No more new gas cars after 2035 in Massachusetts (BMW, Chevy, pricing)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clearly I know that electricity is everywhere today. I was saying historically it takes a lot longer for rural areas to catch up to urban ones.
The Pearl Street Station in Manhattan, the first central power plant in the U.S., began producing electricity on September 4th, 1882. It initially served 85 customers, providing electricity to 400 lamps.The rural Electrification Act of 1936, enacted on May 20, 1936, provided federal loans for the installation of electrical distribution systems to serve isolated rural areas of the United States.
I live in a metro area of 842K people with a GDP of over $43 billion and we have a single Tesla supercharging station.
I think that you are correct that 13 years will make a huge difference in the vehicles, but the infrastructure of sparsely populated areas will take a lot longer to build out.
Yes there may only be one Supercharger in the area but they are not for everyday charging. Superchargers are placed for road trips to allow Tesla owners to be able to travel long distances without worrying about where to find a charger.
That's a good point. I imagine that it costs a lot less to build a solar home using lead acid battery bank in really remote areas.
Are these people to be denied mobility?
My skepticism has shifted from the ability of the automobile manufacturing industry to be able to sell affordable BEVs in 13 years, to the ability to build out the infrastructure support to charge them at low cost.
I think Norway is simply better equipped since they have a fairly elaborate public transit system so that people without vehicles or with electric bicycles or mopeds are able to function.
If it's solar power with a battery bank, then how would an EV be denying off-the-grid people mobility? Solar power is meant to generate electricity and the battery bank is meant to store electricity. Coincidentally, electricity is also what electric vehicles run on. Not only that, but alternate fuel sources such as natural gas can also generate electricity which electric vehicles run on. Meanwhile, it's hard to turn solar power and natural gas directly into fuel for your gasoline internal combustion engine or diesel internal combustion engine. You're making these areas less reliant on outside power rather than more since most people in rural areas aren't pumping and refining their own gas.
Your skepticism would make more sense if you believe that rural counties in California or Massachusetts do not get electrical hookup or if electrical vehicles do not run on electricity. Otherwise, this is sort of an odd argument you've shifted towards as it's even less of an issue than the original one which can be up in the air if 1) advancements in battery improvements slow down and/or 2) cost of battery material rising due to demand shifts outpaces the advancements in battery improvements. Those seem unlikely to me given recent trends and the variety of promising research in battery improvements some of which will almost certainly make their way into production and often with less material needed for the same energy capacity, but they are more reasonable possibilities to me compared to the tried and true ability and pathways to increase electrical generation capacity and transmission both historically and in modern times.
Did you also know that the urbanized population % of the US and Norway is about the same and it's actually higher for both California and Massachusetts? And while CA and MA don't have mass transit systems as good as what you would find in Norway when talking about metropolitan area sizes, both states kind of do well overall for US states. That being said, people who don't own vehicles at all aren't generally living in rural counties and one nice thing that's been happening in both CA and MA has been steady investment in mass transit both for intra and intercity travel. Right before the pandemic, Western Mass got the launch of the Valley Flyer as a test for an extension of sorts for the Hartford Line service in Western Mass and there's talk of further expansions throughout the state. It'd be great if Allentown and Lehigh Valley get decent transit connections among each other and to both the Philadelphia and NYC metropolitan areas.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-20-2021 at 01:47 PM..
These seven counties in California are selected because they are the 7 most populous in Calfironia and are the ones with over 1 million vehicles. They are ranked by the % BEV in the population of vehicles. They are all urban counties. In all six counties the vast majority of charging is done at home.
% BEV - County - Total number of Vehicles
0.53% San Bernardino 1,541,104
0.65% Riverside 1,727,384
1.25% Los Angeles 6,792,207
1.29% San Diego 2,477,631
1.87% Orange 2,381,566
2.59% Alameda 1,128,196
3.50% Santa Clara 1,410,255
Now why is there nearly a 7-fold difference in BEV penetration? Even though San Bernardino and Riverside are geographically very vast counties, the majority of people live in the Western portion near the Los Angeles metro area.
All six of these counties could theoretically have enough charging stations.
The only logical reason I can think of is that the drivers in San Bernardino and Riverside are afraid of traffic jams which may result in them being on the road for hours. They are afraid that a routine day may turn into a nightmare if they run out of charge.
Either that or it is simply a matter of wealth. Santa Clara's concentration of wealth, primarily due to the tech industry, has made it the most affluent county on the West Coast of the United States.
These seven counties in California are selected because they are the 7 most populous in Calfironia and are the ones with over 1 million vehicles. They are ranked by the % BEV in the population of vehicles. They are all urban counties. In all six counties the vast majority of charging is done at home.
