California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Post Reply
User avatar
MitchJi
1 GW
1 GW
Posts: 3195
Joined: Jun 02, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Marin County California

California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by MitchJi » Sep 26, 2017 6:55 pm

https://electrek.co/2017/09/26/californ ... ered-cars/
[Quote]
California and its Air Resources Board have long been perceived as leaders in the fight against climate change and especially in the adoption of electric cars.

But several other countries have since been more aggressive and announced upcoming bans on sales of new gas and diesel-powered cars.

Now California’s government is reportedly considering the same drastic initiative.



Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, confirmed Governor Jerry Brown’s interest in such a ban during an interview with Bloomberg last week.

France, the UK, and Scotland, all recently announced efforts to ban petrol and gas-powered cars in favor of electric vehicles, but it wasn’t after China announced that it is also considering the same initiative that Governor Brown reached out to Nichols:

“I’ve gotten messages from the governor asking, ‘Why haven’t we done something already?’” Nichols said, referring to China’s planned phase-out of fossil-fuel vehicle sales. “The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California.”

To be clear, California already set the goal to cut carbon emissions by 80% of the 1990 levels by 2050, which would actually require replacing virtually all combustion by renewable energy in the state a decade ahead of the goal. But there’s no actual policy forcing that aside from the current ZEV mandate, which environmentalists already consider weak.

As for the timeline to enforce a ban, Nichols doesn’t seem confident about any specific timeline, but as soon as 2030 is not “out of the question”:

“There are people who believe, including who work for me, that you could stop all sales of new internal-combustion cars by 2030. Some people say 2035, some people say 2040,” she said. “It’s awfully hard to predict any of that with precision, but it doesn’t appear to be out of the question.”

There are just over 300,000 EVs on California roads today and the state is adding 2 million cars per year. An actual ban on gas and diesel-powered cars would be of such significance that it would likely have an impact on the entire auto industry.

Electrek’s Take

As we previously reported when talking about those possible bans, we think those timelines for the end of new gas-powered cars are too conservative. Once all-electric powertrains, due to the falling cost of batteries, reach cost parity with internal combustion engines before accounting for cost of operation (gas and maintenance savings), there will be virtually no reason for buyers to want gas-powered cars over battery-powered cars.

At the rate battery costs are falling, it will happen soon (between 2020 and 2025) and the industry should transition their production capacity over the following 10 years.

Apparently, most automakers don’t agree with that timeline, but that’s what those bans are good for. They are sending a clear message to the auto industry that there’s a deadline on selling pollution-emitting products and they need to prepare for it.
Best Wishes!

Mitch


The best quality batteries and lowest priced batteries for DIY EV's are tier 1 OEM Quality Cells from salvaged (wrecked) EV packs. Two examples are Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf packs.

Nissan Leaf Module specs are here
Chevy Volt Pack Info - Salvage 16kwh Packs Under $2k here
The cells are rated conservatively by GM at 7.8C, Yabert's tests of Volt packs on the DiyEv car forum suggest a higher C rate, 15+ C!.

$1,400 plus $360 freight. Still over $1k less than new lead!

flat tire
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 754
Joined: Feb 26, 2014 12:20 am

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by flat tire » Sep 26, 2017 7:03 pm

Yes, let's celebrate artificial restrictions that could increase EV adoption in california but only because the customers have no choice!! Yay!!
Orange DH w/ Cyclone mid on 6kw
Gary Fisher w/ Leaf hub on 6kw
RC Lipo and domino throttles only!

swbluto
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 6975
Joined: May 30, 2008 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by swbluto » Sep 26, 2017 7:58 pm

California is living upto its commiefornia nickname.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14453
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by liveforphysics » Sep 26, 2017 10:56 pm

If we were all sharing the inside of a sealed submarine together, and I started up anything with an ICE engine you would immediately use any means needed to immediately shutdown the ICE device, likely including killing me if I was not willing to stop burning things i found in the submarines shared atmosphere.

