[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Been sitting by eating the popcorn to see if anyone would bring this point up. Yes, there is a 2035 mandate. Many would agree based on how EV tech is progressing that it'll miss the target of being a true replacement for ICE vehicles by that date if it even ever does. But this 2035 mandate isn't set in stone. Yes, it's been legislated but with any legislation, it can be changed. It's not as if by 2035 fossil fuels will be gone. Nor that by 2035, the planet is going to be the next Venus. Those arguing against the 2035 mandate haven't pulled this all together into one succinct thing which is we do have the power to make the change. Just vote the people out of office. 2024 is coming up soon. If change doesn't happen with the next election then we have no one else to blame but ourselves.

I wasn’t aware that there is a 2035 mandate on the federal level that bans ICE. In the US it is limited to adds states like CA. It is also limited to other international areas like the EU. Neither of which are impacted by US presidential elections.

In the US context 2035 may be met as it covers new vehicle sales in a small number of states…

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Most (not all) people who buy them aren't car guys..many(like my pal)bought them as electricity is cheap I'll run them for near free while sucker ice guys pay at the pump. And my Tesla is (sorry.. was) the slowest depreciating vehicle.

But when you factor in the extra depreciation and insurance costs etc for mass market ev when the lease end comes the cost per mile of your ev may be equal to this if not more

I know someone also who bought a new Tes and indeed he's no car guy also.
Aside from that I always wanted to know what R/T means on an American muscle car and finally looked it up! Road and Track.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

I wasn’t aware that there is a 2035 mandate on the federal level that bans ICE. In the US it is limited to adds states like CA. It is also limited to other international areas like the EU. Neither of which are impacted by US presidential elections.

In the US context 2035 may be met as it covers new vehicle sales in a small number of states…

There isn't. But you have an administration/party that is currently laying down the ground work to foster the conditions for this 2035 mandate in various states.

Voting out the current administration would send a signal down to the local level that these policies are not going to be tolerated anymore.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

There isn't. But you have an administration/party that is currently laying down the ground work to foster the conditions for this 2035 mandate in various states.

Voting out the current administration would send a signal down to the local level that these policies are not going to be tolerated anymore.

Why would you want to send such a signal? The federalism model is supposed to be a good part of the American system. If states want to individually adopt ICE bans they are the closest to their constituents and are in the best place to do so. States that don’t want to have such a ban are free not to adopt one.

Forcing all states to adopt one policy or the other means you’ll have some states being forced into a position that their citizens don’t agree with.

Confusing to me how you’d see that as a better outcome…

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Seventeen out of the 50 US states follow California emissions standards, so 34%, not a majority, but significant. I matched the 17 states to their contributions in new car sales in dollars, and its 32% of the total. California is No. 1 in car sales.

While the ban is not Federal at this point, what is to stop a future Congress (both houses) and a future Administration from passing such a law? Nothing. The argument come 2032? Well 34% of US states have already enacted the ICE ban, so let's just add the other 62%; its good for the Planet.

Emissions rules aren’t an automatic attachment to the ICE ban. States have to pass separate laws similarly adopting CA style ICE bans. Which, again, is federalism at work…

But I forget that those who care about federalism only care about it for issues they like and not for issues they don’t like.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

EVs to me are similar to computers/consumer electronics. Future software updates might be an issue but the elephant in the room is power. Since there is no standardization of batteries or charging, you're at the mercy of what these manufacturers will do with their next iteration and how long they'll support what you have now. With ICE, gas is gas. It's pretty much been this way since its invention. The storage medium which is the fuel tank typically doesn't expire and lasts the life of the car. But with EVs you have both combined into one part. We've already seen some EVs lose the ability to get new battery packs from the manufacturer which currently is the only source to get new battery packs.

Also if some new charging method comes out that shortens the time to recharge a battery pack, the demand for previous gen cars will drop due to this. This is assuming any future charging upgrade will be backwards compatible with previous EVs. Which goes back to how ICE has been so successful. Gas is gas. Any new and future ICE vehicles will run on current gas formulations.

