Washington State's 'Clean Cars 2030' Bill, ban sale of ICE vehicles
 

Washington State's both houses passed a bill could make Washington, the first state to ban the sale, purchase or resistration of any new non-electric cars in the state beginning 2030. California, Massachusetts and Canada's Quebec province planned to have similar bans by 2035. General Motors planned to stop producing ICE-powered cars in 2035. This WA registration law applies to all light-duty vehicles 2030 or newer, so you can't import newest ICE-powered vehicles bought from other states. It is not a firm mandate, because it is contingent on the state also adopting a tax on vehicle miles traveled. This measure to help pay for new transportation and electric-charging infrastructure, according to the bill. Washington State is very aggressive in their plans to boost the sale and accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/was...rs-2021-04-15/

Braindead, corrupt, or likely both.

How do they know electric is the best non-petrol solution for transportation a decade from now? What are the specific environmental goals they are attempting to achieve? These are just a couple important questions among dozens which must be answered first before passing such a bill if anything resembling reason, and solving a problem is meant to be achieved.

Seems WA is trying to one up CA in ridding themselves of the wealthier residents. If a feces-powered vehicle is invented, these places will have plenty of fuel just laying around on the streets to power them.

This bill is DOA.

Greater Idaho is sounding better every day.

A good friend of mine just sold their Kenton neighborhood (PDX) house and bought a place in Sandpoint. As a new father, he didn't feel it was right staying.

That will make escaping the state more difficult.
I hope it passes.

I'm OK with hybrids, including plug-in ones, but those planned mandates to go full-EV seem doomed to fail if they ever get effectively implemented.

I know that climate change and fossil fuels and such are all controversial. But regardless, it seems most governments feel that fossil fuels are causing a worsening pollution problem.

One solution to fossil fuel pollution is to stop burning fossil fuels. The other is to keep burning them but figure out how to remove the pollution from the air, including CO2.

On that former solution, how could we as a society stop burning fossil fuels? One way is to stop driving (ICEV's), stop cooking (on gas stoves), stop using electricity (made from coal), etc., etc., etc. Another is to replace those things with something else that doesn't involve burning fossil fuels.

Thinking of the latter, could a fossil fuel free future be possible without sacrificing modern conveniences and make that possible for the masses? I have no idea, I'm no expert. I mean, sure, maybe. Instead of gas stoves we could all get electric stoves. Instead of getting electricity from coal we could get it from solar and wind. Instead of driving ICEV's we could drive BEV's.

At one point I owned a gasoline car, a diesel car and an electric car all at the same time, and they all had the ability to get me from point A to B. The diesel let out large clouds of black smoke. The gasoline car didn't smell to good seeing how it was a 1972 VW with no catalytic converter or the like. But the EV didn't make any smoke. And the closest electric generator plant to where I live is 100% hydro-powered. No smoke or anything like that coming from there.

But the thing of it is, if there ever is going to be a mass transition to a fossil free future governments will have to get involved. Obviously making incentives would be much nicer than doing it by force. But on the other hand, if they don't make a date to work towards as a goal then it's hard to make plans to meet that goal.

Personally I don't know what's what nor do I car to argue one way or the other. Governments do what governments do. So far they've banned carburetors and made seat belts and air bags a must. But they also have pushed car manufacturers to make vehicles that are more fuel efficient.

I wonder if this is like back when cars started coming out with expensive catalytic converters, fancy fuel injection systems and EGR or when leaded fuel was banned. People were sure they'd be up a creek without a paddle. But now we look back and think of those changes as being good.

I have no idea what will happen with the EV situation. 2030 is still kind of a long time away. And it doesn't mean that all existing ICEV's will have to suddenly be retired. I've never bought a new car anyway and as long as used cars exist that's what I'll probably be driving, whether they be gasoline, diesel, CNG or electric.

How is this going to work with poor white trash, like myself ?
People that can't afford a new car will be forced to ride the bus.

Pehaps there will be loopholes that get around the law.
My '93 Civic is close to being considered a "classic car".
I recently found out that in my state, they don't even check the car for emissions.

The reason behind the law is a good one, but I hope it does not punish the poor.
It will only make that portion of the population hostile to any good regulations.

( When I think "classic car" , I think" '57 Chevy", not '93 Civic ! )

Lack of good intention is rarely the problem with bad ideas; it’s profound ignorance, sometimes coupled with the desire to win points either personally or for the team.

[not saying anything that might set off the Mods]

Intent is not as provable as results.

Most likely the poor will be more noticeably affected by such law. Possibly the motorcycle with a sidecar would be the only choice left for some.


Parboiled cats are afraid of cold water, as we say in Brazil.


