ADVERTISEMENT

I'll just leave this here. Hot off the presses.

source.gif
Plaid S is half the price for more car. a man of your means should look into it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cris_Ard
This is the hush, hush never talked about subject no liberal wants to discuss. I would love to see a long term impact study on the disposal of the millions of batteries this would result in.
Watching those guys create policies is like watching Dumb and Dumber. And watching California running down the road of no return is fascinating stuff. It will be studied in a 100 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jwilliamsiii
WHAT???? You are saying a 4 week fire has contributed more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than 20 years of autos. Show me your numbers please... or did you just make that up?

And your solution is to start more controlled fires?

I get the controlled burns to keep the amount of fuel available to a fire down. It's pretty well known and accepted that by putting fires out too quickly and not allowing them to "clean out" some of the undergrowth. So eventually a fire comes along and all that undergrowth is extra thick b/c it hasn't been thinned naturally by fire. So yeah, I get that this practice would cut down on the intensity of the fires. IE more small fires and fewer big ones.

But doesn't that just average out over time. Lets say over a 10 year period, you have a controlled burn every 3 years or so. OR you have a major fire every 9 or 10 years. Doesn't the same amount of stuff burn up? Seems like the amount of greenhouse gases would be the same over the same period... ie 3 smaller amounts or one big one.

You harvest the timber and build more houses in California.
 
Don’t misunderstand me; it’s not “a bad thing” overall. Mandating with a time frame without having a grasp of the negative cascading effects? That’s not a good thing. Tell me, for instance, how the low income folks will be buying those expensive electric cars? Subsidies? Tax Credits? The nuanced aspects of policy making is where most folks don’t have a clue.



they will buy used cars . The law only applies to new cars.
 
I’m assuming this is sarcasm about the mandate, so if I’m wrong sorry.

I don’t understand how this is a bad thing? We might not all agree on global warming being a real and major issue but we all can agree that gasoline-fuel vehicles pollute and that pollution is bad. Why are new/cleaner forms of energy bad? I’m conservative and identify as Republican but the environment is something that impacts us all. Why would we all not want to decrease pollution by demanding innovation in the field of energy?

Most major auto manufactures have goals to be 100% electric within certain timeframe anyway and many are sooner than 15 years.

Mainly because I don’t know how to work on electric cars. What will I do with all of my free time??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clem'sSon
I stand corrected, he’s Nancy Pelosi’s nephew! I don’t know what’s worse, being related to Soros or Pelosi! Pick your poison
LMAO..... you believe every BS internet conspiracy there is. That's not true either.

 
WHAT???? You are saying a 4 week fire has contributed more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than 20 years of autos. Show me your numbers please... or did you just make that up?

And your solution is to start more controlled fires?

I get the controlled burns to keep the amount of fuel available to a fire down. It's pretty well known and accepted that by putting fires out too quickly and not allowing them to "clean out" some of the undergrowth. So eventually a fire comes along and all that undergrowth is extra thick b/c it hasn't been thinned naturally by fire. So yeah, I get that this practice would cut down on the intensity of the fires. IE more small fires and fewer big ones.

But doesn't that just average out over time. Lets say over a 10 year period, you have a controlled burn every 3 years or so. OR you have a major fire every 9 or 10 years. Doesn't the same amount of stuff burn up? Seems like the amount of greenhouse gases would be the same over the same period... ie 3 smaller amounts or one big one.

Total volume of burned material would be way less with a controlled burn... Your not burning the canopy trees like a an out of control forest fire does.. it just burns the undergrowth and if done regularly keeps the undergrowth down so it does accumulate.. lot less to burn when burning 5 year old underbrush vs 20 years of growth or more
 
  • Like
Reactions: CU99JHD
Don’t misunderstand me; it’s not “a bad thing” overall. Mandating with a time frame without having a grasp of the negative cascading effects? That’s not a good thing. Tell me, for instance, how the low income folks will be buying those expensive electric cars? Subsidies? Tax Credits? The nuanced aspects of policy making is where most folks don’t have a clue.

Well, to his credit, he at least allowed for 15 years to implement this plan. Far more reasonable than when Germany decided to give themselves less than a decade to phase out all nuclear energy. All that has earned them is a massive dependency on Russian oil and gas.
 
This is San Francisco now! By 2025 all of California will look like this.....not sure I see the need for cars!
b63455_e0a40ae89391436cb1ce1eac85eb04f4~mv2.gif

And the Democrats are proposing to split California into two (2) or three (3) separate (new) states so they can gain two (2) or four (4) new senators, and this is what they will be splitting up?

They might be better off trading with China California for Hong Kong? Heck, China is already running California anyway.
 
Newsom calls for California ban on new gas-fueled cars by 2035

By Colby Bermel - Politico

09/23/2020 01:30 PM EDT

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling for California to ban new gasoline-fueled vehicles within 15 years in a bid to combat climate change and make the state the first in the nation to stop sales of internal combustion engines.

The Democratic governor announced Wednesday that he is directing the California Air Resources Board to establish regulations requiring that all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California in 2035 be zero-emission vehicles.
Buy Tesla stock now lol
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: southerncaltiger
By “his” wildfires I assume you’re talking about the ones happening on the land owned by the federal government?

No, I think he's talking about the wildfires started by the power companies that generate the power used to make electric cars run.
When figuring out the environmental impact of electric cars (or A/C or cutting grass, or building houses) I think it's wise to include all that goes into producing the cars, powering the cars, disposing of the cars and so forth.

I also think it's worthwhile to consider the liberty offered to or taken from people who enjoy driving gasoline powered cars. Generally speaking most of us do not want to live in a world built or controlled seeking only the highest possible efficiency over all other virtues or one controlled almost exclusively by the votes of others.
 