And this is definitely the Achilles’ heel of electric vehicles. I don’t care what any government says, or pro government law citizen says, there will be no mandates for 2035 or any year if they don’t speed up the charging times and get electric charging stations on every corner throughout the whole country. It’s just not going to happen. Not to mention unless you own a house you’re not going to have a charging station there. Not a fast charger anyway. People in high-rise buildings and apartment complexes won’t have that option. So the only option is charging stations like gas stations. They must be everywhere. And more importantly, they must be fast. Like under five minutes fast. Until that happens electric vehicles are nothing more than interesting toys for the upper middle class. Believe me I have no problem with that but that’s all they are for now.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

Why would you want to send such a signal? The federalism model is supposed to be a good part of the American system. If states want to individually adopt ICE bans they are the closest to their constituents and are in the best place to do so. States that don’t want to have such a ban are free not to adopt one.

Forcing all states to adopt one policy or the other means you’ll have some states being forced into a position that their citizens don’t agree with.

Confusing to me how you’d see that as a better outcome…



Emissions rules aren’t an automatic attachment to the ICE ban. States have to pass separate laws similarly adopting CA style ICE bans. Which, again, is federalism at work…

But I forget that those who care about federalism only care about it for issues they like and not for issues they don’t like.

I said it sends a signal to the officials at the local level. And I did say if you're against this and don't vote another administration in, just don't vote, or still vote for the same, then there's no one to bitch to with the fallout of these policies.

There are times when even the voted representatives for the constituents get it wrong massively. I'll just point to the debacle that is the recent DC crime bill. It's not an unknown platform about how the one party views what is appropriate with prosecuting crimes. With the elections coming, it's pretty obvious why the President made a 180 with supporting the overturn of this idiotic crime bill. Faced with all of this, guess what the DC council did? Pull back the bill.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Patton250

And this is definitely the Achilles’ heel of electric vehicles. I don’t care what any government says, or pro government law citizen says, there will be no mandates for 2035 or any year if they don’t speed up the charging times and get electric charging stations on every corner throughout the whole country. It’s just not going to happen. Not to mention unless you own a house you’re not going to have a charging station there. Not a fast charger anyway. People in high-rise buildings and apartment complexes won’t have that option. So the only option is charging stations like gas stations. They must be everywhere. And more importantly, they must be fast. Like under five minutes fast. Until that happens electric vehicles are nothing more than interesting toys for the upper middle class. Believe me I have no problem with that but that’s all they are for now.

More to the point. Production and transmission capacity. Those without a bias know nuclear is the only real solution to meet the increased demand while staying "green". Yet there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in many many years. In fact some nuclear power plants are being shut down. Then there's transmission capacity. There's going to have to be more transmission lines installed to get the additional power where it needs to be. The fastest way to do this is above ground transmission lines. But then you have the NIMBY folks that will push back on having transmission lines running near where they live.

With all of this pressure from the increased demand, do people really think prices per kWh will stay the same? It's only going to go up. To add to the issue, those of us that don't own EVs will be subsidizing those that do own them through higher power bills.

[BGM-M3COMP]

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

More to the point. Production and transmission capacity. Those without a bias know nuclear is the only real solution to meet the increased demand while staying "green". Yet there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in many many years. In fact some nuclear power plants are being shut down. Then there's transmission capacity. There's going to have to be more transmission lines installed to get the additional power where it needs to be. The fastest way to do this is above ground transmission lines. But then you have the NIMBY folks that will push back on having transmission lines running near where they live.

With all of this pressure from the increased demand, do people really think prices per kWh will stay the same? It's only going to go up. To add to the issue, those of us that don't own EVs will be subsidizing those that do own them through higher power bills.

You are exactly correct. That’s how we know this is all a farce and has nothing to do with the environment. If it did, they would be slapping up nuclear power plants left and right. I think the last one that got built was the early 70s. Lol.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Patton250

You are exactly correct. That’s how we know this is all a farce and has nothing to do with the environment. If it did, they would be slapping up nuclear power plants left and right. I think the last one that got built was the early 70s. Lol.

Yep. And if the supporters of this EV plan are really serious about making this all work, they'd be announcing the construction of nuclear power plants now as it takes time to clear all the planning/regulatory stuff before construction can even begin. Yet, we hear crickets on that front too.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Yep. And if the supporters of this EV plan are really serious about making this all work, they'd be announcing the construction of nuclear power plants now as it takes time to clear all the planning/regulatory stuff before construction can even begin. Yet, we hear crickets on that front too.

