Kalifornistan, CO2, clueless politicians, climate hustle

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

With all the problems Kalifornistan has right now, this makes perfect sense… Not

Gruesome Newsom's new ploy to distract voters from the swirling cesspool that is Kalifornistan should make the idiocracy happy and the cognesceti sad, just like he planned. Given that it's an executive order, it can (and should) be overturned by the first adult to take the governor mansion. Given that we're talking about Kalifornistan, that might never happen. In a functional democracy, the courts would shoot this down, but again Kalifornistan…  

Just how bad an impact on the grid will this create, given they can't even keep the lights on now? Asking for a friend 

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

37 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

With all the problems Kalifornistan has right now, this makes perfect sense… Not

Gruesome Newsom's new ploy to distract voters from the swirling cesspool that is Kalifornistan should make the idiocracy happy and the cognesceti sad, just like he planned. Given that it's an executive order, it can (and should) be overturned by the first adult to take the governor mansion. Given that we're talking about Kalifornistan, that might never happen. In a functional democracy, the courts would shoot this down, but again Kalifornistan…  

Just how bad an impact on the grid will this create, given they can't even keep the lights on now? Asking for a friend 

 

Newsom is an asshole.  He strikes me as the wanna-be poster boy for the green-control-the-masses-and-take-all-the-money idiots.  He started his meteoric rise up in the world when then San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown appointed him to the city's Parking and Traffic Commission.

Gavin Newsom

(Excerpt)

His father was an advocate for otters and the family had one as a pet.^[9]

While Newsom later reflected that he did not have an easy childhood,^[10] he attended kindergarten and first grade at Ecole Notre Dame Des Victoires, a French American bilingual school in San Francisco. He eventually transferred because of severe dyslexia that still affects him. His dyslexia has made it difficult for him to write, spell, read and work with numbers.^[10] Throughout his schooling, Newsom had to rely on a combination of audiobooks, informal verbal instruction, and digests, and to this day, Newsom prefers to interpret documents and reports through audio.^[11]

He attended third through fifth grades at Notre Dame des Victoires, where he was placed in remedial reading classes. In high school, Newsom played basketball and baseball and graduated from Redwood High School in 1985. Newsom was a shooting guard in basketball and an outfielder in baseball. His skills placed him on the cover of the Marin Independent Journal.^[12]

Tessa Newsom worked three jobs to support Gavin and his sister Hilary Newsom Callan, who is the president of the PlumpJack Group, named after the opera Plump Jack composed by family friend Gordon Getty. In an interview with The San Francisco Chronicle, his sister recalled Christmas holidays when their mother told them there wouldn't be any gifts.^[12] Tessa opened their home to foster children, instilling in Newsom the importance of public service.^[12][13] His father's finances were strapped in part because of his tendency to give away his earnings.^[13] Newsom worked several jobs in high school to help support his family.^[2]

Newsom attended Santa Clara University on a partial baseball scholarship, where he graduated in 1989 with a B.S. in political science. Newsom was a left-handed pitcher for Santa Clara, but he threw his arm out after two years and hasn't thrown a baseball since.^[14] He lived in the Alameda Apartments, which he later compared to living in a hotel. He later reflected on his education fondly, crediting the Jesuit approach of Santa Clara that he said has helped him become an independent thinker who questions orthodoxy. While in school, Newsom spent a semester studying abroad in Rome.^[15]

Newsom's aunt was married to Ron Pelosi, the brother-in-law of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.^[10]

Edited September 23, 2020 by Dan Warnick
Toned down the rant

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

they can't even keep the lights on now?

We know the lights aren't on upstairs for Governor Newsom.

The article...

Newsom calls for California ban on new gas-fueled cars by 2035

People can't go to work or school at many places now with their gas powered cars.  Newsom...Geez!...What a North Korean want-to-be.

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

Things are so dark in California, that even JP Sear's Comedy humor hints at vitriol.

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 minutes ago, Tom Nolan said:

We know the lights aren't on upstairs for Governor Newsom.

The article...

Newsom calls for California ban on new gas-fueled cars by 2035

People can't go to work or school at many places now with their gas powered cars.  Newsom...Geez!...What a North Korean want-to-be.