We happen to be sharing an atmosphere in a closed loop system with only 14.7lbs of air per inch by inch collumn of air above the earth's surface clear up to space, and with no spares or reserve atmospheres standing by available to swap out. Each human is tied to the same shared atmosphere through the chemical compound exchanges made through our lungs with the same importance as the blood in our veins. Aspiration is approximately as effective as injection for many of the benzene containing partial combustion byproducts sprayed as a normal working function of ICE use.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

User avatar
Dauntless
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 5927
Joined: May 29, 2010 1:49 am
Location: Coordinates: 33°52′48″N 117°55′43″W

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by Dauntless » Sep 26, 2017 11:53 pm

swbluto wrote:California is living upto its commiefornia nickname.
AHEM! That's the PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC of California to you, sir. Or more like the People's Republic of NORTHERN California. There's not really the same problem in SoCal, besides Hollywood and Santa Monica.

But they've been considering this nonsense for some 30 years. Every time they try to pull something they get their knees broken. Ever see 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' That was CARB putting on that political farce at the beginning, racing against the clock to overturn their action before the courts did. Since we are NOT on a submarine, they have no business behaving as though we are.

As long as you keep making people afraid of electric cars, as CARB does every time they open their ignorant mouth, you make it inevitable that they fail.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by billvon » Sep 27, 2017 12:04 am

Eh, this will end up like the ZEV mandate. First it will be a ban on ICE cars. Then it will be a ban on non-pluggable cars. Then it will be a ban on pure ICE cars. Then it will be a ban on pure ICE cars unless they get at least 40mpg. And it won't take effect until 2039.
--bill von

User avatar
Chalo
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 6122
Joined: Apr 29, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by Chalo » Sep 27, 2017 12:35 am

Whatever it takes to get callously indifferent assholes out of cars wins my approval. If we don't get to shoot guns randomly whenever and wherever we like; if we don't all get to have our own household nuclear reactor; if we don't get to kill each other's children with our own bare hands with impunity, then why should we drive cars? This is a step in the right direction.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

User avatar
MitchJi
1 GW
1 GW
Posts: 3195
Joined: Jun 02, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Marin County California

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by MitchJi » Sep 27, 2017 10:46 am

liveforphysics wrote:If we were all sharing the inside of a sealed submarine together, and I started up anything with an ICE engine you would immediately use any means needed to immediately shutdown the ICE device, likely including killing me if I was not willing to stop burning things i found in the submarines shared atmosphere.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20 ... ide-000511


Irakli Loladze is a mathematician by training, but he was in a biology lab when he encountered the puzzle that would change his life. It was in 1998, and Loladze was studying for his Ph.D. at Arizona State University. Against a backdrop of glass containers glowing with bright green algae, a biologist told Loladze and a half-dozen other graduate students that scientists had discovered something mysterious about zooplankton.

Zooplankton are microscopic animals that float in the world’s oceans and lakes, and for food they rely on algae, which are essentially tiny plants. Scientists found that they could make algae grow faster by shining more light onto them—increasing the food supply for the zooplankton, which should have flourished. But it didn’t work out that way. When the researchers shined more light on the algae, the algae grew faster, and the tiny animals had lots and lots to eat—but at a certain point they started struggling to survive. This was a paradox. More food should lead to more growth. How could more algae be a problem?

Loladze was technically in the math department, but he loved biology and couldn’t stop thinking about this. The biologists had an idea of what was going on: The increased light was making the algae grow faster, but they ended up containing fewer of the nutrients the zooplankton needed to thrive. By speeding up their growth, the researchers had essentially turned the algae into junk food. The zooplankton had plenty to eat, but their food was less nutritious, and so they were starving.

Loladze used his math training to help measure and explain the algae-zooplankton dynamic. He and his colleagues devised a model that captured the relationship between a food source and a grazer that depends on the food. They published that first paper in 2000. But Loladze was also captivated by a much larger question raised by the experiment: Just how far this problem might extend.

“What struck me is that its application is wider,” Loladze recalled in an interview. Could the same problem affect grass and cows? What about rice and people? “It was kind of a watershed moment for me when I started thinking about human nutrition,” he said.

In the outside world, the problem isn’t that plants are suddenly getting more light: It’s that for years, they’ve been getting more carbon dioxide. Plants rely on both light and carbon dioxide to grow. If shining more light results in faster-growing, less nutritious algae—junk-food algae whose ratio of sugar to nutrients was out of whack—then it seemed logical to assume that ramping up carbon dioxide might do the same. And it could also be playing out in plants all over the planet. What might that mean for the plants that people eat?

