California to ban sales of petrol-only vehicles by 2035

California may reduce it's area pollution with a transition to EV's....but that will likely be more than offset by the annual forest fires in that State. Even if CA manages to achieve it's goal, the rest of the world will still be hurtling millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, every year, and those pollutants will spread everywhere via the air currents.
 

Wontactmyage said:
I will repeat myself, where is the strategy for other large polluting countries to refrain from the pollutants that “we” have them make for us in our products we purchase? We have NIMBY(ed) (not in my back yard) for so long by sending our polluting companies to other countries but still on our same planet. Let’s us not be self righteous.
Click to expand...
You make a good point. I don't think we can expect a poor person in China or India or Brazil to forgo owning a car or air conditioner to save the environment, not if we don't.

Seems to me the only possible solution to the CO2 emissions problem is going to nuclear power and electric cars. Albeit partial there are other sources of CO2 and other pollutants of concern.

The electric car problem is hard enough, but it is mostly a technical problem so some reason for optimism.

The nuclear power problem is mostly political, we know how to do it technically, and probably more safely than most other power sources. However I have little hope we can solve the political problem...

On the other hand we can, at a manageable and more local local level, begin planning how to live with the impacts of continuing to do what we are doing. Not a great solution, but maybe the only workable one.
 
Last edited:
MAN ALIVE. I just checked: California has over 30 million registered cars. Now, when you plug them "beauties" in I would like to see the power grid that can handle all those amps. I see breakers snapping from San Diego all the way to the last little town before the Oregon boundary. Good luck to ya all!

They say, "Be careful of what you wish because you might get it."
 

Alligatorob said:
Seems to me the only possible solution to solving the CO2 emissions problem is going to nuclear power and electric cars. Albeit partial there are other sources of CO2 and other pollutants of concern.
Click to expand...
Don't know enough yet about electric cars, but, I have learned quite a bit about nuclear power. What surprises me... (well, if one follows the money, maybe not), is how the USA wastes so much of the power potential of nuclear.

This is a nuclear FUEL assembly commonly found in many nuclear power reactors around the world.
Notice it ISN’T the slimy, oozing, fluorescent green goop that many might want you to believe. It gets put into the reactor with other fuel assemblies, and literally just sits there for several years always making heat, to boil water, to make steam, to drive a turbine generator and make electricity.
There are no CO2 emissions in this entire process because “nothing” is burned. It just literally sits there producing heat to boil water, 24 hours each day, seven days a week to make steam that in turn is used make electricity and can do that on average 90-91% of the time.
It isn’t dependent on when the wind blows or whether the sun is shining or not, and it doesn’t need battery backup to store electricity when Mother Nature decides not to play nicely.

Now here is the part the average citizen may not fully realize......................
When that assembly is removed from the reactor, it has only used about 3-4% of it’s potential heat producing ability. It could be reused over, and over, and over again for DECADES” to make heat, if it weren’t for “politics” ($$$$$$)….. but that’s an entirely different topic.

Reuse of the fuel assembly material has been occurring for years in other countries, just not here in our country. So what happens if it’s not reconstituted to be able to reused again? Well, it’s just removed from the reactor, allowed to cool down, and then put in a protective can with other fuel assemblies.

Then they all just SIT THERE.

The total volume taken up by all the nuclear power plant fuel assemblies from around the world and ever since the very first nuclear plants started; if they were put in just one location would be about size of a football field. These used assemblies don’t get put into landfills. They don’t leak slime or toxic materials into the aquifer or surface water sources. They don’t screw up the environment.
They just sit there in a protective can.
Read that again!


nuke fuel rod.jpg
 
squatting dog said:
The total volume taken up by all the nuclear power plant fuel assemblies from around the world and ever since the very first nuclear plants started; if they were put in just one location would be about size of a football field. These used assemblies don’t get put into landfills. They don’t leak slime or toxic materials into the aquifer or surface water sources. They don’t screw up the environment.
Click to expand...
You are pretty much right, there are ways the radioactivity could get into groundwater, but we have well developed, but not implemented, plans for highly secure burial to prevent that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

As I said the problem is political, not technical...
 
A few here with IMO multiple weak anti-EV posts that are not long term issues that could easily be argued as only valid for the current early era as the transition develops. Sure they are quietly aware of that so not worth arguing against their apparent agenda comments. There are of course many people and businesses in our society with livelihoods and or heavily invested in gas/diesel powered vehicles and fossil fuels, one can expect will work to monkeywrench what is an inevitable change worldwide.
 
