NY passes no gas vehicle sales by 2035 (1 Viewer)

[NorvilleBarnes]

I like this. I want an electric car so bad.

 

[The General]

I like this. I want an electric car so bad.

Go to the Tesla showroom in your area on a weekday. Take out one of the performance ones, they just give you the card to unlock it and say come back in an hour. You won't be disappointed.

 

[Insein]

Yea it's a goal but like most far off political goals, they're made by politicians looking to score points now with no real intention on following through later. In order to reach a goal of getting to an all electric vehicle state, they would have to invest in massive energy projects both clean and otherwise just to get started. You can't suddenly have millions of gasoline vehicles be switched out for electric ones and not have all electricity in place to charge them. 

An average house uses a about 210 kWh per week. An electric car takes 30-40 kWh to charge. If you're charging your car 2-3 times a week, you just increased your electric bill by about 35%. More importantly you increased your electric usage by 35%. Times that by millions of homes and where is that electricity coming from? Certainly not solar and wind. They're going to need a lot more fossil fuel plants to meet that 13 year time frame.

Either that or they just ignore it and let rolling blackouts be someone else's problem. The politicians now already got their kudos and are moving on to other things. 

 

[the moops]

An average house uses a about 210 kWh per week. An electric car takes 30-40 kWh to charge. If you're charging your car 2-3 times a week, you just increased your electric bill by about 35%. More importantly you increased your electric usage by 35%.

Tesla currently gets over 300 miles per charge. I would guess that by 2035 there will some advances and that # will only be higher. The average person only drives 40 miles per day. Thus, looks like on average, you would only have to charge once a week

 

[Insein]

Tesla currently gets over 300 miles per charge. I would guess that by 2035 there will some advances and that # will only be higher. The average person only drives 40 miles per day. Thus, looks like on average, you would only have to charge once a week

Than only a 15% increase in power usage. Still multiplied across millions. That's a lot of extra energy that needs to be generated from somewhere.

 

[kface]

Than only a 15% increase in power usage. Still multiplied across millions. That's a lot of extra energy that needs to be generated from somewhere.

It's not a flat isolated calculation however...i don't know how to calculate but you are beyond simiplifying it

For example

Petroleum refineries use slightly over 3 x ~015 Btu of energy per year, a figure which represents about 4% of annual U. S. energy consumption and about 15% of annual industrial energy consumption.

 

[joffer]

Than only a 15% increase in power usage. Still multiplied across millions. That's a lot of extra energy that needs to be generated from somewhere.

so we generate it.  still lower CO2 than burning gas in ICE vehicles

 

[Insein]

It's not a flat isolated calculation however...i don't know how to calculate but you are beyond simiplifying it

For example

Petroleum refineries use slightly over 3 x ~015 Btu of energy per year, a figure which represents about 4% of annual U. S. energy consumption and about 15% of annual industrial energy consumption.

No I had considered that too but it wouldn't happen immediately. I think the decreasing production of gas will lag by a number of years perhaps even decades. So there's going to be a period of time that we will be using energy for both. We will need to have the increased energy production in place to accommodate that. 

 

[Insein]

so we generate it.  still lower CO2 than burning gas in ICE vehicles

 Well it still creates CO2 to make that electricity from the power plants. Especially if we need to increase production. I haven't read the calculations so I'm not sure if it's a decrease or increase. 

 

[joffer]

 Well it still creates CO2 to make that electricity from the power plants. Especially if we need to increase production. I haven't read the calculations so I'm not sure if it's a decrease or increase. 

I have.  EVs nationwide average the equivalent of 70mpg to 90mpg. It’s less. A lot less.

 

[JAA]

Go to the Tesla showroom in your area on a weekday. Take out one of the performance ones, they just give you the card to unlock it and say come back in an hour. You won't be disappointed.

and $40k later ... (last time I priced)

 

[The General]

and $40k later ... (last time I priced)

Even more for that crazy fast one...no gas though and very little maintenance stuff to break on the car.

A buddy just got the new VW one he had the little BMW one prior. Said the VW is nicer, the BMW one I thought was pretty cool.

All these models are going to just keep getting better, EV's are a far better product IMO.

 

[Insein]

I have.  EVs nationwide average the equivalent of 70mpg to 90mpg. It’s less. A lot less.

Not a lot less because again you have to account for how much fossil fuel is being burned to make all that new electricity. Do you have that data?

 

[joffer]

Not a lot less because again you have to account for how much fossil fuel is being burned to make all that new electricity. Do you have that data?

not following. Compare apples to apples. Energy per mile ICE vs EV.  If you want to factor in the extra electricity, you have to factor in the less gasoline being burned. The energy is being consumed either way.  One is more efficient and results in less Co2

 

[Rich Conway]

not following. Compare apples to apples. Energy per mile ICE vs EV.  If you want to factor in the extra electricity, you have to factor in the less gasoline being burned. The energy is being consumed either way.  One is more efficient and results in less Co2

Not even including the CO2 no longer being used to transport gasoline to the gas station.

 

[Stealthycat]

so we generate it.

how ?  the goal is to STOP burning fossil fuels, not burning more 

 

[joffer]

burning natural gas, to create the electricity, to charge an EV, to push it a mile, releases MUCH less CO2 than refining and burning the equivalent amount of gasoline to push an ICE vehicle that same mile.  it’s a good step, it’s not the final solution.