Nowadays even the econoboxes I used to see in the '90s are becoming more treasured, as they're still often priced more reasonably than earlier stuff and reaching 30 years old which is the age a vehicle may be officially recognised as collectible in Brazil.

If there's a bus system that exists where you live.

The question I have is how the transition really would be if something like this were to happen.

Supposedly you could still continue to drive your current ICEV car or buy used ICEV's. Only people who buy new cars would have to buy an EV. The question would be if there'd be the variety to meet public wants. Right now that would mean there'd have to be affordable pickups, vans, economy sedans and hatchbacks; maybe even minivans. I'm sure there'll be plenty of CUV's, SUV's and expensive sedans to choose from. (Please let there be economical minivan and station wagon EV's!)

At some point those new EV's would start becoming semi-used 3 to 5 year old vehicles that the rich new car buyers are trading in for new models. I'm not sure what that would do to the prices of those vehicles if they'll be the typical 1/3 price or so compared to new.

At some point gas stations and parts stores will start to close down or turn to EV fueling stations and parts stores. Will there be enough practical used EV's by that point to make it possible for anyone who can afford an older used ICEV today to be able to afford an older used EV?

Of course on the other hand there's the question of whether the tech will hold up. Sure, right now there are lots of cheap used Nissan Leafs. But there's a reason they are cheap. And they're really not cheap when compared to the cheapest ICEV's you can get. Hopefully the EV revolution doesn't make a bunch of throw away cars.

Throw-a-way cars aren't bad if they could be recycled 100%.

I think we will just do like we've always done when things get tight: modify the crap out of our obsolete stuff. The 250's 7.3 is known to burn pretty much anything that wont clog the injectors or melt the pistons. I know the process to turn veggie oil into biofuels and I want to see them end frenchfries

The lower income people don't just have cost of purchase to contend with, but the fact that apartments are built as cheaply as possible, meaning they aren't equipped to charge EVs.

Public charging infrastructure usually is fairly expensive; like 5x more expensive than charging at home.

Yeah on some electric car FAQs you can find "how much does it cost to run electrical for a car charger?"
Most of them say some like $2,000.
Heck the cheap public j1772 chargers by them selves cost more than that.

I'm running into this very problem.
This is one reason I decided against a Volt.
Public charging would cost me $63 to "fill up" at 30 cents a minute, and would amount to $2.28 per mile of EV traveled. ( Figure around 28 miles of EV range on an old Volt battery )

So effectively like getting one mile per gallon cost wise.

Not to mention the chargers are always blocked "ICEd in "or broken.

Free charging ? Good luck finding that, and especially so when everyone is required to charge up.

Here in Austin the EV chargers are located in really poorly thought out spots, such as one at the front entrance to a liquor store.

Yeah - I'm gonna leave my car parked in front of a liquor store for three hours.
You would come back to find someone camping out in the back seat, vomiting all over it.

That's the EV catch 22. people that could most us the EVs, those that live in population dense Urban areas, have no place to charge EVs.

We need a charging pedistal for every parking spot. Who going to pay? Does the apartment complex charge extra rent? Does the government make aparts put them in?

I don't see EVs being widespread until Apartment dwellers can easly and cheaply charge them.

The consumer always pays.

Businesses get money from the consumer, so all costs are always passed on to them (free shipping!)
Government has no money, as their revenue is from the citizens (free education!)

I agree. the same with taxes on corprorations. The Corporation passs it on to the consumer.

So who going to pay for EV charging stations for apartment dwellers?

Apartment dwellers.

It's a bit of an intractable problem. In my estimation, rents are already too high, and it's not just because the owners are greedy. There are high costs associated with owning and maintaining apartments because many tenants abuse them. The only thing treated worse than a rental car would be a rental domicile. People tend not to take good care of things they don't own (the reason why socialism\communism can never work on a large scale).

Perhaps sometime in the future it will be in the apartment owners interest to provide charging as a service to tenants, but currently 97% of vehicles sold are ICE, and there's little incentive to invest in the fringe option.

I'm a rental property owner and I know that renters are typically less responsible in all areas of their life than homeowners. Sure, there are fantastic renters (I was in an apt 2 years ago), but people who are highly motivated and responsible don't tend to rent for long.

It's like anything else. For the bad actions of a few everyone else pays. Rent had quadrupled here in the past 10 years. And no, my income hasn't quadrupled. But marijuana was legalized then everyone wants to move here. There's a lot of people now wanting to move here but there aren't any rentals available. And the ones who do rent end up burning down their places because they're high on drugs.

I live in a community where people own their domicile and rent a small patch of dirt. It's the opposite, where the slum-lord only deals with the 80ft tall trees when a branch falls off (big branches, no-one kilt so far) and his tenants build sheds and 6ft tall fences without permission.