Kinda like the wild wild west again. It is going take quite awhile before there is significant help to slow/stop global warming. But the horses are coming. :)

From an article...

"SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

Are electric cars ‘green’? The answer is yes, but it’s complicated​


"A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative found that the battery and fuel production for an EV generates higher emissions than the manufacturing of an automobile. But those higher environmental costs are offset by EVs’ superior energy efficiency over time.
In short, the total emissions per mile for battery-powered cars are lower than comparable cars with internal combustion engines.
“If we are going to take a look at the current situation, in some countries, electric vehicles are better even with the current grid,” Sergey Paltsev, a senior research scientist at the MIT Energy Initiative and one of the study’s authors, told CNBC.
Paltsev explained that the full benefits of EVs will be realized only after the electricity sources become renewable, and it might take several decades for that to happen.""

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/lif...are-lower-than-gasoline-cars-experts-say.html​

 
Packerjohn said:
MAN ALIVE. I just checked: California has over 30 million registered cars. Now, when you plug them "beauties" in I would like to see the power grid that can handle all those amps. I see breakers snapping from San Diego all the way to the last little town before the Oregon boundary. Good luck to ya all!
Click to expand...
Supposedly the grid has enough excess capacity for 150 million EV cars, but balancing it per neighborhood could be a problem. I read that they are upgrading the grid anyway and when they find out (apparently they are asking buyers to let them know) that someone has purchased an ev, that neighborhood gets priority on getting the upgrade.
Also, maybe the power company could do like is done in Nebraska on air conditioners, my heat pump/airconditioner had a little device installed by the power company that would allow them to cycle it off for 15 minutes during peak usage problems.
And, I read (tho not sure how complicated or mature the technology is) that the power stored in the EV vehicle can be used/purchased back to the power grid for them to use to smooth out peak usage issues.
 
squatting dog said:
Love it when you're told about how EV's. will have fewer maintenance cost than a gas powered car. Of course, you might have a hard time getting this Chevrolet Volt owner to agree with you. :eek::eek:


View attachment 236837
Click to expand...

That seems excessive. Of course it's a dealership, so figure it's twice as expensive. But even figuring they deserve twice the price, it's still exorbitant. I found this. It's for a replacement, not just a battery:

https://carstopics.com/chevy-volt-battery-replacement-cost/
The cost of a Chevy Volt battery replacement is about $3,500 for a refurbished one and up to $9000 for a brand new one.
 
JustDave said:
That seems excessive. Of course it's a dealership, so figure it's twice as expensive. But even figuring they deserve twice the price, it's still exorbitant. I found this. It's for a replacement, not just a battery:

https://carstopics.com/chevy-volt-battery-replacement-cost/
The cost of a Chevy Volt battery replacement is about $3,500 for a refurbished one and up to $9000 for a brand new one.
Click to expand...
Yep, he looked into a refurbished one and found it cost about $900 but, when he checked at the repair shops they are charging close to $19,000 to install that battery. :mad: The real problem is these cars are not do it yourself friendly, so, you end up at a stealership and as they say in the business... bend over.
 
California to ban sales of petrol-only vehicles by 2035
Click to expand...

This won't have any bearing on my life, I have a 2019 Tacoma that I'm averaging less than 400 miles a month, that will only have 78K miles by then. If I'm still around I'll be 83, and not of a mind to deal with adjusting to another new vehicle, with all kinds of features that I will probably dislike, and find unnecessary.
 
Nathan said:
This won't have any bearing on my life, I have a 2019 Tacoma that I'm averaging less than 400 miles a month, that will only have 78K miles by then. If I'm still around I'll be 83, and not of a mind to deal with adjusting to another new vehicle, with all kinds of features that I will probably dislike, and find unnecessary.
Click to expand...
And of course, with enough money thrown at the people behind the scene, it may end up pushed up to.... ummm 2040, 2050, 2090, 20never, who knows?
 
I'm sure that EV's will help reduce air pollution....but, the overall higher prices for these vehicles and keeping them charged will likely wind up costing the buyers more than a current gas/diesel vehicle. And once they reach the battery end of life, the trade in value for a new one will plummet.

Trying to Reduce pollution is admirable, but I suspect we have already reached the point where nothing we do will have any real effect on future climate problems. It has taken well over a century to create the present climate risks, and I see nothing that will reduce the continuing decline in "livability" for most areas on the planet.
 
This is a problem that may be solved in forty years, but not ten or fifteen.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top