TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

136 pointsby mactitanalmost 10 years ago

20 comments

stickfigurealmost 10 years ago
I don&#x27;t get it. Mandating that auto manufacturers <i>sell</i> a certain percentage of electric vehicles seems a bit like legislating the weather. If CA really wants to push people into electric vehicles, why not manipulate the <i>demand</i> for electric vehicles? Perhaps add another dollar or two to the gasoline tax?
评论 #9997219 未加载
评论 #9997294 未加载
评论 #9999271 未加载
评论 #9998821 未加载
评论 #9999098 未加载
评论 #9998750 未加载
评论 #9998828 未加载
评论 #10000877 未加载
评论 #10001558 未加载
评论 #9999690 未加载
评论 #9999405 未加载
评论 #10000618 未加载
评论 #9999107 未加载
评论 #10000530 未加载
danielweberalmost 10 years ago
What is the comparison between using energy to generate liquid fuels from atmospheric CO2 (which would be carbon neutral) and trying to electrify the entire transportation sector?<p>Those Los Alamos guys [1] said in 2007 they could get it down to $3.40 a gallon. Okay, maybe they were wrong and&#x2F;or optimistic. But, still, there is <i>some</i> price point at which it is break-even. What is it? Five dollars? Ten?<p>The advantages of this over electrifying everything are that we already have built up the infrastructure for liquid fossil fuels. There is no extra engineering to be done for storage and&#x2F;or transport, and no environmental impact from building new facilities like battery factories or erecting more transmission towers.<p>In both technologies, you start with an energy source, and then distribute it to consumers who use the product up. Both are carbon-neutral once you get past the &quot;have the centralized energy source&quot; step.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bioage.typepad.com&#x2F;greencarcongress&#x2F;docs&#x2F;greenfreedom.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bioage.typepad.com&#x2F;greencarcongress&#x2F;docs&#x2F;greenfreedom...</a><p>[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;02&#x2F;19&#x2F;science&#x2F;19carb.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;02&#x2F;19&#x2F;science&#x2F;19carb.html?_r=0</a>
评论 #9997272 未加载
评论 #9997320 未加载
评论 #9999409 未加载
评论 #10000394 未加载
Animatsalmost 10 years ago
The California Air Resources Board and the EPA have achieved quite a lot. Los Angeles air was barely breathable in the 1970s. Now, there&#x27;s very little smog. Look at 1960s pictures of Los Angeles, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, New York. That was once considered impossible. Now, it&#x27;s mostly done.<p>The only thing keeping electric cars from taking over is battery cost. Performance and range have already been fixed. Once battery cost is solved, and it looks like it&#x27;s going to be, electric cars will start to take over. At some point, there will be a tipping point, as gas stations start to close.
评论 #9999937 未加载
评论 #10001215 未加载
评论 #9999724 未加载
rubbingalcoholalmost 10 years ago
Serious question: unless all the electricity for these vehicles comes from completely renewable and environmentally friendly sources, won&#x27;t banning fossil fuel emissions from motor vehicles just externalize this pollution onto electric power plants? Is there data to show that the environmental impact will be somehow lessened?
评论 #9996860 未加载
评论 #9996591 未加载
评论 #9996598 未加载
评论 #9997295 未加载
评论 #9996567 未加载
评论 #9996529 未加载
评论 #9996763 未加载
评论 #9997129 未加载
评论 #9996555 未加载
评论 #9997039 未加载
评论 #9996915 未加载
评论 #9998980 未加载
评论 #9998787 未加载
评论 #9996638 未加载
评论 #9996897 未加载
评论 #9996928 未加载
评论 #9997132 未加载
评论 #9997160 未加载
downandoutalmost 10 years ago
This is yet another indication that people at the highest levels of government simply don&#x27;t understand or care how free markets work. You don&#x27;t raise demand for anything by mandating increasing levels of production of a product that people won&#x27;t buy. You do it by incentivizing or subsidizing the development of a product (and in the case of cars, a nationwide infrastructure) that has advantages over those already in the market.<p>The major hurdles with electric cars are cost and range. Cost will come down on its own as battery technology improves. But imagine if these politicians were intelligent and instead used their power to mandate that the industry agree on a standard for interchangeable batteries, that all electric cars sold must conform to the standard, and that all sellers of the gasoline that they hate so much must install equipment to do automated swaps of charged for uncharged batteries. If recharging the car (battery swaps) were faster, cheaper, and more convenient than pumping gas, that would remove an enormous roadblock in the minds of many consumers. Consumer demand for electric cars would skyrocket, gas stations would have a massive new profit center, and as a side effect, politicians would get the environmental benefits they desire far faster than they would under their current plan.