% BEV - County - Total number of Vehicles
0.53% San Bernardino 1,541,104
0.65% Riverside 1,727,384
1.25% Los Angeles 6,792,207
1.29% San Diego 2,477,631
1.87% Orange 2,381,566
2.59% Alameda 1,128,196
3.50% Santa Clara 1,410,255
Now why is there nearly a 7-fold difference in BEV penetration? Even though San Bernardino and Riverside are geographically very vast counties, the majority of people live in the Western portion near the Los Angeles metro area.
All six of these counties could theoretically have enough charging stations.
The only logical reason I can think of is that the drivers in San Bernardino and Riverside are afraid of traffic jams which may result in them being on the road for hours. They are afraid that a routine day may turn into a nightmare if they run out of charge.
Either that or it is simply a matter of wealth. Santa Clara's concentration of wealth, primarily due to the tech industry, has made it the most affluent county on the West Coast of the United States.
I think there's a strong case for wealth especially when talking about EVs in terms of absolute fleet size rather than new vehicle market share. San Bernardino and Riverside county are less wealthy counties as much of its population are people priced out of LA and Orange counties which I've seen first hand. Affordable, longer range EVs haven't been out for very long, and less wealthy are more inclined to have older / used vehicles anyhow so the affordable, long-range EVs simply aren't there for the budgets. You might also think that Los Angeles with its median income should reflect that as well, but LA county has a sizable top end of upper middle class and above to go with a far less affluent population so its socioeconomic distribution curve runs a much more massive gamut than San Bernardino and Riverside.
Try listing out those stats for Napa, Sonoma, and Marin counties which are not very urban counties. They won't have large absolute numbers since they aren't all that populous, but they will have pretty decent plugin percentages.
The question is really when do new long-range EVs in multiple makes start reaching purchase price parity across almost all automotive segments. Premium luxury vehicles with long ranges have large enough margins that they can have purchase price parity without subsidies *right now*, but it'll take at least another continued sizable dip in battery costs per kWh before we see it across non-luxury segments and it'll require designing with such battery packs in mind. Supposedly the purchase price parity mark of $100 / kWh in 2020 dollars hits some time 2023-2025. However, you'll need automakers actually fielding vehicles with such in mind and at such prices so it may be a little bit after that. Meanwhile, as long as subsidies are there at the consumer purchase level, automakers will keep prices a bit up to make more money, because the consumer will have it as similar or lower effective net price and automakers will want to squeeze as much out of that as possible though if an automaker has a lot of excess production capacity then supposedly they'd cut prices relative to other automakers to grow market share. Of course, if a place is generally less wealthy and people are less prone to buying new vehicles very often, then it's going to take longer to show up on the overall fleet percentage numbers.
Have you tried running the same stats for MA counties? I think it's likely the correlation to wealth (or presence of upper middle class and above) hold.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-20-2021 at 05:40 PM..
Try listing out those stats for Napa, Sonoma, and Marin counties which are not very urban counties. They won't have large absolute numbers since they aren't all that populous, but they will have pretty decent plugin percentages.
Here is the full list ranked by median household income followed by % BEV. There is a strong correlation to income, but also to culture. There is more of an EV culture in the 9 counties of the San Francisco metro area.
$93,854 Santa Clara 3.50%
$91,529 Marin 3.11%
$91,421 San Mateo 2.90%
$79,799 Contra Costa 1.82%
$78,378 San Francisco 2.63%
$77,335 Ventura 1.12%
$75,998 Orange 1.87%
$73,775 Alameda 2.59%
$73,747 Placer 1.13%
$70,925 Napa 1.23%
$68,507 El Dorado 0.93%
$67,874 San Benito 0.55%
$67,341 Solano 0.73%
$66,923 Santa Cruz 1.54%
$63,996 San Diego 1.29%
$63,799 Sonoma 1.26%
$63,409 Santa Barbara 1.00%
$61,814 Mono 0.31%
$61,343 Alpine 0.38%
$59,454 San Luis Obispo 0.98%
$58,582 Monterey 0.60%
$56,949 Nevada 0.68%
$56,592 Riverside 0.65%
$55,870 Los Angeles 1.25%
$55,615 Sacramento 0.78%
$55,508 Yolo 1.09%
$54,936 Calaveras 0.22%
$54,100 San Bernardino 0.53%
$53,351 Lassen 0.03%
$53,253 San Joaquin 0.59%
$52,964 Amador 0.27%
$51,527 Sutter 0.27%
$50,560 Mariposa 0.18%
$50,503 Colusa 0.05%
$49,573 Stanislaus 0.32%
$48,574 Kern 0.25%
$48,493 Tuolumne 0.23%
$48,032 Plumas 0.14%
$47,341 Kings 0.16%
$45,625 Inyo 0.22%
$45,490 Madera 0.24%
$45,470 Yuba 0.24%
$45,201 Fresno 0.46%
$44,556 Shasta 0.25%
$43,290 Mendocino 0.45%
$43,165 Butte 0.31%
$43,107 Sierra 0.12%
$43,066 Merced 0.21%
$42,863 Tulare 0.21%
$42,369 Tehama 0.12%
$42,153 Humboldt 0.47%
$41,772 Imperial 0.08%
$40,106 Glenn 0.12%
$39,302 Del Norte 0.21%
$38,560 Modoc 0.00%
$37,495 Siskiyou 0.13%
$36,862 Trinity 0.18%
$35,997 Lake 0.23%
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Have you tried running the same stats for MA counties? I think it's likely the correlation to wealth (or presence of upper middle class and above) hold.