When I lived in the dome, I cut down trees and grinded the grout in the ceramic tile floor. The landlady never complained.*

*Until I gave 30-days notice, then she really turned on me. :(

Rules exist for the wicked and the ignorant.

I've currently got no written contract with the person managing my property. He's not malevolent or dumb, so I can trust he will act in a way responsible to both his interests and mine.

I have an interest in not spending lots of time closely attending to the property, and he has an interest in running it well enough to not gain my attention.

What will happen is suddenly used cars under the age of 2030 will jump in price. This will happen in all the surrounding states importing all the good used cars in as it will be the only way to continue driving the car people want. There will also be a huge surge in 2029 new car sales as people figure if they buy a new one and treat it right maybe they can get until 2050 out of it. Sort of like talking gun control leads to an actual increase in gun sales.

Then people will invent a generator hitch so you can run an attached ICE generator to charge the car all night parked in front of your apartment or all day in front of your work with no charging outlets.

At some point in 2050 when everything is actually ready to be 100% EV they will point to the success. Even if every other state that just let the market happen also ends up in the same place

Then in 2051 China nukes us anyway.

Of course that's how it would play out if the bill actually took effect.

It wasn't designed to take effect though, it was designed as free virtue points to show that "we're fighting for climate justice, pay no attention to the feces in the streets". The 2 parties both try to think of the dumbest ideas they can, score points for their constituents who are playing the same retarded game, and let the future figure out how to handle the fallout.

Free Bentley's for everyone in the year 2050! We'll make Mexico pay for it! Vote for me! All your wildest dreams will come true!

Else the grand experiment of the Union will continue unabated. Other States will either take note of the results and go on about their business, or follow down that path. And we get to have opinions about the result.

If there were more places to charge, a majority of chargers would not need to be nearly as fast - they could just be normal outlets. If I only had access to a 15 amp 120v outlet at work (~1500w @ 85% efficiency), that would still replace the range used to get there.

They will buy used gas cars or used EVs. You can already get a decent EV for about $6,000 - there are bound to be more used EVs available in 2030.

There is also a lot of confusion on this bill:

1. It doesn't go into effect in 2030. It goes into effect when 75% of cars in Washington are paying a mileage tax instead of gas tax. Oregon is furthest along with a mileage tax and our plan is to start requiring new vehicles sold in 2027 to pay per mile.
2. It doesn't ban ICE cars in 2030. It bans the sale of NEW ICE cars in 2030.
3. It only applies to vehicle 10,000 lbs GVW and under. You could still buy a gas Ford F250.
4. It applies to 4 AND 3 wheel vehicles. No trike loophole for this bill.

So 5 ton trikes good to go?

https://ecomodder.com/forum/member-f...-w-caption.jpg

This is key. The goal should be greatly expanding Level 2 charging where people park their cars for long periods of time not super fast charging that tries to replace gas stations with charging stations.

Slow charging at off peaks times makes the conversion to EVs much easier and cheaper.

.

Off peak rates will cease to exist in the future when individuals and municipalities need to charge their vehicles overnight. The sun doesn’t shine at night and wind is usually reduced. Alternate power isn’t going to cut it. Base load power stations (fossil and nuke, not hydro) will have to make up the difference and they don’t run for free.

In my opinion, Electricity is going to become a lot more expensive in the future...

A lot more...


:turtle:

>

.

Electricity at night is cheaper because supplying baseload is cheap. Baseload generators are utilized 90%+ of the time.

Peak generation is expensive because the generators are utilized 10% of the time. Having a very expensive thing only operate 10% of the time isn't efficient. If you purchased a car and only ever went on 1 trip, the cost of the trip was the whole price you paid for the car. The more the vehicle is utilized, the less each trip costs.

Bringing baseload demand up has the effect of reducing peak demand, or getting more utilization out of the generating capacity. This reduces cost. Flattening the power demand curve even by bringing baseload generation up, will be more cost effective.

If storage schemes can become cheap enough, we will eliminate peak generators altogether because the storage itself will become the supply for peak demand.

So you're right, we'll lose off-peak rates because it will be replaced by a low flat rate.

Yes, if lots of EVs start charging at night that will fill in the power generation valley and flatten the curve. That is WAY cheaper than building out a charging network dependent on fast chargers where everyone fast charges their EV on the way home from work and makes our current very expensive peak rates spike even higher.

The more you fill the current valley the more current infrustructure is utilized and the less new peak generation, transmission, and distribution is needed.

That doesn't even factor in that fast charging degrades batteries faster as does deep discharges. It is better for battery life to slowly charge 30 miles of range every day than to fast charge 210 miles of range once a week.

Diesel for my Sportwagen cost $0.08 per mile
Electricity for my Spark EV cost $0.03 per mile

Electricity would have to get REALLY expensive before driving an ICE car was cheaper than an EV.

