this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024

99 points (98.1% liked)

California

1477 readers

90 users here now

Welcome to /c/California, an online haven that brings to life the unrivaled diversity and vibrancy of California! This engaging community offers a virtual exploration of the Golden State, taking you from the stunning Pacific coastline to the rugged Sierra Nevada, and every town, city, and landmark in between. Discover California's world-class wineries, stunning national parks, innovative tech scene, robust agricultural heartland, and culturally diverse metropolises.

Discussions span a wide range of topics—from travel tips and restaurant recommendations to local politics and environmental issues. Whether you're a lifelong resident, a recent transplant, or planning your dream visit, /c/California is your one-stop place to share experiences, ask questions, and celebrate all the things that make California truly unique.

Related Communities:

Nearby Communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

badbrainstorm

Biden Administration Is Said to Allow California to Ban New Gas-Powered Cars (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/california

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to California Tailpipe Emissions Limits

The justices agreed to decide whether industry groups have suffered the sort of injury that gave them standing to sue over an unusual waiver.

top 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This shouldn’t require federal approval at all.

[+] [email protected] -11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

That's a pretty major thing and I don't think the state should be able to ban people from buying a gas vehicle.

It's also a less good idea than people want to believe. Current gen batteries are still too heavy and eat through tires and other car parts too quickly. Plus the batteries need replaced after about 15 years and they're still way too expensive to replace.

[–] Stern 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Tenth amendment is fairly clear on that one, one would think-

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unless I missed something about cars in the constitution, of course. Interstate travel falls under the purview of the fed, but requiring gas cars for it doesn't really hold weight. I suppose we could look at the transition from horse to car and see how that played out legally though.

[–] stupidcasey 0 points 2 days ago

You seemed to have missed the Civil War, not justifying Slavery but that was the point that the Country decided that the federal government can overrule state rule if they don’t like it. No matter what the paperwork says the government always has final say by threat of invasion.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not talking anything of "well, technically this is aloud because of this" yadda yadda yadda. That's irrelevant. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something.

I'm saying you shouldn't do it. Did you know that over 25% of the cars on the roads today are over 15 years old? Do you have any idea what it will do to people who have to drive these older vehicles, because they can't afford newer ones, if in the future they have batteries that go out and will cost 4x more to fix than what they paid for the vehicle to begin with? The loads of people who will always have to pay a premium price to charge up because they can only afford to live at an apartment instead of a house with a garage?

Do you know how dirt cheap a working engine is, compared to an ev battery? That a small car engine swap can be done at home or in your buddy's garage, because they don't weigh over 1,000 pounds like a battery can?

Going EV required is a great idea! So long as you're more wealthy than half the country is. For them, you're going to make life even harder in the future. Requiring EV on new cars means that 10 years later the people who rely on cheap used vehicles are going to start getting screwed. All for one state to have slightly lower emissions in one category.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's entirely the point. You said they shouldn't be allowed to. They can.

It's entirely relevant because that's the point of your previous post where you said "the state shouldn't be allowed to do this."

[–] RubberElectrons 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Here we go again, banging on about false battery facts you and I have proven, together, to be false.

You couldn't even define what a discharge cycle was.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

My battery facts are quite factual. Also, I was never not able to define what a cycle is. It's a fully charged, to fully discharged (without dropping below damaging voltage amount) battery. Something no ev battery ever does because they don't ever charge to 100% capacity or go down to 0% capacity.

[–] RubberElectrons 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Sigh Cole. I don't even give a shit anymore, I'm just sad that you complain about an alternative technology which does have problems like any, but not open to lots of evidence that it's good.

I think I remember you complain a lot about not being able to change batteries and stuff, I linked some vids of a guy doing it himself at home using jacks and wood blocks. Then it was something else, else else...

Can you have an honest discussion? I get you like ICE,y motorcycle still is, and I've done everything from hone cylinders to modify valve clearance. At what point will EVs stop being evil to you? We have battery recycling on the way, had a job offer from redwood materials. They're doing good shit and obviating the need to mine.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I like how much mindspace I take up in your head. I've never even bothered to look at your username beyond a cursory glance that I never bother to remember.