评论 #10001099 未加载
评论 #10001527 未加载
yndoendoalmost 10 years ago
Emergency situations and natural disasters, where are the discussions? Real life has the two and yet there is no real life discussion of what one should do with a pure electric car. Snow storm his the Midwest and nocks out the power. You need to get someone to the hospital or you work at a hospital how does one get the electricity to ready their vehicle? Electrical core for cars yes but pure electric cars for real world scenarios does not fit.
评论 #9999948 未加载
评论 #10000947 未加载
rhaps0dyalmost 10 years ago
&gt;Cali­fornia emits only 2 percent of global green­house gases<p>What? That&#x27;s huge! California does not have 2% of the world&#x27;s population, not even close!<p>Looking at it another way, all the more effect the regulations there will have.
评论 #9997141 未加载
评论 #9997061 未加载
评论 #9997082 未加载
评论 #9997268 未加载
评论 #9997058 未加载
femto113almost 10 years ago
Sadly this sort of mandate leads to a very inefficient application of money to reducing pollution. After that $14,000 &quot;subsidy&quot; the 500e still a $32,500 car, which will appeal primarily to people who are likely replacing an already efficient late model vehicle for a tiny net carbon savings. That same $14,000 applied to the base model 500 Pop would make the price about $3,000(!) and you&#x27;d have buyers replacing old clunkers with something that gets 40 mpg and a huge net savings.
评论 #9999795 未加载
评论 #10000955 未加载
S_A_Palmost 10 years ago
I generally feel a strong sense of resentment when a government entity legislates for &quot;my own good&quot; or for the &quot;people&#x27;s own good&quot;. Whether it&#x27;s to outlaw drugs that I don&#x27;t use or tell me what kind of car I have to buy I don&#x27;t like this.<p>However I also most people act in their own self interest most of the time, and corporations are no different. I think things work best when there is a way to align both government and private entities. I think the way she goes about fuel economy standards is not that way. Politicians don&#x27;t know the science behind electric cars or ICE cars so how can they be in a position to legislate their standards? What would CARB do if they legislated a major manufacturer to pull out of the California market? At some point that could be a viable option.
DannyBeealmost 10 years ago
California also has the worst electrical infrastructure in the nation, and is not doing something like &quot;requiring the EV people who will stress it&quot; to pay a tax for improvements, or if they wanted to be punitive, a tax on gas cars to pay for it, or <i>anything</i> other than saying what a great idea this would be and pushing for it on the environmental side.<p>Given that converting all cars in CA to electric would seriously stress the infrastructure[1], yet they are not doing anything to improve that infrastructure, I can&#x27;t say i&#x27;m impressed with california&#x27;s long term thinking here ...<p>[1] Some back of the envelope math: there are 20,665,415 registered autos in CA. I&#x27;m going to exclude light trucks and trailers which make up another 12 million, and essentially double our numbers because they need more power&#x2F;etc. &lt;10% of autos are electric, but i&#x27;ll just remove 10% to round nicely, and say &quot;18 million non-electric vehicles. If they move to 85KWH cars, depleted and charged once a week, now we have an additional 85KWH x 18 million cars of electric power being used once a week. That&#x27;s 1,530,000,000 KWH or 1530 GWH extra that needs to be generated and distributed <i>every week</i>. That&#x27;s 79,560 (52x1530) GWH a year.<p>California produces 200,000 GWH a year, mostly from natural gas: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;energyalmanac.ca.gov&#x2F;electricity&#x2F;electric_generation_capacity.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;energyalmanac.ca.gov&#x2F;electricity&#x2F;electric_generation_...</a><p>So they need to produce and distribute 40-50% more electricity than they do now to make this happen. Note that generation ability has not really moved from 2000. In fact, it&#x27;s gone down! If they also want to meet their goal of moving generation to 33% renewable energy by 2020 (and eventually all of it), and thus provide this capacity without staying on gas, they&#x27;d basically have to <i>double all available renewable energy output</i>.<p>That&#x27;s just the generation side. Then they have to make sure they can distribute it.