California to ban sales of petrol-only vehicles by 2035

It has to happen sooner or later.

I suppose that 2035 is as good a year as any to make the change.

I wonder if sales of new gas fueled vehicles will increase or decrease as we approach that date🤔

I get it, but it’s going to be a difficult transition for many as they watch their livelihoods and investments disappear through no fault of their own.


IMG_5863.jpg
 

I should be safely dead by 2035, so to me it won’t really matter. I just think that we need to significantly improve the alternatives before then, both in terms of range, durability, and of course price. More needs to be done on marketing of hybrid vehicles as a transitional stage, too, especially affordable ones… 🚗
 
I foresee pandemonium, chaos and confusion! Current suppliers like Luke, BP, Sunoco, Gulf, even Sam's, will have to start building. But the super fast charge electric system, 15 min full charge, is not ready for use. We need infrastructure in place or...read my opening line. Also, "they" say the 1.5 times prices of today will lower due to the competition fading away BUT prices of goods rise every year, so my prediction is electric cars will still be unaffordable for the masses in 2032. Thoughts?
 
I agree with the concerns over recharging options, not seeing anything on the horizon right now.

I am also concerned that this will not be a lot better for the environment than petroleum powered. I have seen claims, but am not sure an objective peer reviewed net environmental type analysis has been done and published. If any one knows of such, please let us know.

If this really was a good idea why would we need the government to force it?

All that said I am contemplating a hybrid for my next vehicle purchase, not sure yet.
 
Alligatorob said:
I agree with the concerns over recharging options, not seeing anything on the horizon right now.

I am also concerned that this will not be a lot better for the environment than petroleum powered. I have seen claims, but am not sure an objective peer reviewed net environmental type analysis has been done and published. If any one knows of such, please let us know.

If this really was a good idea why would we need the government to force it?

All that said I am contemplating a hybrid for my next vehicle purchase, not sure yet.
Click to expand...
That's the biggest lie of all, that this is going to be better for the environment. :( "Peer reviewed" should also give you concern. We need open debate not just more people pushing the same narrative. The past 2 and a half years should have taught us how wrong that can be.
 
Aunt Bea said:
It has to happen sooner or later.

I suppose that 2035 is as good a year as any to make the change.

I wonder if sales of new gas fueled vehicles will increase or decrease as we approach that date🤔

I get it, but it’s going to be a difficult transition for many as they watch their livelihoods and investments disappear through no fault of their own.


IMG_5863.jpg
Click to expand...
Yes, and since they are also reducing peoples mobility by working from home, home delivery, electric cars that you can’t travel far from your home. The reduction would be workable especially in large cities and in smaller towns but if you choose to live in the country and work in the city then this could be a challenge. Let’s not use the USA big cities as the norm as there is a huge portion of the USA that is more rural. Look at a US map to see that we country folk see you city folk as a small blip on this world.
 
Necessary, otherwise there are significant numbers of people and commercial entities for a list of reasons that will ignore or purposely resist moving in that direction. By setting a date it forces the issue. Same strategy why California over a range of issues has legislated future deadlines. For example, California has legislated 100% green energy by 2045 and will soon force vehicle manufacturers to mark catalytic converters in ways they are no longer easily stolen as manufacturers would otherwise not do so for market cost reasons. 2035 is a long ways of. Plenty of time to address current issues many are raising.
 
Last edited:
There will need to be a Lot of changes in the next decade, for this to work. There will need to be vehicles that can go 250+ miles between charges, then be recharged in minutes, instead of hours. The electrical grid is going to have to be increased substantially to support this added electricity. Charging stations will have to be installed in most homes, or all over parking lots. Then, a different source of battery composition other than Lithium will need to be found...since Lithium is fairly rare, and mining it in huge quantities will quickly deplete the supply. And, in another decade, these vehicles will probably cost 6 figures.
I doubt that I will still be around in 2035, but my kids/grandkids/beyond will be facing a lot of problems that are just a minor issue today.
 
chic said:
"Peer reviewed" should also give you concern.
Click to expand...
Not sure why. I do know a fair amount about peer review, I have done many peer reviews, had my work peer reviewed many times, and managed the peer review process for some publications. I think it is the best way to get reliable unbiased work published.