What Loladze found is that scientists simply didn’t know. It was already well documented that CO2levels were rising in the atmosphere, but he was astonished at how little research had been done on how it affected the quality of the plants we eat. For the next 17 years, as he pursued his math career, Loladze scoured the scientific literature for any studies and data he could find. The results, as he collected them, all seemed to point in the same direction: The junk-food effect he had learned about in that Arizona lab also appeared to be occurring in fields and forests around the world. “Every leaf and every grass blade on earth makes more and more sugars as CO2 levels keep rising,” Loladze said. “We are witnessing the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history―[an] injection that dilutes other nutrients in our food supply.”

He published those findings just a few years ago, adding to the concerns of a small but increasingly worried group of researchers who are raising unsettling questions about the future of our food supply. Could carbon dioxide have an effect on human health we haven’t accounted for yet? The answer appears to be yes—and along the way, it has steered Loladze and other scientists, directly into some of the thorniest questions in their profession, including just how hard it is to do research in a field that doesn’t quite exist yet.

IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, it’s been understood for some time that many of our most important foods have been getting less nutritious. Measurements of fruits and vegetables show that their minerals, vitamin and protein content has measurably dropped over the past 50 to 70 years. Researchers have generally assumed the reason is fairly straightforward: We’ve been breeding and choosing crops for higher yields, rather than nutrition, and higher-yielding crops—whether broccoli, tomatoes, or wheat—tend to be less nutrient-packed.

In 2004, a landmark study of fruits and vegetables found that everything from protein to calcium, iron and vitamin C had declined significantly across most garden crops since 1950. The researchers concluded this could mostly be explained by the varieties we were choosing to grow.

Loladze and a handful of other scientists have come to suspect that’s not the whole story and that the atmosphere itself may be changing the food we eat. Plants need carbon dioxide to live like humans need oxygen. And in the increasingly polarized debate about climate science, one thing that isn’t up for debate is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Before the industrial revolution, the earth’s atmosphere had about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Last year, the planet crossed over the 400 parts per million threshold; scientists predict we will likely reach 550 parts per million within the next half-century—essentially twice the amount that was in the air when Americans started farming with tractors.

If you’re someone who thinks about plant growth, this seems like a good thing. It has also been useful ammunition for politicians looking for reasons to worry less about the implications of climate change. Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican who chairs the House Committee on Science, recently argued that people shouldn’t be so worried about rising CO2 levels because it’s good for plants, and what’s good for plants is good for us.

“A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth,” the Texas Republican wrote. “This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food.”

But as the zooplankton experiment showed, greater volume and better quality might not go hand-in-hand. In fact, they might be inversely linked. As best scientists can tell, this is what happens: Rising CO2 revs up photosynthesis, the process that helps plants transform sunlight to food. This makes plants grow, but it also leads them to pack in more carbohydrates like glucose at the expense of other nutrients that we depend on, like protein, iron and zinc.

In 2002, while a postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University, Loladze published a seminal research paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, a leading journal, arguing that rising CO2 and human nutrition were inextricably linked through a global shift in the quality of plants. In the paper, Loladze complained about the dearth of data: Among thousands of publications he had reviewed on plants and rising CO2, he found only one that looked specifically at how it affected the balance of nutrients in rice, a crop that billions of people rely on. (The paper, published in 1997, found a drop in zinc and iron.)


Loladze’s paper was first to tie the impact of CO2 on plant quality to human nutrition. But he also raised more questions than he answered, arguing that there were fundamental holes in the research. If these nutritional shifts were happening up and down the food chain, the phenomenon needed to be measured and understood.

Part of the problem, Loladze was finding, lay in the research world itself. Answering the question required an understanding of plant physiology, agriculture and nutrition―as well as a healthy dollop of math. He could do the math, but he was a young academic trying to establish himself, and math departments weren't especially interested in solving problems in farming and human health. Loladze struggled to get funding to generate new data and continued to obsessively collect published data from researchers across the globe. He headed to the heartland to take an assistant professor position at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. It was a major agricultural school, which seemed like a good sign, but Loladze was still a math professor. He was told he could pursue his research interests as long as he brought in funding, but he struggled. Biology grant makers said his proposals were too math-heavy; math grant makers said his proposals contained too much biology.

“It was year after year, rejection after rejection,” he said. “It was so frustrating. I don’t think people grasp the scale of this.”

It’s not just in the fields of math and biology that this issue has fallen through the cracks. To say that it’s little known that key crops are getting less nutritious due to rising CO2 is an understatement. It is simply not discussed in the agriculture, public health or nutrition communities. At all.


