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.
I don't think the local government can take on interstate regulations and DOT. I don't even think CA banning sales of ICE is constitutional at all because CA doesn't even own all of the roads. Pretty soon there will be supreme court ruling. The Feds who ever wins the future POTUS will decide on these matters. Right now it's all speculation to get stocks pumped.
It had better be "pretty soon" because courts are very reluctant to rewind clocks once investments have been made.
That is a ridiculous assertion. States are not going to ban ICE vehicles without restricting the ability to register new vehicles that are purchased in other states.
In 2022, 79.3 percent of all new cars sold in Norway were 100 percent battery-electric powered vehicles. – Eight out of ten people choosing fully electric instead of combustion engines is a considerable step towards Norway reaching its climate goal of 100 percent BEV sales in 2025.
But Norway burns no fossil fuels in the generation of electricity. Norwegians also heat their homes with electricity. They have a network of over 1600 dams that generate all the electricity they need from hydrdynamic power. They have the wealth they need to buy these EVs because they can pump all the oil from the North Sea and sell it to an energy hungry European Union. It is estimated there is another 35 years of production left in the North Sea.
Norway and Iceland are lucky to have natural resources like hydro and geothermal (Iceland).
Actually, the U.S. is the world's 3rd largest hydro power producer, after China and Brazil. Hydro is a little over 6% of electricity production. Total potential hydroelectric power would be 12,000 MW.
The problem is land area. We can make vast amounts of electricity regionally but then it needs to be shipped long distances over lossy cables. 100 sq. miles of solar panels in the Arizona desert would supply the entire nation's electricity needs.
A state like NJ which is dependent on nuclear may be overly confident in banning combustion cars. California already has to import power from neighboring states, and environmentalists oppose hydroelectric dans, so it's hard to imagine how they'll handle a pure electric economy.
Norway and Iceland are lucky to have natural resources like hydro and geothermal (Iceland).
Actually, the U.S. is the world's 3rd largest hydro power producer, after China and Brazil. Hydro is a little over 6% of electricity production. Total potential hydroelectric power would be 12,000 MW.
The problem is land area. We can make vast amounts of electricity regionally but then it needs to be shipped long distances over lossy cables. 100 sq. miles of solar panels in the Arizona desert would supply the entire nation's electricity needs.
A state like NJ which is dependent on nuclear may be overly confident in banning combustion cars. California already has to import power from neighboring states, and environmentalists oppose hydroelectric dans, so it's hard to imagine how they'll handle a pure electric economy.
Wind and solar power potential is highly variable across the US - that's why the emphasis for building utility scale wind and solar power plants should remain primarily in the regions that are most favorable for wind and solar power production. The US Dept of Energy / NREL has the potential for wind and solar power generation well characterized with maps showing where it's most beneficial to site wind turbines and solar panels. You can certainly put a solar panel array in coastal WA or OR and get power, but the return on investment will be very different than in southern CA, AZ, NM...
Some areas aren't really rich in either wind *or* solar power potential (or geothermal for that matter). To me these are good candidates therefore for next-generation nuclear plants - because there aren't great alternatives otherwise. But everyone still needs electricity.
Last edited by OutdoorLover; 03-06-2023 at 05:45 AM..
A state like NJ which is dependent on nuclear may be overly confident in banning combustion cars. California already has to import power from neighboring states, and environmentalists oppose hydroelectric dans, so it's hard to imagine how they'll handle a pure electric economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutdoorLover
Some areas aren't really rich in either wind *or* solar power potential (or geothermal for that matter). To me these are good candidates therefore for next-generation nuclear plants - because there aren't great alternatives otherwise. But everyone still needs electricity.
Doesn't anyone get it? The idea of the BEV movement is to restrict and reduce mobility and lifestyles. The people out of WEF have let on that vehicle-sharing will be needed since there isn't enough cobalt and lithium for the batteries needed to support current, much less projected levels of vehicle ownership. The idea is not that life goes on but you plug in rather than "fill 'er up."
To quote Rob Kirkpatrick, in his book 1969, The Year That Changed Everything, "(m)any counterculturalists transferred their activism to environmental concerns as the Green Power movement was strengthened by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act of 1970...." The people may have short or balding hair now, but the agenda is unchanged from the "hippie" era-back to the land.
They know that they have to dress it up in something else, i.e. that we are going to bake, fry to death or be flooded out.
How do these boogeymen (and you) account for changing battery tech and fusion energy advances that are going to be virtually limitless?
Let's see. The governments are getting ready to ban a functioning technology in favor of something that doesn't exist yet? What are the new technology's environmental constraints? What are its costs? Inquiring minds wonder.
If it is so wonderful why the need for mandates and what, frankly amounts to lockdown? Why are we tying a torniquette across our necks to prevent a sniffle in the future?
he states can ban probably ban ICE sales inside state lines, but they cannot ban driving ICEs in their state. One test will come if they ban the sale of gasoline.
California is funy, they want all car and appliances to be electric. Yet they want to prevent electricity being generated by coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, windmills, massive fields of solar panels, nuclear power, . . . . what is left?
Let's see. The governments are getting ready to ban a functioning technology in favor of something that doesn't exist yet? What are the new technology's environmental constraints? What are its costs? Inquiring minds wonder.
If it is so wonderful why the need for mandates and what, frankly amounts to lockdown? Why are we tying a torniquet across our necks to prevent a sniffle in the future?
I agree, 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens
The states can ban probably ban ICE sales inside state lines, but they cannot ban driving ICEs in their state. One test will come if they ban the sale of gasoline.
California is funy, they want all car and appliances to be electric. Yet they want to prevent electricity being generated by coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, windmills, massive fields of solar panels, nuclear power, . . . . what is left?
California is funy, they want all car and appliances to be electric. Yet they want to prevent electricity being generated by coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, windmills, massive fields of solar panels, nuclear power, . . . . what is left?
Don't forget about home heating as well, which is now done primarily by natural gas.
The largest nuclear plant in the nation is Palo Verde which is in the Ariizona desert roughly 100 miles over the CA border. It is 27.4% owned by Southern California institutions and so ~27.4% of the power goes to SOCAL.
Partly because of Palo Verde, Arizonians consume roughly twice as much electricity per account than in California for roughly the same monthly cost. Palo Verde supplies 28% of the electricity in Arizona.
AZ 1048 kWh per month 2021 --- $131 average monthly residential bill in 2021
CA 542 kWh per month 2021 --- $124 average monthly residential bill in 2021
Arizonians need more electricity than Californians since air conditioning is the primary reason electricity is consumed at present. California has the lowest average per capita consumption of electricity as any state in CONUS. But that will change as more electricity is used for transportation as Califonia has ~5X as many vehicles as Arizona.
Palo Verde supplies enough electricity to power a complete conversion of private automobiles and trucks in AZ to electric vehicles. After 2045 it will be against state law to purchase electricity from Palo Verde to use in California.
Of course CA still has Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant which supplies twice as much electricity as is imported from Palo Verde. But Diablo Canyon will be shut down as well.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 03-06-2023 at 09:54 AM..
he states can ban probably ban ICE sales inside state lines, but they cannot ban driving ICEs in their state. One test will come if they ban the sale of gasoline.
California is funy, they want all car and appliances to be electric. Yet they want to prevent electricity being generated by coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, windmills, massive fields of solar panels, nuclear power, . . . . what is left?
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.