<p>Don&#x27;t worry though. I&#x27;m sure all the right people talk and plan this stuff together, and it&#x27;s not just one part of the government doing something without thinking about the long term consequences that need to be planned for elsewhere - that never happens in government :)<p>Of course, the numbers above are just spitballing to show there is thinking that appears to not be happening (as to whether it&#x27;s a good idea or not, i actually don&#x27;t care whether my car is electric or not :P). The average car is driven 15 miles a day, so maybe it takes 2 weeks to deplete your 85kwh battery. But generally, no matter what sane thing you do to these numbers, halve them, double them (maybe cheaper cars use crappier batteries&#x2F;engines, maybe they mean light trucks too, etc), it&#x27;s still &quot;a lot of extra to plan for&quot;. Even a 1-2% change in electrical capacity is serious business.<p>Until they actually have a serious plan for solving these issues, i&#x27;m just going to look forward to the lawn signs saying &quot;80 volts is the new 120&quot;.
评论 #9997192 未加载
评论 #9997252 未加载
评论 #10000965 未加载
评论 #9999341 未加载
nickpsecurityalmost 10 years ago
That she pushes hydrogen so much is disturbing to me. The source we need will either be water or polluting processes. Water is something we should be protecting and conserving with battles going on for it all over. Definitely don&#x27;t need to be putting Niagara Falls worth of it into cars. The alternative is commercial production which is anything but ecofriendly. That it contains less energy than gasoline for same volume will impact efficiency, logistics, and safety in some setups. Overall, hydrogen fuel is a <i>very</i> bad idea. That she pushes that undermines her credibility to me.<p>The reason I like electric, on other hand, is that makes the power-source neutral and could spur investment into our strained grid + battery tech. Yet, it has its own environmental consequences that should be carefully considered by anyone claiming the moral high ground. The environmental impact of manufacturing has a nice summary:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Electric_car#Environmental_aspects" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Electric_car#Environmental_asp...</a><p>Or, we can just look at a picture of Nichols&#x27; &quot;green&quot; and &quot;clean&quot; vision...<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dailymail.co.uk&#x2F;home&#x2F;moslive&#x2F;article-1350811&#x2F;In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dailymail.co.uk&#x2F;home&#x2F;moslive&#x2F;article-1350811&#x2F;In-C...</a><p>...then guess what a 2000+% increase of that would entail.
评论 #9999176 未加载
评论 #10001608 未加载
评论 #9999355 未加载
TYPE_FASTERalmost 10 years ago
I am really glad there are higher mileage requirements. I feel it is this impetus that has pushed the industry forward technologically.<p>You can get a VW Golf with a 1.8T that gets over 40MPG while delivering 170hp for the cost of around $20k. Volvo&#x27;s new SUV is going to get mileage in the mid to high thirties with a turbocharged and supercharged four cylinder that puts out 400hp.<p>I don&#x27;t see ICE engines going away like the article implies, especially if they can hit mileage and emissions targets like we are starting to see.
Shivetyaalmost 10 years ago
Well battery tech will be a roadblock for some time but deadlines as far out as these make it look like something is being accomplished but provide enough time to not actually be a deadline. Converting off peak electrical power into hydrogen is getting more and more viable and frankly, I don&#x27;t mind storing and transporting hydrogen versus stuffing the planet with li-ion batteries replete with their hazards.<p>GM should be first out of the gate with an affordable 200 mile range EV by late 16 or early 17. It will be interesting if other manufacturers follow quickly or wait too see what the uptake is. Fuel cells will likely be the filler application to directly replace fossil fuel engines.<p>that twenty year gap should be sufficient to get all used cars off the road as the one issue not addressed by current rebates is that the poor rarely can take advantage of them. Currently they seem to only serve the well off who could buy into new tech without them. California is already taking steps to fix this, income limits and such, but the federal government needs to do similar. Direct it to average consumer priced cars and likely there would be wider acceptance
评论 #9997014 未加载
评论 #9997361 未加载
评论 #9997102 未加载
e28etaalmost 10 years ago
I wonder if the Chrysler CEO is trolling us: &quot;Don&#x27;t buy the 500e, you get a $45k car for $32k!&quot;
评论 #9997300 未加载
评论 #10001808 未加载
pkteisonalmost 10 years ago
I wonder about the infrastructure change required for electric vehicles. The bay area relies extremely heavily on on-street parking. If everything is to go electric, will there be charging stations every 15 feet along every sidewalk?