When POLITICO contacted top nutrition experts about the growing body of research on the topic, they were almost universally perplexed and asked to see the research. One leading nutrition scientist at Johns Hopkins University said it was interesting, but admitted he didn’t know anything about it. He referred me to another expert. She said they didn’t know about the subject, either. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an association representing an army of nutrition experts across the country, connected me with Robin Foroutan, an integrative medicine nutritionist who was also not familiar with the research.

“It’s really interesting, and you’re right, it’s not on many people’s radar,” wrote Foroutan, in an email, after being sent some papers on the topic. Foroutan said she would like to see a whole lot more data, particularly on how a subtle shift toward more carbohydrates in plants could affect public health.

"We don't know what a minor shift in the carbohydrate ratio in the diet is ultimately going to do,” she said, noting that the overall trend toward more starch and carbohydrate consumption has been associated with an increase in diet-related disease like obesity and diabetes. "To what degree would a shift in the food system contribute to that? We can't really say.”

Asked to comment for this story, Marion Nestle, a nutrition policy professor at New York University who’s one of the best-known nutrition experts in the country, initially expressed skepticism about the whole concept but offered to dig into a file she keeps on climate issues.

After reviewing the evidence, she changed her tune. “I’m convinced,” she said, in an email, while also urging caution: It wasn’t clear whether CO2-driven nutrient depletion would have a meaningful impact on public health. We need to know a whole lot more, she said.

Kristie Ebi, a researcher at the University of Washington who’s studied the intersection of climate change and global health for two decades, is one of a handful of scientists in the U.S. who is keyed into the potentially sweeping consequences of the CO2-nutrition dynamic, and brings it up in every talk she gives.

"It's a hidden issue,” Ebi said. “The fact that my bread doesn't have the micronutrients it did 20 years ago―how would you know?"

As Ebi sees it, the CO2-nutrition link has been slow to break through, much as it took the academic community a long time to start seriously looking at the intersection of climate and human health in general. “This is before the change,” she said. “This is what it looks like before the change."

LOLADZE'S EARLY PAPER raised some big questions that are difficult, but not impossible, to answer. How does rising atmospheric CO2 change how plants grow? How much of the long-term nutrient drop is caused by the atmosphere, and how much by other factors, like breeding?

It’s also difficult, but not impossible, to run farm-scale experiments on how CO2 affects plants. Researchers use a technique that essentially turns an entire field into a lab. The current gold standard for this type of research is called a FACE experiment (for “free-air carbon dioxide enrichment”), in which researchers create large open-air structures that blow CO2 onto the plants in a given area. Small sensors keep track of the CO2 levels. When too much CO2 escapes the perimeter, the contraption puffs more into the air to keep the levels stable. Scientists can then compare those plants directly to others growing in normal air nearby.

These experiments and others like them have shown scientists that plants change in important ways when they’re grown at elevated CO2 levels. Within the category of plants known as “C3”―which includes approximately 95 percent of plant species on earth, including ones we eat like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes―elevated CO2 has been shown to drive down important minerals like calcium, potassium, zinc and iron. The data we have, which look at how plants would respond to the kind of CO2 concentrations we may see in our lifetimes, show these important minerals drop by 8 percent, on average. The same conditions have been shown to drive down the protein content of C3 crops, in some cases significantly, with wheat and rice dropping 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

Earlier this summer, a group of researchers published the first studies attempting to estimate what these shifts could mean for the global population. Plants are a crucial source of protein for people in the developing world, and by 2050, they estimate, 150 million people could be put at risk of protein deficiency, particularly in countries like India and Bangladesh. Researchers found a loss of zinc, which is particularly essential for maternal and infant health, could put 138 million people at risk. They also estimated that more than 1 billion mothers and 354 million children live in countries where dietary iron is projected to drop significantly, which could exacerbate the already widespread public health problem of anemia.

There aren’t any projections for the United States, where we for the most part enjoy a diverse diet with no shortage of protein, but some researchers look at the growing proportion of sugars in plants and hypothesize that a systemic shift in plants could further contribute to our already alarming rates of obesity and cardiovascular disease.

Another new and important strain of research on CO2 and plant nutrition is now coming out of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist at the Agricultural Research Service headquarters in Beltsville, Maryland, is drilling down on some of the questions that Loladze first raised 15 years ago with a number of new studies that focus on nutrition.