It is of course not perfect, but for something like this there should be multiple peer reviewed studies done by different people. Reviewing that you can get a reasonable consensus.
chic said:
We need open debate not just more people pushing the same narrative
Click to expand...
I agree completely, however peer reviewed work is the best way I know of to avoid people pushing some narrative. Or at least to understand that its happening. The public media is almost never peer reviewed and as a result you can find wildly differing opinions, often without any backup or merit. However those opinions repeated often enough begin to take on the illusion of truth...
 
Whe
MarciKS said:
i don't have a problem with it but i am concerned about fuel needs if there's no place to charge my car and the fact that i couldn't afford one of those cars if i wanted to. but who cares about the folks that can't afford to buy stuff right?
Click to expand...
Where we’re going (green), we will walk where we can and have deliveries for all else. Cars will become homeless peoples homes.
 
The debate seems to lump all "electric" vehicles into the battery category, when fuel cells are also electric. While great strides have been made, the energy required for hydrogen production is still the greatest obstacle. IF the advances of the past ten years can be applied going forward, then it will most likely displace some electrical energy requirements of the petroleum industry, but certainly not a 1:1 replacement.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/books/2022/082522/prores22-12.pdf
 
Harry Le Hermit said:
fuel cells are also electric
Click to expand...
Yes, and a very attractive idea. However I am skeptical that they will ever really advance to the point of being a practical way to power a car. This is an interesting article that talks about the problem: https://electrek.co/2022/02/15/study-hydrogen-fuel-cells-cannot-catch-up-battery-electric-vehicles/

I would however like to see research continue, and maybe one day I'll be proven wrong, that would be great!

However as you point out even a good working fuel cell is not a free lunch, energy is still required to make the hydrogen.
 
A complete waste of time and money. If California thinks that banning the sale of new gas powered vehicles will have the slightest impact on GLOBAL warming, they are nuts. To have a serious impact, it would take an entire planet.
Banning the sales of new gas powered vehicles is like trying to stop a tsumami with a broom.

At any given moment there are some 4,000 jet planes in the sky over the U.S. 4,000 planes !!! How much greenhouse gasses are they producing every hour ?

Moreover, what about diesel powered semi trucks that deliver our goods and services ?
 
Last edited:
senior chef said:
A complete waste of time and money. If California thinks that banning the sale of new gas powered vehicles will have the slightest impact on GLOBAL warming, they are nuts. To have a serious impact, it would take an entire planet.
Banning the sales of new gas powered vehicles is like trying to stop a tsumami with a broom.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it isn't because of the smog?
I heard smog is a huge problem in California, although I never noticed it when I was there.
 
I don't think it's achievable in only 13 years... 20 years, maybe. While battery technology is rapidly evolving, it's nowhere near the point it needs to be for everyone to be driving EVs. Professionals who can charge their batteries while they're at work all day in an office building will be able to to meet the goal. Well, actually, most people including the working class go to work and don't move their vehicles all day except maybe to go out to lunch. So as long as there are charging stations in every parking lot, which is asking an awful lot, it's feasible. Who's going to pay for all those charging stations?

That said, it's worth a try. I'm seeing more and more EVs on the road.
 
Alligatorob said:
If this really was a good idea why would we need the government to force it?
Click to expand...
I think it is good for the government/laws to exist because it gives investors and businesses confidence that they will have customers for new/improved solutions, so they will be more willing to invest $. Also it probably allows time for any necessary infrastructure changes.
 
SeniorBen said:
I don't think it's achievable in only 13 years... 20 years, maybe.
Click to expand...
In 2017 Norway set a goal of all EV vehicles by 2025 and they look like they will achieve the goal. But, I'm not sure what percent were already ev vehicles when they made their goal.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top