Well, almost.  North Korea still burns coal when the people need heat.  The difference is, Fearless Leader in NK can back up his authority.  Don't let Gruesome Newsom get that kind of power!  The first time he calls out the National Guard to enforce his greener tendencies, look out!

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

17 minutes ago, Tom Nolan said:

Things are so dark in California, that even JP Sear's Comedy humor hints at vitriol.

 

Usually even I can't watch this guy.  But this one's pretty good.   

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

With all the problems Kalifornistan has right now, this makes perfect sense… Not

Gruesome Newsom's new ploy to distract voters from the swirling cesspool that is Kalifornistan should make the idiocracy happy and the cognesceti sad, just like he planned. Given that it's an executive order, it can (and should) be overturned by the first adult to take the governor mansion. Given that we're talking about Kalifornistan, that might never happen. In a functional democracy, the courts would shoot this down, but again Kalifornistan…  

Just how bad an impact on the grid will this create, given they can't even keep the lights on now? Asking for a friend 

 

If California's leaders had any sense they would be promoting natural gas trucks. They could demand biogas if they want. There is plenty of feedstock in California. California is already a leader in natural gas fueling but they are not adequately promoted. 

https://cngvc.org/

https://cngvc.org/news/fueling-stations/

Edited September 24, 2020 by ronwagn
reference

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

16 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

If California's leaders had any sense they would be promoting natural gas trucks. They could demand biogas if they want. There is plenty of feedstock in California. California is already a leader in natural gas fueling but they are not adequately promoted. 

https://cngvc.org/

https://cngvc.org/news/fueling-stations/

"...had any sense..."

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

If you accept the scientific consensus that climate change is a problem and that CO2 from fossil fuels is a big part of the problem, then this order makes sense from that perspective. I know that several of you guys do not accept these assertions, but it's not Newsom's fault that he does not agree with you. Because California is such a large market for cars, a California rule has a potential multiplier effect on the ICE industry, so this ruling is may in theory reduce the number of ICE vehicles in the world, eventually.

I am however concerned that he made this ruling based on climate change. In California, we have a much bigger local problem, and that is air pollution. Our combination of local climate, geography, and population distribution causes the worst air pollution in the US, by far, and ICE vehicles are a really major contributor. Newsom should not have made the "save the planet" argument. He should stayed focused on our very obvious and very real local California problem. Gasoline cars are no longer as large a percentage of the problem as they once were, but this executive order covers all ICE vehicles including heavy diesel trucks.

The argument that our existing electrical grid would not be able to handle that many EVs is weak. The order applies to 2035. That gives us 15 years to get the grid upgraded.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

21 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

If you accept the scientific consensus that climate change is a problem and that CO2 from fossil fuels is a big part of the problem, then this order makes sense from that perspective. I know that several of you guys do not accept these assertions, but it's not Newsom's fault that he does not agree with you. Because California is such a large market for cars, a California rule has a potential multiplier effect on the ICE industry, so this ruling is may in theory reduce the number of ICE vehicles in the world, eventually.

I am however concerned that he made this ruling based on climate change. In California, we have a much bigger local problem, and that is air pollution. Our combination of local climate, geography, and population distribution causes the worst air pollution in the US, by far, and ICE vehicles are a really major contributor. Newsom should not have made the "save the planet" argument. He should stayed focused on our very obvious and very real local California problem. Gasoline cars are no longer as large a percentage of the problem as they once were, but this executive order covers all ICE vehicles including heavy diesel trucks.

The argument that our existing electrical grid would not be able to handle that many EVs is weak. The order applies to 2035. That gives us 15 years to get the grid upgraded.

I can tell as matter of fact...EV's are not economically viable. The Public at large just smiles at the concept of EV...today there are 14 million gas vehicles sold...around 350/500 thousand EVs sold. That is a very poignant part of the conversation.... Dealers do not place bets on a fad/speed bump, there is a very good reason Musk bypassed the dealer body. They are pragmatic business people knowing quite well what works. To my point i can assure you the dealer body is letting the MFGS know enough is enough. 

At the same time i wish Musk well....chase the dream. That is the US way.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

57 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I can tell as matter of fact...EV's are not economically viable. The Public at large just smiles at the concept of EV...today there are 14 million gas vehicles sold...around 350/500 thousand EVs sold. That is a very poignant part of the conversation.... Dealers do not place bets on a fad/speed bump, there is a very good reason Musk bypassed the dealer body. They are pragmatic business people knowing quite well what works. To my point i can assure you the dealer body is letting the MFGS know enough is enough. 

