

And as far as the other stuff, I am making the point that it is hypocritical to want to force others to buy cleaner vehicles when your own vehicle is an old tier 1 emissions vehicle and emits a lot more and is less efficient that today's tier 3 vehicles. Generally, people who are not hypocritical will put their money where their mouth is and lead by example.

[time2roll]

OK except there is no mandate for anyone to buy anything. There is NO MANDATE to buy low emission vehicles. Are you having trouble with reading comprehension?

Get your gas guzzling SUV. New or old does not matter as the purchase is unrestricted. And there is no mandate to trade in old vehicles. You are simply making stuff up to create your own agenda.

Now you think I run Space-X also? Apparently your leader Trump is all on board with low cost regardless of pollution. Maybe your thoughts should be directed to the White House.

If CA mandated clean air rockets I would be Ok with that too.

[ShinerBock]

time2roll wrote:
Same as you voting for Trump in 2016 and I have to live with that.

And what has he mandated that you purchase or done that increased your cost of living?