They aren't "evil" they just aren't good enough for a large chunk of the US population. Why do you think they still have such a tiny market share after being around for over a decade? Even new car sales. They're not ready, yet. If major repairs are way more expensive, the electricity is often not much cheaper than gasoline for many, and tires wear out much quicker; all while being more expensive to buy, it's a poor option. Hybrids are the way to go for the next many years in the US. It's a far better choice for most people.

[–] RubberElectrons -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I just have a mediocre memory? Not much getting taken up honestly. I feel for you??

And you'd rather have two drivetrains under one hood????? So much for a focus on reliable simplicity.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Batteries are light and easily replaceable. Also leaves the gas motor not work very hard so they last for ages without issue. Weight is only 100 pounds or so over a traditional gas vehicle so tires last much longer than an ev. I have a 16 year old prius with over 260,000 miles on it. Still runs like brand new.

Hybrids have more parts that could go wrong, but no parts cost 1/3 of what an EV battery costs, and I never have to worry about finding an outlet and blowing 30 minutes to an hour while it charges.

[–] RubberElectrons 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Lmao the Prius power transfer case certainly does cost a bit, about 2/3 the cost of a battery new. Anyway, no facts visible from your side of the discussion, so once again I guess you've shown your lack of knowledge.

I'll be buying an EV, if I have to buy a car at all, and I'll enjoy the hell out of it. "Blowing" 30minutes is fine, I don't drive more than 200mi at a time without a break.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lol. Unlike an EV battery that's guaranteed to fail, those transfer cases almost never fail, and when they do, it's because it went 300,000 miles without the fluid ever being changed. You're a joke. Plus, now I know you're a joke that doesn't know anything about vehicles. You don't even own one.

[–] RubberElectrons 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I've restored two older vehicles, car & motorcycle. Every system touched, ECU to o2 sensor, friction plates to differential seals. Completely rebuilt from scratch, end to end, on the wiring harness.

100+ years of development and refinement, still gets much less than 5% of energy into moving you after drivetrain losses.

Debunk it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Good thing gasoline is waaaay more energy dense than current gen batteries. Now ima go put a mere 36 pounds worth of gasoline in my car, so I can drive around for a range that takes a 1,000 pound battery to do in an EV. Bye!

[–] RubberElectrons 1 points 2 days ago

Less energy dense, and outperforms the hell out of gasoline simultaneously. What an embarrassing thing to be proud of 😂 have fun.

[–] njm1314 1 points 2 days ago

What an awkwardly worded headline

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm sure the party of states rights will take issue with it in a few months.....

[–] AA5B 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It’s not really a state rights thing though: my state is not allowed to do something like that on its own

This is a federal thing that there’s a specific exception for California and the rest of us can only follow them or stick to federal standards

Articles keep linking this back to the clean air act but I don’t remember reading where the exception is. If it’s in the clean air act, I don’t see how Trump can change that: it has to be Congress. If it’s an EPA regulation or executive exception, that’s another story, but hopefully would at least be time consuming

[–] felixwhynot 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sorry, what is “the federal thing” regarding CA banning gas cars?

[–] AA5B 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It’s not states rights, but a federal law, regulation, or whatever the eff it is. Federal govt says you must follow epa, or carb. No other options

https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379

Clean Air Act empowers the EPA to regulate air pollution from motor vehicles. To promote uniformity, the law generally bars states from regulating car emissions.

the Clean Air Act …. requires the EPA to grant California a waiver so it can continue to apply its own regulations

Other states can’t set their own standards, but they can opt to follow California’s motor vehicle emission regulations

[–] Brkdncr 12 points 4 days ago

Eat shit, other states. We’re dissuading ICE because it’s polluting Los Angeles. If your state doesn’t buy enough ICE to make it worthwhile that’s a “you” problem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

As I recall from past reading, California was just going to prohibit sale of new non-EVs in California. If you want an ICE or hybrid vehicle, you can just buy it from an out-of-state dealer, even after 2035.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

California has a long history of barring registration of vehicles which do not meet its pollution standards. You'd need to not just buy out of states but fraudulently register it as if you resided in another state. Billionaires do this with eigth homes for their personal race cars, but basically nobody else does.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

goes to look

Ah, apparently it only is permitted if a vehicle has at least 7500 miles on it. So can't do it with a new vehicle.

[–] Jimmycakes -1 points 4 days ago

I don't think anyone asked Biden administration their opinion though