Ziska devised an experiment that eliminated the complicating factor of plant breeding: He decided to look at bee food.

Goldenrod, a wildflower many consider a weed, is extremely important to bees. It flowers late in the season, and its pollen provides an important source of protein for bees as they head into the harshness of winter. Since goldenrod is wild and humans haven’t bred it into new strains, it hasn’t changed over time as much as, say, corn or wheat. And the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod, dating back to 1842, in its massive historical archive—which gave Ziska and his colleagues a chance to figure out how one plant has changed over time.

They found that the protein content of goldenrod pollen has declined by a third since the industrial revolution—and the change closely tracks with the rise in CO2. Scientists have been trying to figure out why bee populations around the world have been in decline, which threatens many crops that rely on bees for pollination. Ziska’s paper suggested that a decline in protein prior to winter could be an additional factor making it hard for bees to survive other stressors.

Ziska worries we’re not studying all the ways CO2 affects the plants we depend on with enough urgency, especially considering the fact that retooling crops takes a long time.

“We’re falling behind in our ability to intercede and begin to use the traditional agricultural tools, like breeding, to compensate,” he said. “Right now it can take 15 to 20 years before we get from the laboratory to the field.”

AS LOLADZE AND others have found, tackling globe-spanning new questions that cross the boundaries of scientific fields can be difficult. There are plenty of plant physiologists researching crops, but most are dedicated to studying factors like yield and pest resistance—qualities that have nothing to do with nutrition. Math departments, as Loladze discovered, don’t exactly prioritize food research. And studying living things can be costly and slow: It takes several years and huge sums of money to get a FACE experiment to generate enough data to draw any conclusions.

Despite these challenges, researchers are increasingly studying these questions, which means we may have more answers in the coming years. Ziska and Loladze, who now teaches math at Bryan College of Health Sciences in Lincoln, Nebraska, are collaborating with a coalition of researchers in China, Japan, Australia and elsewhere in the U.S. on a large study looking at rising CO2 and the nutritional profile of rice, one of humankind’s most important crops. Their study also includes vitamins, an important nutritional component, that to date has almost not been studied at all.

USDA researchers also recently dug up varieties of rice, wheat and soy that USDA had saved from the 1950s and 1960s and planted them in plots around the U.S. where previous researchers had grown the same cultivars decades ago, with the aim of better understanding how today’s higher levels of CO2 affect them.

Mathematician Irakli Loladze tosses sugar over vegetables outside his home in Lincoln Nebraska, to illustrate how the sugar content of the plants we eat is increasing as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels. Loladze was the first scientist to publish research connecting rising CO2 and changes in plant quality to human nutrition.
Mathematician Irakli Loladze tosses sugar over vegetables outside his home in Lincoln Nebraska, to illustrate how the sugar content of the plants we eat is increasing as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels. Loladze was the first scientist to publish research connecting rising CO2 and changes in plant quality to human nutrition. | Geoff Johnson for POLITICO
In a USDA research field in Maryland, researchers are running experiments on bell peppers to measure how vitamin C changes under elevated CO2. They’re also looking at coffee to see whether caffeine declines. “There are lots of questions,” Ziska said as he showed me around his research campus in Beltsville. “We’re just putting our toe in the water.”

Ziska is part of a small band of researchers now trying to measure these changes and figure out what it means for humans. Another key figure studying this nexus is Samuel Myers, a doctor turned climate researcher at Harvard University who leads the Planetary Health Alliance, a new global effort to connect the dots between climate science and human health.

Myers is also concerned that the research community is not more focused on understanding the CO2-nutrition dynamic, since it’s a crucial piece of a much larger picture of how such changes might ripple through ecosystems. "This is the tip of the iceberg," said Myers. "It's been hard for us to get people to understand how many questions they should have."

In 2014, Myers and a team of other scientists published a large, data-rich study in the journal Nature that looked at key crops grown at several sites in Japan, Australia and the United States that also found rising CO2 led to a drop in protein, iron and zinc. It was the first time the issue had attracted any real media attention.

“The public health implications of global climate change are difficult to predict, and we expect many surprises,” the researchers wrote. “The finding that raising atmospheric CO2 lowers the nutritional value of C3 crops is one such surprise that we can now better predict and prepare for.”