The absolute funniest of all these is California. These dudes have rolling blackouts left and right already. Can you imagine if just 20% of the cars were electric in that state? Actually, to be honest, I think it would be hilarious to watch.

I don’t know what’s so complicated to understand that nuclear is the most green energy of all. The whole country should be powered by nuclear. Instead, they’d rather kill birds with windmills and prevent spawning salmon from migrating with hydroelectric.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

I said it sends a signal to the officials at the local level. And I did say if you're against this and don't vote another administration in, just don't vote, or still vote for the same, then there's no one to bitch to with the fallout of these policies.

There are times when even the voted representatives for the constituents get it wrong massively. I'll just point to the debacle that is the recent DC crime bill. It's not an unknown platform about how the one party views what is appropriate with prosecuting crimes. With the elections coming, it's pretty obvious why the President made a 180 with supporting the overturn of this idiotic crime bill. Faced with all of this, guess what the DC council did? Pull back the bill.

You’re now hypothesizing that the legislature and governors of states may be getting it wrong so the federal government needs to step in to “tell them this won’t be tolerated”. Yet, at the same time you are drumming up fear that the current administration will “make bans national”.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you support Federalism or you don’t.

People in IL don’t need to meddle in the politics of CA. Leave that to the Californians.

The current model for ICE bans in the US is the appropriate model for our system. Irrespective of your feelings on the feasibility of reaching the target.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

You’re now hypothesizing that the legislature and governors of states may be getting it wrong so the federal government needs to step in to “tell them this won’t be tolerated”. Yet, at the same time you are drumming up fear that the current administration will “make bans national”.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you support Federalism or you don’t.

People in IL don’t need to meddle in the politics of CA. Leave that to the Californians.

The current model for ICE bans in the US is the appropriate model for our system. Irrespective of your feelings on the feasibility of reaching the target.

You're reaching aren't you? I know the narrative you're trying to paint and it's totally false. I've said from the outset that if you don't like what's going on then use your power to vote. Period.

You then go on about how elections at the national/Federal level can influence local policy. I gave you an example of that with DC. If the DC council felt so strongly about this bill then they wouldn't have pulled it back and let it run its course through Congress and ultimately the President. They didn't. Even members aligned to the same party in the Senate are siding towards blocking this bill otherwise, it wouldn't make it out of the Senate for Presidential signature.

And I won't even go on about how you feel the ICE bans are appropriate as there are tons of posts with facts in this thread that say otherwise.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Patton250

The absolute funniest of all these is California. These dudes have rolling blackouts left and right already. Can you imagine if just 20% of the cars were electric in that state? Actually, to be honest, I think it would be hilarious to watch.

I don’t know what’s so complicated to understand that nuclear is the most green energy of all. The whole country should be powered by nuclear. Instead, they’d rather kill birds with windmills and prevent spawning salmon from migrating with hydroelectric.

Oh and don't forget that it seems whales are being affected by these offshore windmill projects.

With respect to windmills and birds, a friend recently told me they were in Hawaii for vacation. During one of these tour guides, the guide talked about the windmills built there. That they don't even run at anywhere near capacity because they have to monitor some birds there and shut down the windmills when the birds are flying by them.

[MmmmmM2]

This thread doesn't disappoint!

[KRS_SN]

12 years until 2035 and somehow expecting a great green revolution (in the background of a long future recession) which requires giga billions(to borrow a term) of new investment is just a ideological fantasy.

In a lighter vein by 2035 greta and how dare you gang would have become adults and moved on with life and probably the government can roll things back without school strikes.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I think we had this discussion earlier... BUT, for manufacturers to build to 50 different emissions regs would be economically not viable, so a Federal standard makes the most sense. Why California was grandfathered in with its CARB I don't know the details; size of auto sales and unique topology I guess. Why the Feds let other states piggyback on Cali is a mystery.

IMO, I think Federalism took a big hit with the 17th Amendment...

Car makers are already pressed to build BEVs for China, the EU, and many other extremely large markets that currently have ICE bans on the books starting in 2035. The ICE ban in US states like CA allows them to use cars destined for those markets to easily comply and reach economies of scale.