If you factor in renewables and (hopefully) nuclear being added to the grid, it becomes MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less.

 

[The General]

burning natural gas, to create the electricity, to charge an EV, to push it a mile, releases MUCH less CO2 than refining and burning the equivalent amount of gasoline to push an ICE vehicle that same mile.  it’s a good step, it’s not the final solution.

If you factor in renewables and (hopefully) nuclear being added to the grid, it becomes MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less.

Add improving battery tech into this equation as well. Breakthroughs will be made.

 

[quick-hands]

so we generate it.  still lower CO2 than burning gas in ICE vehicles

Generate it how?

 

[Stoneworker]

Not a lot less because again you have to account for how much fossil fuel is being burned to make all that new electricity. Do you have that data?

Yes. A lot less. Even with more electricity produced, emissions go down substantially. Here is the official data and conclusions from an exhaustive 2017 NREL study (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 

Specifically, we find that, by 2050, electrification and simultaneous power sector decarbonization can achieve reductions of nearly 74% below the 2005 level of economy-wide fossil fuel combustion emissions.

Under the scenarios explored, widespread electrification of end-use services across the transportation, buildings, and industrial sectors leads to a doubling of electricity consumption by 2050, but moderate improvements in the energy efficiency of end-use devices can substantially limit the growth in load. Furthermore, despite driving large increases in total load, temporal flexibility in some end uses, such as hydrogen production for vehicles and electric vehicle charging (as assumed in this study), can offset the increased peak demand in other end uses (e.g., buildings) such that electrification has the potential to reduce variability or “peaky-ness” of load, which can aid in the integration of new resources—particularly variable renewable resources.

Results from power sector modeling demonstrate that incremental load associated with electrification is predominantly met with generation from new wind, solar, and natural gas combined cycle capacity and, to a lesser extent, with increased generation from existing natural gas combined cycle capacity.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68214.pdf

 

[Wrigley]

Zero issue with this.  Should be federal.

You can do whatever you want, as long as it's mandatory

amiright?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I keep reading this thread title as "NY passes no gas" as if they fixed a flatulence problem through dietary changes or something.

 

[Insein]

Yes. A lot less. Even with more electricity produced, emissions go down substantially. Here is the official data and conclusions from an exhaustive 2017 NREL study (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 

Specifically, we find that, by 2050, electrification and simultaneous power sector decarbonization can achieve reductions of nearly 74% below the 2005 level of economy-wide fossil fuel combustion emissions.

Under the scenarios explored, widespread electrification of end-use services across the transportation, buildings, and industrial sectors leads to a doubling of electricity consumption by 2050, but moderate improvements in the energy efficiency of end-use devices can substantially limit the growth in load. Furthermore, despite driving large increases in total load, temporal flexibility in some end uses, such as hydrogen production for vehicles and electric vehicle charging (as assumed in this study), can offset the increased peak demand in other end uses (e.g., buildings) such that electrification has the potential to reduce variability or “peaky-ness” of load, which can aid in the integration of new resources—particularly variable renewable resources.

Results from power sector modeling demonstrate that incremental load associated with electrification is predominantly met with generation from new wind, solar, and natural gas combined cycle capacity and, to a lesser extent, with increased generation from existing natural gas combined cycle capacity.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68214.pdf

I can agree with the premise that efficiency will improve but I don't see that coming from Wind or Solar in such great leaps.

I guess where I differ fundamentally is believing that a government mandate will change these habits when the government is giving subsidies out their other hand to the oil and coal companies. Subsidies that have created the low cost environment we all enjoy right now but have a consequence of stifling incentive to improving energy creation methods. I just don't see more government involvement as the solution to a problem government is currently causing. 

 

[Stoneworker]

I can agree with the premise that efficiency will improve but I don't see that coming from Wind or Solar in such great leaps.

I guess where I differ fundamentally is believing that a government mandate will change these habits when the government is giving subsidies out their other hand to the oil and coal companies. Subsidies that have created the low cost environment we all enjoy right now but have a consequence of stifling incentive to improving energy creation methods. I just don't see more government involvement as the solution to a problem government is currently causing. 

I'm about as anti-government as you can get...but at this point it is absolutely essential that the federal gov't goes all-in for the following reasons:

1) The power sector is massive and is already a highly regulated, quasi-government entity. Zero incentive for them to innovate on their own. 

2) Required infrastructure investments. The private sector simply will not invest in EV and power infrastructure due to uncertainty. They need the Feds commit to funding a nationwide infrastructure and then private sector will pile on afterwards and accelerate the build out.

3) Size. New technologies (e.g. carbon capture) require pilot and demonstration projects that are simply too big and take too long for private investors' required return profile. VC's got burned in 2000's with these type projects and will never go back.

4) No carbon pricing. Without cost of carbon emissions included in fossil fuel price, fossils have a massive price advantage. Clean energy is catching up organically...but needs federal incentives to accelerate deployment.

If clean energy deployment is not massively accelerated, then none of this matters. Only the feds are capable of jump-starting. Then get the f--- out of the way.

 

[JAA]

burning natural gas, to create the electricity, to charge an EV, to push it a mile, releases MUCH less CO2 than refining and burning the equivalent amount of gasoline to push an ICE vehicle that same mile.  it’s a good step, it’s not the final solution.

If you factor in renewables and (hopefully) nuclear being added to the grid, it becomes MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less.

Can you share this study with me?  Please make sure it includes the creation and disposal of the EV batteries.