LMAO..... you believe every BS internet conspiracy there is. That's not true either.

What I’ve said on here is well documented & the things I’ve said will come to pass. If Biden is elected, the things I’ve said will come to pass sooner than later. If Trump is elected, it’ll buy us some time!
 
By “his” wildfires I assume you’re talking about the ones happening on the land owned by the federal government?

Yes, those pesky "wild" fires that only trespass onto federal property . . . those are the ones. Also, I'm sure COVID only attacks people on federal property in California as well.
 
their solution will be to do nothing and in 14 years and 30 days, they will say “Oh crap!”, and then everyone without a electric vehicle will be forced to take public transportation, whether it is feasible for them or not. Also ... I guarantee all “state” vehicles will be exempt from this mandate

Nope. The "solution" will be for government to provide a vehicle for those without, and that government provision comes from taxpayers. If only they were forced to rely on public transport. Although if it's inadequate, there's a damn good chance government would then "fix" that too with taxpayer funds. And at some point, Cali doesn't have enough money to fund the mess they created, so they run to the federal government with their hand out.

I'm ready for California to just become its own country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pvilletigerfan
No, I think he's talking about the wildfires started by the power companies that generate use powerlines to transmit the power used to make electric cars run.
When figuring out the environmental impact of electric cars (or A/C or cutting grass, or building houses) I think it's wise to include all that goes into producing the cars, powering the cars, disposing of the cars and so forth.

I also think it's worthwhile to consider the liberty offered to or taken from people who enjoy driving gasoline powered cars. Generally speaking most of us do not want to live in a world built or controlled seeking only the highest possible efficiency over all other virtues or one controlled almost exclusively by the votes of others.

FIFY. You have the right idea; remember, we're deregulated. Have been for 20 years. "Generation" and the transmission/distribution are separate for the most part.
 
I agree with this in theory, but the policies put into place in CA are only hindering the cause. They moved way too aggressively toward green power and are shutting down their nuclear plants, the number one power source for reducing greenhouse gases. Outcome? Rolling blackouts and enormous power bills. So now they want to move everyone to electric vehicles in 15 years? They need to rethink their policies on electric generation then.

@RaleighTiger, a former SCE&G (and Progress?) employee, per usual has hit the nail on the head. Moving too aggressively on too many environmental policy issues has (I'm simplifying here) largely caused this. Combine aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standards, a State Water Board Policy to phase out Once-Through Cooling, and restrictive air policy by CARB and this is what you get. There are other issues, too.

Over-driving your headlights is great if you want to get somewhere faster than your equipment, the headlights, can normally take you. Just remember that in going that fast, you may well crash because you don't have time to react to objects in your path. I can't think of a better analogy to what I've seen in my now 16 years (sheesh, it doesn't seem that long) in CA.

You might ask yourself, "Hey was there a turning point?". I would say, Yes. To be brief, in 2013 when we were forced to close SONGS because of a steam generator flaw, it put the grid operator (CAISO) at a disadvantage. The next two summers were very hot, including droughts. Despite lower than normal availability of hydro power AND the unavailability of one of the state's two nukes, there were still no significant brown or black outs. There seemed to be a collective sigh of relief after 2015 and a belief that we're going to be just fine going forward. I would argue that some level of complacency set in. This summer? Yet another reality check. I'm sure it got VERY little press back East, but about a month ago, the State Water Board (the once-through cooling policy is in their house) was forced to extend the compliance dates of several coastal once-through cooled plants in order to meet electricity demand in the coming years until additional grid build out can cover the gap.
 
Oh hell no. It didn't "go under". Are you talking about Jerry Brown's "Crazy Train"? No, that pipe dream is still being funded and housed in downtown L.A.

I remember reading it was heavily funded by the federal government and Newsome didn't want to return the funding even though the project was essentially dead in the water.

I could be wrong though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: southerncaltiger
There are still billions of barrels of oil to pump out of the ground. Let's leave it there....except that we need it to make batteries, windmill blades, and run the giant electrics plants because we refuse nuclear. This PragerU vid has lots of math:
 
I’m assuming this is sarcasm about the mandate, so if I’m wrong sorry.

I don’t understand how this is a bad thing? We might not all agree on global warming being a real and major issue but we all can agree that gasoline-fuel vehicles pollute and that pollution is bad. Why are new/cleaner forms of energy bad? I’m conservative and identify as Republican but the environment is something that impacts us all. Why would we all not want to decrease pollution by demanding innovation in the field of energy?

Most major auto manufactures have goals to be 100% electric within certain timeframe anyway and many are sooner than 15 years.

It's important to think about what would be required to get there. Remember current technology and really future technology requires batteries made from Lithium. Does anyone have a clue how much mining would have to take place to support such a move? How many million tons of earth must be mined in order to extract the Lithium required to make the batteries for such a policy. This will cause people who are against mining to "speak out". Then what do you do with all of the toxic batteries when they are depleted? What is the true carbon footprint to make this a reality? I'm not saying that we should not have electric cars but the consequences of moving to all electric cars is dangerous.
 
Nope. The "solution" will be for government to provide a vehicle for those without, and that government provision comes from taxpayers. If only they were forced to rely on public transport. Although if it's inadequate, there's a damn good chance government would then "fix" that too with taxpayer funds. And at some point, Cali doesn't have enough money to fund the mess they created, so they run to the federal government with their hand out.

I'm ready for California to just become its own country.
Maybe that's Trump plan to get Mexico to build the wall, keep the Cali's out when the state completely crashes

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised to see all the normal people get fed up soon and Cali turn back red
 
  • Like
Reactions: tallulahtiger30319
ADVERTISEMENT