The challenge for other states and those who oppose BEVs is that reality. With the world’s largest markets going BEV and some states going BEV as well it might become economically challenging to offer affordable ICE vehicles in the future. As the economies of scale will flip toward BEV and away from ICE. People hoping to toss out the CA ICE ban or block it with a national mandate are hoping to use the large US market as a way to keep some economies of scale and manufacturer interest in place.

The US is a large and diverse market that has unique challenges on a per-state basis. The Federalism model is the best way to handle the EV transition IMHO.

Originally Posted by zx10guy

You're reaching aren't you? I know the narrative you're trying to paint and it's totally false. I've said from the outset that if you don't like what's going on then use your power to vote. Period.

You then go on about how elections at the national/Federal level can influence local policy. I gave you an example of that with DC. If the DC council felt so strongly about this bill then they wouldn't have pulled it back and let it run its course through Congress and ultimately the President. They didn't. Even members aligned to the same party in the Senate are siding towards blocking this bill otherwise, it wouldn't make it out of the Senate for Presidential signature.

And I won't even go on about how you feel the ICE bans are appropriate as there are tons of posts with facts in this thread that say otherwise.

How am I reaching? You specifically said it. Not me.

Originally Posted by zx10guy

There isn't. But you have an administration/party that is currently laying down the ground work to foster the conditions for this 2035 mandate in various states.

Voting out the current administration would send a signal down to the local level that these policies are not going to be tolerated anymore.

Your position is to use the Federal Government to bludgeon local governments to support your position, but to advocate voting to get rid of the current administration you don’t agree with (who aren’t forcing ICE bans on states BTW) out of fear they’ll do what you would if you had power.

I ignored your DC comments as they aren’t relevant. DC is not a state nor does it have a state government. No one in Congress is elected by a single citizen in DC and, as such, they aren’t beholden to them. You can’t use DC to discuss Federalism.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

Your position is to use the Federal Government to bludgeon local governments to support your position, but to advocate voting to get rid of the current administration you don’t agree with (who aren’t forcing ICE bans on states BTW) out of fear they’ll do what you would if you had power.
:

There is a reason this ban is associated with the fed:

U.S. government to end gas-powered vehicle purchases by 2035 under Biden order
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bid...35-2021-12-08/

President Biden Mandate: No More ICE Cars by 2035
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...ment-fleet.htm
President Joe Biden is launching a new mandate that would focus on electric vehicles, ousting internal combustion engines that use gas and diesel by 2035. The new directive from the POTUS is for the entire country and not an individual order for every state as what governors or other state leaders have implemented on their campaigns.



If other markets are already forcing industry shift, and that industry is already implementing their EV plans, a ban shouldn't be needed.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

12 years until 2035 and somehow expecting a great green revolution (in the background of a long future recession) which requires giga billions(to borrow a term) of new investment is just a ideological fantasy.

In a lighter vein by 2035 greta and how dare you gang would have become adults and moved on with life and probably the government can roll things back without school strikes.

unlikely she indocterined, which is her right

[Tejas1836]

There is a new nuclear reactor, Vogtle in GA, that just went critical and is expected to be online later this year. First new reactor in about 7 years. Finally.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

There is a reason this ban is associated with the fed:

U.S. government to end gas-powered vehicle purchases by 2035 under Biden order
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bid...35-2021-12-08/

President Biden Mandate: No More ICE Cars by 2035
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...ment-fleet.htm
President Joe Biden is launching a new mandate that would focus on electric vehicles, ousting internal combustion engines that use gas and diesel by 2035. The new directive from the POTUS is for the entire country and not an individual order for every state as what governors or other state leaders have implemented on their campaigns.



If other markets are already forcing industry shift, and that industry is already implementing their EV plans, a ban shouldn't be needed.

Neither of your links work, but the Biden order governs the vehicles the Federal government purchases for their fleet. It has zero impact on anyone else.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105635

The Federal Government is free to mandate they all drive Chevy’s too, that doesn’t mean BMW wouldn’t have a market to sell their vehicles in the US… It also wouldn’t mean that all other car brands are banned in the US… It would just mean that the Feds want Chevy’s. That’s it.

You can argue that by buying EVs the Feds will spend more than buying an ICE today, but with the amount of back scratching that happens on government contracts I doubt the Feds buy even ICE vehicles at the same price as the rest of us.

[Patton250]

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

unlikely she indocterined, which is her right

I truly would love to know what your sentence means.