The same year―in fact, on the same day―Loladze, then teaching math at the The Catholic University of Daegu in South Korea, published his own paper, the result of more than 15 years of gathering data on the same subject. It was the largest study in the world on rising CO2 and its impact on plant nutrients. Loladze likes to describe plant science as ““noisy”―research-speak for cluttered with complicating data, through which it can be difficult to detect the signal you’re looking for. His new data set was finally big enough to see the signal through the noise, to detect the “hidden shift,” as he put it.

k.20170908msmUSDA-ARC236.jpgView
PHOTOS: How to measure a plant
What he found is that his 2002 theory—or, rather, the strong suspicion he had articulated back then—appeared to be borne out. Across nearly 130 varieties of plants and more than 15,000 samples collected from experiments over the past three decades, the overall concentration of minerals like calcium, magnesium, potassium, zinc and iron had dropped by 8 percent on average. The ratio of carbohydrates to minerals was going up. The plants, like the algae, were becoming junk food.

What that means for humans―whose main food intake is plants―is only just starting to be investigated. Researchers who dive into it will have to surmount obstacles like its low profile and slow pace, and a political environment where the word “climate” is enough to derail a funding conversation. It will also require entirely new bridges to be built in the world of science―a problem that Loladze himself wryly acknowledges in his own research. When his paper was finally published in 2014, Loladze listed his grant rejections in the acknowledgements.
Best Wishes!

Mitch


The best quality batteries and lowest priced batteries for DIY EV's are tier 1 OEM Quality Cells from salvaged (wrecked) EV packs. Two examples are Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf packs.

Nissan Leaf Module specs are here
Chevy Volt Pack Info - Salvage 16kwh Packs Under $2k here
The cells are rated conservatively by GM at 7.8C, Yabert's tests of Volt packs on the DiyEv car forum suggest a higher C rate, 15+ C!.

$1,400 plus $360 freight. Still over $1k less than new lead!

User avatar
edcastrovalley
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 350
Joined: Nov 04, 2010 7:44 pm
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by edcastrovalley » Sep 27, 2017 3:10 pm

flat tire wrote:Yes, let's celebrate artificial restrictions that could increase EV adoption in california but only because the customers have no choice!! Yay!!
"Artificial restrictions" - "no choice". That's funny because that's exactly what a certain special interest has been doing to us for the last hundred years or so. They've been amazingly effective at removing all other choices of fuel and vehicle types while controlling our media in such a way that most of us actually believe that there is simply no other possible way to propel ourselves down the road. Don't feel bad. I was one of these people a couple decades ago. Thinking wow, if I want to go from point A to point B, I will always have to open my wallet quite wide at a refueling station. Now I just brew my own fuel, at no cost, on my roof. All with used panels I installed myself for cheap.

LipoRider
100 µW
100 µW
Posts: 8
Joined: Nov 11, 2014 1:02 am

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by LipoRider » Oct 14, 2017 2:33 am

California currently rakes in 38.13 cents in tax per gallon from gasoline and 41.70 cents in tax per gallon from diesel. This is the 7th highest among all states according to Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxe ... tate_taxes

The federal government takes in their separate cut as well for every gallon! That pays for a lot of things. The sad part is they'll figure out how to get this revenue from elsewhere. Even with this, I can't wait until ICE usage takes a major dive. As an e-biker here in California, I have to breathe in a lot of those ICE fumes in traffic.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14453
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by liveforphysics » Oct 14, 2017 4:21 am

LipoRider wrote:California currently rakes in 38.13 cents in tax per gallon from gasoline and 41.70 cents in tax per gallon from diesel. This is the 7th highest among all states according to Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxe ... tate_taxes

The federal government takes in their separate cut as well for every gallon! That pays for a lot of things. The sad part is they'll figure out how to get this revenue from elsewhere. Even with this, I can't wait until ICE usage takes a major dive. As an e-biker here in California, I have to breathe in a lot of those ICE fumes in traffic.
How about a tax of say $50-100/gal or more, because that's what I would have to pay in EPA and shipping related costs to ship the same chemicals to lab, but in California, even labs are prohibited from being sent various benzene compounds for health risk reasons, but they will sell anyone with a dollar and container every so many city blocks from giant underground tank infrastructure supported by regular fuel drop deliveries from and army of big rigs.