评论 #9999653 未加载
评论 #9999662 未加载
SovietDissidentalmost 10 years ago
1. <i>&quot;Sergio Marchionne had a funny thing to say about the $32,500 battery-powered Fiat 500e that his company markets in California as “eco-chic.” “I hope you don’t buy it,” he told his audience at a think tank in Washington in May 2014. He said he loses $14,000 on every 500e he sells and only produces the cars because state rules re­quire it. Marchionne, who took over the bailed-out Chrysler in 2009 to form Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, warned that if all he could sell were electric vehicles, he would be right back looking for another govern­ment rescue.&quot;</i><p>In order to meet the fuel economy standards, car companies have been building cars that <i>nobody actually buys</i> to bring up their averages. Unfortunately, this means that the cost of all their other cars must also go up.<p>2. Thanks to the slew of environmental mandates, Californians are now paying $1.11 more for gas on average than the national average.<p>Also, <i>&quot;Over the past three years, electric rates in California rose by 2.18 cents per kilowatt-hour—about four times the rate nationally—as more solar and wind power has come online. Meanwhile, nuclear plants, which generate cheaper electricity, have been decommissioned, and hydropower has flagged because of the drought.&quot;</i>[0]<p>So, the environmentalists and leadership in CA oppose fossil fuels, oppose nuclear, and actively work with their vast legal resources to sue hydroelectric dams out of existence to preserve the habitats of bait fish.[1] For the time being, they are ok with solar and wind power, but what happens when they realize that it takes actual mining and lots of high-torque, powerful diesel trucks to extract the stuff from Mother Earth?[2] Not to mention the processing&#x2F;manufacturing.<p>3. Fossil fuels have been a boon to human life and have raised our standard of living and life expectantly immensely, and should not be dismissed so lightly. You can burn a bunch of stuff for energy (peanuts, wood, animal dung, whale oil) but there&#x27;s a reason that fossil fuels have had such longevity in their usage---they have high potential energy, good portability, are ubiquitous, and they&#x27;re cheap! The positive effects far outweigh the adverse effects, especially when you can start using things like catalytic converters to make their emissions less harmful.<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;sky-high-california-gas-prices-have-a-green-additive-1437174504" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;sky-high-california-gas-prices-h...</a> [1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sierraclub.org&#x2F;sierra&#x2F;2015-2-march-april&#x2F;green-life&#x2F;3-dam-detonation-videos-prove-going-green-blowing" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sierraclub.org&#x2F;sierra&#x2F;2015-2-march-april&#x2F;green-li...</a> [2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;environment&#x2F;2012&#x2F;aug&#x2F;07&#x2F;china-rare-earth-village-pollution" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;environment&#x2F;2012&#x2F;aug&#x2F;07&#x2F;china-rar...</a>
评论 #10000890 未加载
belochalmost 10 years ago
60% of the electricity produced in California is from burning natural gas[1]. At present, switching to EV&#x27;s is not going to reduce overall emissions unless an equal push is made to increase production of electricity by wind, solar, nuclear, etc.. However, the smog in urban centers like L.A. might be reduced even if overall carbon emissions aren&#x27;t.<p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Energy_in_California" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Energy_in_California</a>
davidgerardalmost 10 years ago
Is it just me or is Bloomberg going full-clickbait?
daily_dose_420almost 10 years ago
Liberals LOL!
tdaltoncalmost 10 years ago
I imagine that the women in that picture is supposed to look like she&#x27;s taking in a breath of fresh air, but she looks incredibly smug.
评论 #10000099 未加载