At the same time i wish Musk well....chase the dream. That is the US way.

In 1905, gasoline automobiles were not economically viable. Only the rich used them and they were basically toys. The entire equestrian infrastructure laughed at them, and a substantial percentage of jobs (livery stables, horse dealers, hackers, farriers, and many more) were devoted to horses.  In 1908, Henry ford introduced the Model T. By 1925, horses ware basically gone from major cities.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

If California's leaders had any sense they would be promoting natural gas trucks. They could demand biogas if they want. There is plenty of feedstock in California. California is already a leader in natural gas fueling but they are not adequately promoted. 

https://cngvc.org/

https://cngvc.org/news/fueling-stations/

Really? You do know we are the home of Tesla. Why shouldn't we support our own local industry?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I can tell as matter of fact...EV's are not economically viable. The Public at large just smiles at the concept of EV...today there are 14 million gas vehicles sold...around 350/500 thousand EVs sold. That is a very poignant part of the conversation.... Dealers do not place bets on a fad/speed bump, there is a very good reason Musk bypassed the dealer body. They are pragmatic business people knowing quite well what works. To my point i can assure you the dealer body is letting the MFGS know enough is enough. 

At the same time i wish Musk well....chase the dream. That is the US way.

Listen to yourself, you are defending car salesman as elite business people. The most poignant business decision they have made is to lobby the state governments into giving them a monopoly.

If they are so superior, why are they afraid to compete with direct sales?

Edited September 24, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

37 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Really? You do know we are the home of Tesla. Why shouldn't we support our own local industry?

Natural gas vehicles have been in operation in California for a long time. California is a leader in natural gas stations also. Los Angeles has had an all natural gas fleet of buses for decades as has most of California bus districts. The Demoncrats are too stupid to realize the best way to go. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

34 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Listen to yourself, you are defending car salesman as elite business people. The most poignant business decision they have made is to lobby the state governments into giving them a monopoly.

If they are so superior, why are they afraid to compete with direct sales?

Direct sales are fine with me. Electric cars are too. We just get aggravated with the overselling of the electric option. It will take awhile. There is no point rushing the technology that will just waste a lot of money on renewables that we don't need. We need to balance our budgets and build infrastructure. We already have electrical power. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas vehicles have been in operation in California for a long time. California is a leader in natural gas stations also. Los Angeles has had an all natural gas fleet of buses for decades as has most of California bus districts. The Demoncrats are too stupid to realize the best way to go. 

You have got to be kidding? Tesla is a huge tax base for us. Natural gas has proven to be a dead end and we mandated a full shift to zero emission buses by 2040. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You have got to be kidding? Tesla is a huge tax base for us. Natural gas has proven to be a dead end and we mandated a full shift to zero emission buses by 2040. 

Natural gas is actually a better option for all large vehicles. It will take decades just to get small vehicles enough batteries and existing wind turbines storage batteries to back them up. Any ICE vehicle can be converted to a natural gas vehicle at much less expense and delay. There is no rush to electric vehicles needed. 

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/environment/new-yorks-global-warming-doomsday-clock-underscores-decades-shifting

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas is actually a better option for all large vehicles. It will take decades just to get small vehicles enough batteries and existing wind turbines storage batteries to back them up. Any ICE vehicle can be converted to a natural gas vehicle at much less expense and delay. There is no rush to electric vehicles needed. 

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/environment/new-yorks-global-warming-doomsday-clock-underscores-decades-shifting

Waste Connections recently ordered two electric chassis from Lion Electric, which will be mounted with fully electric bodies manufactured by Boivin Evolution. The company also purchased a third electric body from Boivin, which is being mounted on a diesel chassis to run as a hybrid, said Waste Connections COO Darrell Chambliss. 

This marks a shift for Waste Connections, which has been running a fleet of around 1,100 CNG vehicles (11% of its fleet), but Chambliss and Vice President of Maintenance and Fleet Management Greg Thibodeaux have been looking for alternatives. In a sign of these shifting priorities, CEO Worthing Jackman recently dubbed CNG “just a stop on the way to EV” during a second quarter earnings call.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

9 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Newsom is an asshole.  He strikes me as the wanna-be poster boy for the green-control-the-masses-and-take-all-the-money idiots.  He started his meteoric rise up in the world when then San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown appointed him to the city's Parking and Traffic Commission.