Solar+storage and EVs with bidirectional grid buffering are so quickly going to look so simple with imagined issues like finding 'pannel acreage' and 'storage' to contend with an army of tank trucks and coal trains dropping well proven hazmat to by design intent get a portion sprayed out in vapors and partial combustion byproducts as an aspect of normal operation.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

User avatar
Lebowski
1 GW
1 GW
Posts: 3110
Joined: Jun 28, 2011 1:38 am
Location: beautiful Zurich, Switzerland

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by Lebowski » Oct 14, 2017 12:34 pm

Interestingly enough Norway is about to introduce a Tesla-tax. This because they consider a car weighing over 2000 kg and having hundreds of horsepower total nonsense and far from environmentally friendly.

To be honest, to me it makes sense. When you care about ecology you should consider things like vehicle weight and power. Because, lets be honest, you don't need a 2-ton car (isnt the tesla X over 2.5 ton ?) with hundreds of horsepower. My mam gets on perfectly fine with her 750 kg Suzuki having 70 hp (1.3 L ICE, but OK). All this extra weight and horsepower are an unnecessary load on the environment and should therefore, according to Norway, be taxed.

flat tire
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 754
Joined: Feb 26, 2014 12:20 am

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by flat tire » Oct 15, 2017 12:03 am

A much better way would be to have a driving skill evaluation, and give cars with lots of power to those who can actually drive them in anger, while taxing those who can't heavily if they want to own such a car. I'm all for the best cars being in the hands of the most skilled drivers. That would be sick :D

Penalizing heavy cars is a bad idea; occupant safety means cars are heavier than ever despite engineering and materials science being at a peak in the auto industry. Plus, what about people who use heavy cars or trucks for business purposes? Are you going to screw them?

Just because your mom drives a piece of shit car doesn't mean everyone else should be penalized if they don't want to.
Orange DH w/ Cyclone mid on 6kw
Gary Fisher w/ Leaf hub on 6kw
RC Lipo and domino throttles only!

User avatar
mr.electric
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 757
Joined: Jan 03, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by mr.electric » Oct 15, 2017 12:45 am

hooray!!!
-Fat Sand Bike with 9c and 29ah pack

-Giants mascot scooter

User avatar
Chalo
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 6122
Joined: Apr 29, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by Chalo » Oct 15, 2017 1:09 am

Car driver safety and driver "skills" at taking inappropriate risks with other people's well-being are both entirely backwards.

The safety that counts most is that of those who are NOT inside the murder vehicle. Knuckleheads who want to drive fast can do so on a closed course, in a non-polluting vehicle. Cities are for human beings.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

User avatar
Lebowski
1 GW
1 GW
Posts: 3110
Joined: Jun 28, 2011 1:38 am
Location: beautiful Zurich, Switzerland

Re: California is considering a ban on ICE Cars (yay!)

Post by Lebowski » Oct 15, 2017 1:58 am

flat tire wrote:A much better way would be to have a driving skill evaluation, and give cars with lots of power to those who can actually drive them in anger, while taxing those who can't heavily if they want to own such a car. I'm all for the best cars being in the hands of the most skilled drivers. That would be sick :D
Yeah right, only you can have a fun powerful car but everyone else cannot.
flat tire wrote: Penalizing heavy cars is a bad idea; occupant safety means cars are heavier than ever despite engineering and materials science being at a peak in the auto industry. Plus, what about people who use heavy cars or trucks for business purposes? Are you going to screw them?
What you're describing here will have us on a path to heavier and heavier cars, an arms race as it were. Is that really such a good idea ? What about all the pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists ?

Heavy cars / trucks can be licensed to companies only, private people can always rent one for the day. No need for a 2000kg car when you just drive to work

I sometimes wonder what is going on here. I've seem people (Americans mostly) describe a perfectly nice 750cc motorcycle as a 'fun little runabout', something only good for small trips around the house. Back in the 70-ies a 750cc was about as big as it got. I remember doing 120 mph on a GS750 for hours on end in Germany, and now all of a sudden it's not good enough for doing a measly 60 mph on the interstate.
flat tire wrote: Just because your mom drives a piece of shit car doesn't mean everyone else should be penalized if they don't want to.
OK, why should people then be penalised for wanting a characterful ICE motorcycle over a soulless flying vacuum cleaner ? Why should I not be allowed to have a Moto Guzzi if it over its entire life and production will be more environmentally friendly than your 2000kg Tesla ?

My mams 'piece of shit' is actually a lot of fun, because of the low weight acceleration is quite good especially if you make it scream (it really sounds very good over 4000 rpms)

Post Reply