.

Well, it’s my opinion that it will be expensive.

And time will tell.

We all have a front row seat...



:turtle:

>

.

My post was meant to describe my understanding of how things work and have it receive criticism where the theory was deficient or wrong.

I'm always looking for better explanations, so if you've got 'em, share 'em.

The trend for electricity pricing has been downward over time, and my expectation is for that trend to continue with some bumps along the way.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...prices.svg.png

There is the question of how are government agencies pay for roads if and when the tax for fossil fuels stops giving enough revenue. That may end up making electricity more expensive. But there's also some sort of plan to charge vehicle owner's directly on a per mile basis. Either way, we're already paying for these taxes. It's just that we will be paying for them some other way.

On another note, I understand that fossil fuels are also subsidized in the USA. If the subsidies were slowly cut and if government agencies were to little by little work towards taxing fuel as much as they possibly could I bet there would be a natural transition over to EV's without any need of a date that all vehicles sold would need to be EV's. The extra taxes from fossil fuels would also be a way to make enough revenue to pay for more electric grid upgrades. And why couldn't those subsidies be redirected towards electricity too?

JHS has brought up the fact that often road infrastructure is largely paid for by the general tax fund, with fuel taxes representing only a portion of the cost.

As he points out, Oregon has a goal to transition to tax per mile.

... as I'm always pointing out, infrastructure should entirely come from the general fund, because absolutely everyone depends on it for modern living, regardless of their personal use. Most everything should come from the general fund, and how to spend that money should be based on what the most important priorities are.

Reducing fossil fuel consumption shouldn't be arbitrarily approached, but a collaboration between economists, climate scientists, and security experts to set consumption targets and achieve them through gradually increasing taxation on fossil fuels. It directly addresses all relevant concerns in the most effective way while reducing corruption and inefficient market distortions.

Fossil fuel reduction needs binding buy-in from all major countries otherwise all it does is shift prosperity from places participating to places not participating. I hate to admit this, because world organizations are the most corrupt, dumbest, worst types of organizations. There is no other way to address a global problem except globally, unfortunately. Unilateral solutions are doomed to fail.

I agree with everything except the need to wait for buy-in from all major counties. First, because it is in our country's best interest to develop the technology that will power our futures. Second, because high income companies got to where we are today by buy burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. Not only did we create the majority of the problem but we have the most resources to try to fix the problem. It doesn't make sense to tell countries that are much poorer than we are that they need to contribute equally in carbon reductions. Especially when per capita their emission are much lower than the USA.

India produces 1.9 tons of CO2 per person
China produces 8 tons of CO2 per person
The USA produces 16.1 tons of CO2 per person.

It is disingenuous to try to blame India and China for CO2 emissions.

As I propose my solution, I do so skeptical that we need to do anything at all about CO2 emissions. I merely present it as my best conception of how to address the problem as presented by some.

Mother Earth doesn't care who was most culpable of changing her outdoor thermostat, therefore collaboration is absolutely necessary to bringing about meaningful change.

Like nuclear disarmament, it would be foolish to expect others to follow our lead with no strings attached.

It isn't clear to me that per-capita emissions is the correct frame for the issue of CO2. Half of the equation is population. The US population is stagnant but for being the #1 immigrant nation by far. Why should India get a higher CO2 allowance just because they have a much, much higher birthrate? Maybe the CO2 allowance should be based on population density, with larger land area allowing for greater emissions to discourage gaming the system in a population arms race. I say this partly in jest, but also to say that per capita emissions isn't necessarily a good metric, especially in light of the fact that some nations have population decline (Japan).

I have never blamed China, India, or any country for CO2 emissions. It's a consequence of improving human well-being. Fossil fuel use and wealth are intractibly correlated for the time being.

In my mind, one of the most promising ways for the US to retain technological superiority while also reducing fossil fuel consumption is for the government to fund and promote next-gen nuclear technology. We need to dispel the FUD and NIMBY sentiments that the Communist Soviet Union inadvertently caused when their negligence caused the worst nuclear disaster in history.

.

“disingenuous”

Really...???

Using your Co2 numbers

China 1,397,897,720 people x 8 = 11,183,181,760 tons Co2 and increasing

India 1,339,330,514 people x 1.9 = 2,544,727,976.6 tons Co2 and stable (maybe)

USA 330,425,184 people x 16.1 = 5,319,845,462.4 tons Co2 and contracting

The USA is retiring coal plants.

China is building them.

https://www.reuters.com/article/chin...-idUSL4N2E20HS

And

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...s-in-the-2020s


But Hey, blaming China a̶n̶d̶ ̶I̶n̶d̶i̶a̶ is “disingenuous“. :rolleyes:

China has a goal. World domination at any cost...



:turtle:

>

.