CA doesnt look kindly on prolonged out of state registrations
1 Like
Everythingās illegal in Hair Gelās fiefdom.
Solution: Leave and erode the tax base to nothing.
3 Likes
Let innovation be the decider, donāt force innovation. I always use CCFL lights as an example. Government basically banned halogens, forced us all to use CCFL, CCFL sucks, long time to warm up, no one wants them, halogen black market, but now we have LEDās which are actually better, and no one had to force anyone to buy them. Innovation made people use the more energy efficient choice freely, not because government forced them to. Eventually people will want an EV because it is just the better option, but right now, for everyone, it isnāt.
Did you conveniently forget ALL the DOE rebate programs and stuff that were going on back in 2008-2010 when LED bulbs were coming to market? They were so expensive at the tune of like $15-20 a bulb.
The government helped heavily subsidize the scaling of LED bulbs and technology for years, until now the mass adoption is large enough that manufactures are at a true race to the bottom in pricing and products where you can get a bulb for a dollar or two. So I wouldnāt exactly use that as the argument for EVās. 
5 Likes
You might find the ācompetition breeds innovationā crowd have a tendency to have short memories and donāt like reading history books.
6 Likes
@mllcb42 Thatsā one of the laws on the short list of CA laws thatās actually enforced. CHP needs the money.
2 Likes
Pretty sure thatās exactly what they wantā¦ It spreads their ideologies to the rest of the hive.
1 Like
No, I was too young to remember any of that, but the point is still the same.
Regardless of government interference, which shouldnāt have happened, but such is the nature of government, they have now reached a point where almost no one would freely choose a halogen over an LED, we need to reach the same point for EVās. People and the market will determine when they are ready to have the larger share of vehicles on the road.
1 Like
The whole point is that transition wouldnāt have been as soon if not for government subsidy. Without it weād still be using crappier halogen lights.
So if you think EVs are a net win then itās good for the government to subsidize them.
3 Likes
But the subsidies go into the manufacturers pocket. Hence when the subsidy ends the price dropsā¦blatant corporate welfare
1 Like
I think weāre getting away from the main point which is the idea of forcing innovation on to people is not a good thing, and that people will choose innovation when it actually is the better option, regardless of subsidies.
2 Likes
I want it explained how mining nickel, cobalt, lithium etc are better for the environment then drilling for oil? No seriously is one better than the other? Also is burning gasoline worse than burning coal or natural gas (which is how 60% of Americans get their electricity per the Energy dept). I think nat gas is cleaner than gasoline but is it a factor of 1% or 500%?
Let the market decide, if EV are truly superior there should not be a rebate by the government. I have a PHEV with a small electric range and gas motor. No range anxiety and drove 4000 of 5000 on electric and there is no difference when motor kicks on. I love it but did not make my decision based on mining methods. It was $900 more than the pure ICE version and I ot a $7500 ākickbackā. Even without the discount I still would have got it for $900 because the math on the electric range 80% of the time was a breakeven in 18 months on a car I bought, not leased.
1 Like
Possibly?
An underlying assumption of your statement is that āthe marketā inherently chooses what is āsuperior.ā I donāt know if thatās actually the case (if one can even define āsuperiorā overall).
The other thing is that it seems some folks think that there is a āpureā market free of intervention. One could argue that lack of intervention when intervention is possible IS an intervention.
Well the children mining the cobalt might have a different opinion. At least the guys working on hazardous oil rigs are compensated and not forced for their laborā¦
Everyone talks about the environment and not the human impact of mining RE. Also weāre depending on other governments to allow us to mine said materials. That in itself funds plenty of terrorism im sure.
2 Likes
This has been shown over and over again in studies: Building an EV is slightly worse for the environment than building an ICE car. However, mining and building vehicle components is just a small part of its environmental impact. After an average of 13,000 driven miles in the US, EVs are much greener for the rest of their lifespan. Why? Because they have zero emissions.
Thatās an argument to invest in renewable energy, not an argument against EVs.
1 Like
Those children were already being killed for the cobalt being used in laptop and smartphone batteries. All of us who use the internet (and participate in this forum) are presumably killing off at least a few kids. Not shifting over to EVs probably isnāt going to change that. And weāre also killing children who are choking on carbon emissions.
So, literally, someone will need to pick the poison. But the poison will always exist.
My point is that āsuperior,ā ābetter,ā and even āmarket forcesā are really imprecise, and ultimately useless, terms. And that people who think they can escape The Matrix are fooling themselves.
Entities that have power will decide what criteria they will use to measure areas where interventions may be āusefulā and then will presumably use those same criteria to determine the impact of their actions. How that gets spun to the public is a different thing entirely.
Iām sure smart phones/computer used much less and agree their labor was exploited for that as well. But that burden is on the corporations/governments not consumers. And subsidies just increase the demand.
Oil production can be done nationally, we donāt have any rare earth so the increase in batteries will just increase all that instability and death as time goes on. Because no one is naive enough to believe they will be paid their share or properly regulating the DRC or their Chinese proxies
We are at war with china, have been for awhile, and they said they will win without firing a shot. Sounds about right when they have our politicians doing their bidding
1 Like
Iām sure no one buys a car based on the mining process, but interesting to know which is less harmful.
Especially when a car touts āenvironmentalist friendlyā
āZero emissionsā is true of the car itself BUT not of how the car is powered. Burning coal or natural gas to produce electric and charge the EV is not emission free. If an EV charger was tied to just a solar panel then yes, I agree the car is emission free. But for cloudy days and nights we know that would never be 100% possible. Right now in the US the avg is 60% of electric is from coal or nat gas.
āSuperiorā is defined (at least by me) as going from a horse drawn carriage to a car. Thatās better. Or a Nokia 3310 to an Iphone. It might be harder to define the āsuperiorā product but you know it when you see it - generally adapted by a large percent and pushing the old technology obsolete in a few years. If an EV charged in 3 mins for 200 miles, cost $2 per charge, had 500 hp with instant torque and cost $10,000 less than an ICE car, Iād call that superior. Regardless if it was burning gas, coal whatever. āSuperiorā is not always what is best for the environment, we would like it to be, but people buy the better overall solution in most cases.
BMW and Ford (I think) have invested in a company that is trying to develop cobalt-free batteries. Not going to happen anytime in the near future, unfortunately, but hopefully that does reduce the human burdenā¦ eventually.
Does anyone know if fuel cell cars use diff rare earth metals?
My understanding is:
- electric motors have the same REMs
- current HFC tech uses some platinum, less than a catalytic converter
There is active research being done at Argonne National Labs (in a former life I managed an unrelated team there, talk about geniuses) to develop PGM-free HFC catalysts, with funding from DOE.
1 Like
All Iāve heard here are arguments for developing new renewable forms energy production and nuclear energy.
5 Likes