Gavin Newsom

(Excerpt)

His father was an advocate for otters and the family had one as a pet.^[9]

While Newsom later reflected that he did not have an easy childhood,^[10] he attended kindergarten and first grade at Ecole Notre Dame Des Victoires, a French American bilingual school in San Francisco. He eventually transferred because of severe dyslexia that still affects him. His dyslexia has made it difficult for him to write, spell, read and work with numbers.^[10] Throughout his schooling, Newsom had to rely on a combination of audiobooks, informal verbal instruction, and digests, and to this day, Newsom prefers to interpret documents and reports through audio.^[11]

He attended third through fifth grades at Notre Dame des Victoires, where he was placed in remedial reading classes. In high school, Newsom played basketball and baseball and graduated from Redwood High School in 1985. Newsom was a shooting guard in basketball and an outfielder in baseball. His skills placed him on the cover of the Marin Independent Journal.^[12]

Tessa Newsom worked three jobs to support Gavin and his sister Hilary Newsom Callan, who is the president of the PlumpJack Group, named after the opera Plump Jack composed by family friend Gordon Getty. In an interview with The San Francisco Chronicle, his sister recalled Christmas holidays when their mother told them there wouldn't be any gifts.^[12] Tessa opened their home to foster children, instilling in Newsom the importance of public service.^[12][13] His father's finances were strapped in part because of his tendency to give away his earnings.^[13] Newsom worked several jobs in high school to help support his family.^[2]

Newsom attended Santa Clara University on a partial baseball scholarship, where he graduated in 1989 with a B.S. in political science. Newsom was a left-handed pitcher for Santa Clara, but he threw his arm out after two years and hasn't thrown a baseball since.^[14] He lived in the Alameda Apartments, which he later compared to living in a hotel. He later reflected on his education fondly, crediting the Jesuit approach of Santa Clara that he said has helped him become an independent thinker who questions orthodoxy. While in school, Newsom spent a semester studying abroad in Rome.^[15]

Newsom's aunt was married to Ron Pelosi, the brother-in-law of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.^[10]

How is this at all relevant?

What is wrong with supporting otters? I like otters, don't you? In regard to the California sea otter I can tell you where to stand and see 1% of the entire population without turning your head. 

Are you making fun of dyslexia? Sounds like hell to me!

Worked three jobs, damn what a communist.

Santa Clara University is where I got my doctorate.

The Alameda Apartments was an extension of the dorm. I knew a bunch of people who lived there. 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

delete

Edited September 24, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

In 1905, gasoline automobiles were not economically viable. Only the rich used them and they were basically toys. The entire equestrian infrastructure laughed at them, and a substantial percentage of jobs (livery stables, horse dealers, hackers, farriers, and many more) were devoted to horses.  In 1908, Henry ford introduced the Model T. By 1925, horses ware basically gone from major cities.

There's always someone in this debate that has to throw out the old horse to car transition stage in our development, implying that people didn't want to do it and that automobiles were not economically viable.  That is until someone says, "hey, let's run the numbers on that old theory of yours".  Cost of horse ownership, once one crunches the numbers, was and remains about 5 times higher per mile travelled than owning a car.  And that is just the cost of ownership.  Add in the costs of keeping the animal alive (food, medicine, housing and the manpower to do all the DAILY work at least twice a day when the horses were IDLE), and the cost of clearing their refuse from town and city streets, and you quickly find that many horse owners must have been thrilled to buy a car once they became a viable option.  The bottom line is that it was a watershed change going from animals to mass produced machines.

Let's face it, moving from ICE cars to Electric cars DOES NOT compare to moving from animals to machines.  There simply has not been a watershed moment in this arena.

Here are a couple of references to what it costs and requires to own a horse vs. a car.

The Demographics of the U.S. Equine Population (this has data going back to the year 1900, but I would direct your attention to page 191 under the heading "How Are U.S. Horses Managed" to get some idea of what is entailed in owning a horse.)

Car or buggy: Which is cheaper to drive?  

Get a horse!

That's what some drivers might think they should do as they pay $4.10 or more for a gallon of gas.

But maybe they should think again.