Here is the full list ranked by median household income followed by % BEV. There is a strong correlation to income, but also to culture. There is more of an EV culture in the 9 counties of the San Francisco metro area.
$93,854 Santa Clara 3.50%
$91,529 Marin 3.11%
$91,421 San Mateo 2.90%
$79,799 Contra Costa 1.82%
$78,378 San Francisco 2.63%
$77,335 Ventura 1.12%
$75,998 Orange 1.87%
$73,775 Alameda 2.59%
$73,747 Placer 1.13%
$70,925 Napa 1.23%
$68,507 El Dorado 0.93%
$67,874 San Benito 0.55%
$67,341 Solano 0.73%
$66,923 Santa Cruz 1.54%
$63,996 San Diego 1.29%
$63,799 Sonoma 1.26%
$63,409 Santa Barbara 1.00%
$61,814 Mono 0.31%
$61,343 Alpine 0.38%
$59,454 San Luis Obispo 0.98%
$58,582 Monterey 0.60%
$56,949 Nevada 0.68%
$56,592 Riverside 0.65%
$55,870 Los Angeles 1.25%
$55,615 Sacramento 0.78%
$55,508 Yolo 1.09%
$54,936 Calaveras 0.22%
$54,100 San Bernardino 0.53%
$53,351 Lassen 0.03%
$53,253 San Joaquin 0.59%
$52,964 Amador 0.27%
$51,527 Sutter 0.27%
$50,560 Mariposa 0.18%
$50,503 Colusa 0.05%
$49,573 Stanislaus 0.32%
$48,574 Kern 0.25%
$48,493 Tuolumne 0.23%
$48,032 Plumas 0.14%
$47,341 Kings 0.16%
$45,625 Inyo 0.22%
$45,490 Madera 0.24%
$45,470 Yuba 0.24%
$45,201 Fresno 0.46%
$44,556 Shasta 0.25%
$43,290 Mendocino 0.45%
$43,165 Butte 0.31%
$43,107 Sierra 0.12%
$43,066 Merced 0.21%
$42,863 Tulare 0.21%
$42,369 Tehama 0.12%
$42,153 Humboldt 0.47%
$41,772 Imperial 0.08%
$40,106 Glenn 0.12%
$39,302 Del Norte 0.21%
$38,560 Modoc 0.00%
$37,495 Siskiyou 0.13%
$36,862 Trinity 0.18%
$35,997 Lake 0.23%
I don't know if MA keeps such elaborate data.
There is more affluence in the Bay Area "core" counties by proportion of the population with those that aren't that wealthy getting pushed out to San Benito, Solano, and even San Joaquin, Merced, and Stanislaus county which are all part of the Bay Area CSA. Southern CA has affluence, but a massive spread of not so affluent. Much of the rest of the CA has few that are affluent though they're median incomes might be somewhat okay. My guess is something like percent of households in the top two quintiles would probably correlate the strongest. Riverside might have higher median income than Los Angeles, but the top percentage of earners in LA likely blow Riverside out by a lot. Riverside has a narrower band, whereas Los Angeles runs a massive gamut though with a lot of working class. You can also see that Marin, Sonoma, and Napa, despite not being all that urban, have pretty high incomes and pretty high uptake of BEVs. You'll also notice that the Bay Area core counties are often quite small while the Southern California core counties can be quite large and push pretty far inland where people generally are less wealthy than those very close to the coast which is generally more affluent until you get past Sonoma County and it gets colder.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-20-2021 at 07:03 PM..
I asked my mother about the turnover from coal fired furnaces in our neighborhood in the 1960s. She said there was no government intervention, it is just that coal was so dirty that everyone wanted to be rid of it. It was also a lot of work because you had to shovel it into the boiler.