 

It's true that a new car costs nearly three times as much as a typical Lancaster County Old Order Amish horse-and-buggy rig.

And it's true that it costs about twice as much to keep a car on the road each year as it does to run a horse and buggy.

But - and this is a huge but - the average car travels about 10 times farther each year than the average buggy. So it costs a horse and buggy about five times as much as a car to go a mile down the road.

It's the horse, of course. It's the care and feeding of the horse.

"You turn that car key off, it's all over," observes Christian Z. Stoltzfus, a horse auctioneer in Honey Brook, Chester County. "But you have to feed that horse 365 days a year."

To determine who is getting the better deal on county roads busy with both buggies and cars, the New Era conducted an informal survey of costs associated with two radically different modes of transportation.

First, let's look at purchase prices.

The National Automobile Dealers Association says the average new car sold in the United States last year cost $28,800.

That's about what you would have to remove from your wallet to purchase a Saturn Aura XR with a sun roof and all the interior trimmings, according to Connie Weidman, a sales rep for Saturn of Lancaster.

Hardly a negligible amount, Weidman acknowledges, but worth it. She wouldn't think of trading her Saturn for less expensive horse-drawn transportation.

"I couldn't do without the air conditioning," she says, "or the recirculator for the manure smell as I drive through the country."

The average new non-air-conditioned fiberglass buggy costs $7,000. The average price of a former Standardbred race horse is about $3,000. Add the harness: $500. Total for horse and carriage: $10,500.

These are all local estimates. Of course, there are variations, all without motors.

Country Lane Coach Shop at Paradise sells a new fiberglass buggy for $6,000 to $8,000, depending on various amenities.

"Horses can sell for $6,000 to $7,000 or down to $1,000 or even $600," says Ivan Petersheim, a horse dealer in Gap. "But that $600 horse ain't much."

So, $28,800 vs. $10,500.

 

CHART: Comparative annual costs: Newfangled vs. old-fashioned

 

Sticker price advantage: horse and buggy.

Now let's consider the costs of basic maintenance.

Five oil changes a year cost about $110, according to Christine Bear, office manager at Roberts Automotive on Columbia Pike.

But veterinary expenses for a healthy horse run at least $250 a year.

Dr. Willard Stoltzfus, of Black Horse Animal Hospital, Kinzers, breaks that down: $100 for vaccines, $75 for four dewormings, $75 for a tooth floating.

Maintenance advantage: car.

When it comes to replacement parts, costs can be radically different. Let's just compare tires and horseshoes.

You can figure on buying a new set of tires every three or four years, according to Bear. Cost per year: $100.

But Petersheim says five or six sets of new horseshoes each year will set you back about $300.

"Footwear" advantage: car.

Now we come to fuel.

The cost of a gallon of regular gas this week is about $4.11. The EPA says the Saturn Aura gets an average of 20 miles per gallon. The average driver travels 15,000 miles a year. So the annual fuel cost for the car is $3,083.

The annual fuel cost for a horse is a bit harder to figure. The New Era has obtained three wildly varied estimates for a day's feeding: $1.25, $4 and $6.

Petersheim, the middle estimator, observes that horse feed "almost doubled in the last two years. That price went up because gas went up. Hay, feed, everything - it costs more to truck this stuff around."

At $4 a day, we get an annual cost to feed a horse of $1,460 - about half what it costs to gas up a car.

Fuel advantage: horse.

Now let's add everything (recognizing that we've ignored the costs of stable cleaning, car washing and other small stuff).

(The New Era did not attempt to add up all possible costs associated with cars and buggies. The costs of insurance, licensing, annual auto tune-ups and regular buggy wheel maintenance, for example, are not reflected in these comparisons.)

Car experts say the average car should run for 10 or more years without requiring radical repairs. The average buggy should last about that long without requiring a body rebuilding.

So let's divide the sticker prices by 10 to get an annual cost figure. Call it depreciation, if you want. That would be $2,880 a year for the car; $1,050 for the buggy and whatever's left in the horse.

Now, add to that the annual maintenance, tire and horseshoe, and fuel costs.

The bottom lines:

It takes $6,173 to operate the Saturn for a year.

A horse and buggy costs a comparatively trifling $3,060 annually.

Overall cost advantage: horse and buggy.

But - but - when you figure that the average car travels 15,000 miles a year and the average buggy an estimated 1,500 - only one-tenth as far - you get a very different set of numbers.

It costs about 41 cents a mile to operate the Saturn.

To drive a horse and buggy a mile down the road costs - hold on to your horses - about $2.04.

"Buying a horse and buggy is a little cheaper," concludes Sam Stoltzfus, a Gordonville businessman and historian, "but then you have to figure you don't go nearly as far."

Cost-per-mile advantage: car.

"I'm not convinced the Amish are traveling any cheaper than we are," notes Willard Stoltzfus at the Black Horse Animal Hospital.

Cars can break down and cost a small fortune to repair, he acknowledges, but horses can get colic. (treatment $200-$300 or more). Their muscles can freeze up on Monday mornings (another $200-$300 or more).

Horses can die.

When asked which is cheaper to drive, car or buggy, the owner of Country Lane Coach Shop makes an observation about business today.

"It would be cheaper to run a buggy, but in today's world time is more valuable to me than the gasoline money," he says. "We're not going to hitch up a horse and go up to Intercourse to get parts when we need them."

So his driver's car is burning gas on the highway while his horse eats hay in the barn.

Advantage: neither.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

 

Advantage: neither.

 2018 study from the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute found that electric vehicles cost less than half as much to operate as gas-powered cars. The average cost to operate an EV in the United States is $485 per year, while the average for a gasoline-powered vehicle is $1,117. 

And you can buy a Tesla for the average purchase price of an ICE today.

Tomorrow the Tesla will be far less.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

There's always someone in this debate that has to throw out the old horse to car transition stage in our development, implying that people didn't want to do it and that automobiles were not economically viable.  That is until someone says, "hey, let's run the numbers on that old theory of yours".  Cost of horse ownership, once one crunches the numbers, was and remains about 5 times higher per mile travelled than owning a car.  And that is just the cost of ownership.  Add in the costs of keeping the animal alive (food, medicine, housing and the manpower to do all the DAILY work at least twice a day when the horses were IDLE), and the cost of clearing their refuse from town and city streets, and you quickly find that many horse owners must have been thrilled to buy a car once they became a viable option.  The bottom line is that it was a watershed change going from animals to mass produced machines.

Your entire extended post missed the point. My point was not that cars are a huge change from horses: they were, of course. My point is  that the change did not occur during the period from about 1880 to 1908, because cars were hand-built unreliable toys of the rich during that period, so horses were more cost-effective in that era. The change occurred very rapidly starting in 1908, because of the radical innovations and especially the cost reductions introduced by the Model T Ford. These were driven primarily by Henry Ford's emphasis on radical innovation in manufacturing. In real terms, the cost of the model T was reduced by a factor of about 4 over the years between 1908 and 1927.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

That article does not mention the struggles of the early adopters with finding gasoline for sale where they needed it. The gasoline infrastructure was built out during this period, thus reducing range anxiety.

We have not yet seen the EV equivalent of the Model T, but it's likely to arrive within the next 5 years.

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

11 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

In California, we have a much bigger local problem, and that is air pollution. Our combination of local climate, geography, and population distribution causes the worst air pollution in the US, by far, and ICE vehicles are a really major contributor.

Dan, You are so, so, so right!  Petroleum powered vehicles put off tremendous amounts of pollutants which are toxic to human health.

Alcohol (Ethanol) fuels put off NO toxic pollutants.  Most cars (and of course "Flex Fuel" cars) can run on a high percentage of alcohol in the gas tank.  It is the cleanest burning fuel, and is renewable, and can have a vast viable interactive eco-friendly, agricultural supply chain.  It actually is THE solution for so many things, from cleaner to water, to healthier food, to wastewater cleanup, to local independent businesses, to ....

David Blume details many aspects in his book (decades old) "Alcohol Can Be a Gas".  I have the book.  It is a tome of information.

Organic Food, Fish, and alcohol production mixed...

(10 minutes - QUEUED VIDEO)

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

58 minutes ago, Tom Nolan said:

 

Alcohol (Ethanol) fuels put off NO toxic pollutants. 

 

You must be kidding?  You are afraid of tiny amounts of toxin in vaccines, but think tailpipe exhaust is safe to breathe?

Combustion always leads to more than pure water and CO2, and that is with your rare element containing catalytic converter.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Enthalpic