I think it's time to get into the EV towing and road side assistance business. Because it will be very profitable in the future. I've had my Tesla needing service twice due to wheel and tire problems. You can't just call a regular tow truck they don't know how to properly jack up a Tesla. 2nd, if my battery was completely drained there's a special process to basically jumping the car battery since you can't just charge a depleted battery.
I know a lot of people drive until their car tank is nearly empty with EV that is bad for the battery.
We just got back from there, and the electric car charging stations are well in place. All the rest areas have a line of Tesla charging stations. Massachusetts is so weird. My kids just spent over $400k on an old broken down farmhouse there and were excited at the deal they got. I couldn’t live there again, but it is a beautiful state,
We were stuck in traffic a few times, and wondered about being a Tesla driver in a situation like that.
Home charging is big here in MA. I have a lot of electricians in the family, and one of the more common jobs they undertake lately is installing a 240v charging station in the garage or near driveway.
When you drive around, it's not uncommon to see an EV with a cord extended to it in the driveway. Lots of people use them for the short daily commute to work and errands and then have a gas vehicle for longer hauls, or towing the family boat to the lake for the weekend.
Still, with all that said, i think 2035 is optimistic considering there is no option for those who live in apartments, or park their car on dense urban streets where their only parking options might be 2-3 blocks down the road from where they live. Not everyone who will potentially buy an EV will be living in a suburban home with a 220V charger conveniently in the garage.
Oh and $400k for any home in MA is a steal right now.
Home charging is big here in MA. I have a lot of electricians in the family, and one of the more common jobs they undertake lately is installing a 240v charging station in the garage or near driveway.
When you drive around, it's not uncommon to see an EV with a cord extended to it in the driveway. Lots of people use them for the short daily commute to work and errands and then have a gas vehicle for longer hauls, or towing the family boat to the lake for the weekend.
Still, with all that said, i think 2035 is optimistic considering there is no option for those who live in apartments, or park their car on dense urban streets where their only parking options might be 2-3 blocks down the road from where they live. Not everyone who will potentially buy an EV will be living in a suburban home with a 220V charger conveniently in the garage.
Oh and $400k for any home in MA is a steal right now.
Yea, I think the fact that there a good half or so of households not having a dedicated parking spot is why some of the earlier EV arguments for only having a less than 250 mile range or that fast charging at 150 kW or lower being adequate don't make sense if we're talking about the entire US fleet being changed over. There are going to be people who can't top off every day and so limited range and low max charging rates would an incredible amount of time spent charging without fast chargers and/or range greater than 250 miles. Sure, there are some places of employment that can probably offer level 2 charging for employee parking, but there are going to be a lot of workplaces that don't have the ability to put such in economically.
We're going to need more fast chargers, faster top rates, and higher range on average and that's pretty much that, I think. I think it's reasonable to expect within this decade miles added per minute while refueling at a dedicated fast charger and general range for a new EV is within the ballpark of the average ICE vehicle today.
What'll be interesting is the mix of public charging options that ultimately end up happening as there simply won't be a need for as many ICE-equivalent really fast charging stalls and stations as gas stations because a large proportion of recharging will be done at home or work. That could be a problem as there may be less incentive to then have the number of stalls and stations that are equivalent to fuel pumps (really fast charging and meant for dedicated quick stops to refuel just as ICE vehicles do today), but I think there's also going to be an interesting middle path within urban areas for either high level 2 AC charging (11 kW and above) or lower level 3 (150 kW and below) DC charging that's meant to be installed in parking for things like shopping centers, big box stores, restaurants, etc. where the vehicle won't be parked there for several hours, but will be parked there for a half hour to a couple of hours and recharging is just part of parking and the time you would've spent there anyways. Compared to fuel pumps and gas stations, what we'll probably see is many more public stalls and charging stations overall with many of them built into parking, but fewer high top rate charging stations that are used like current gas stations where it's a dedicated trip to do so and with most of those located along highway stretches.
Norway will probably be an interesting look at how that's handled as their EV adoption rates are probably several years ahead of ours. They're seemingly on track for plugins to be all of new vehicle market share by 2025 and have started that process sooner as last year BEVs were 54.3% of all new vehicles sold (up from 42.4% in 2019) plus 20% for plugin hybrids, so they're really in the midst of figuring out the mix right now though they'll be figuring it out with EVs that likely have lower range, lower efficiency, and lower max charging rates than what will be available in 2030 or 2035. An acceleration to 2025 new vehicle phaseout in MA would probably be very difficult for MA to pull of, though 2035 should be relatively easy.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-21-2021 at 08:47 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
