Most ridiculous green proposal

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We only need to produce as many new ev's per year as there are currently new ice and over the course of twenty years from the date that happens the entire used ice fleet will be replaced.

 

You need to sell them and include heavy pickup trucks and large trucks. That won't happen in thirty years much less twenty. Natural gas conversions could do it all in five years with smarter politicians. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The ban on diesel trucks is set for 2045.  It will be phased in:

But just 10 years from now, half of all new trucks and vans sold in California in classes 4 through 8—which includes everything from the package delivery van to the biggest garbage trucks—will have to be ZEVs. And by 2035, CARB says that 55 percent of all class 2b-3 trucks, 75 percent of all class 4 through 6 trucks and vans, and 40 percent of all class 7 and 8 trucks and tractors sold in the state have to be ZEVs.

Natural gas and propane trucks will need to be added to make it feasible IMHO.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes I am including hydro. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation

 

Hydro is dependent on rainfall which varies greatly from year to year. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

13 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Hydro is dependent on rainfall which varies greatly from year to year. 

Hydro should be torn down and replaced with renewables, shouldn't it?  I thought all the dams and so forth had wrecked the environment, just like fossil fuel plants.  All that cement must have warmed up the climate a bit too, right?  Logic says that if one should be destroyed, so should the other.  Or is that inconvenient to the greenies now, and they just so happen to need to add hydro to their numbers?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Hydro is dependent on rainfall which varies greatly from year to year. 

Discount it as you wish. Without it last year we were at 30% renewables.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Hydro should be torn down and replaced with renewables, shouldn't it?  I thought all the dams and so forth had wrecked the environment, just like fossil fuel plants.  All that cement must have warmed up the climate a bit too, right?  Logic says that if one should be destroyed, so should the other.  Or is that inconvenient to the greenies now, and they just so happen to need to add hydro to their numbers?

Anything to pump up their numbers. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Discount it as you wish. Without it last year we were at 30% renewables.

In your mind. 

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

 

United States total primary energy consumption by fuel in 2018^[1]

  Petroleum (36%)

  Natural gas (31%)

  Coal (13%)

  Nuclear (8%)

  Renewable energy (11%)

Edited October 28, 2020 by ronwagn
source

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

In your mind. 

I provided you the link earlier. Are you incapable of doing research?

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

I provided you the link earlier. Are you incapable of doing research?

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation

 

United States total primary energy consumption by fuel in 2018^[1]

  Petroleum (36%)

  Natural gas (31%)

  Coal (13%)

  Nuclear (8%)

  Renewable energy (11%)

Wikipedia

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 

United States total primary energy consumption by fuel in 2018^[1]

  Petroleum (36%)

  Natural gas (31%)

  Coal (13%)

  Nuclear (8%)

  Renewable energy (11%)

Wikipedia

The discussion was about California electricity.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

9 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 

United States total primary energy consumption by fuel in 2018^[1]

  Petroleum (36%)

  Natural gas (31%)

  Coal (13%)

  Nuclear (8%)

  Renewable energy (11%)

Wikipedia

These numbers are a tad more current:

U.S. energy facts explained

[markslawson + 1,042]

13 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Isnt this crazy enough for you Mark?

You're right - I had forgotten the American green new deal. With your permissions I'll quote part of it below..

It is not hyperbole to contend that GND - Green New Deal - is likely the most ridiculous and un-American plan that’s ever been presented by an elected official to voters. Not merely because it would necessitate a communist strongman to institute, but also because the societal costs are unfathomable. The risible historic analogies Markey and Ocasio-Cortez rely on, the building of the interstate highway system or moon landing, are nothing but trifling projects compared to a plan that overhauls modernity by voluntarily destroying massive amounts of wealth and technology. That is the GND.

This is what I was looking for. Insanity.. there's loads of it.. 

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

57 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I provided you the link earlier. Are you incapable of doing research?

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation

So even in California, the home of green nuttiness .. solar and wind still account for just 21 per cent of the power supply and that's after many years of trying. In fact I recall looking at the figure a few years back and nothing much has changed in that time. The rest of the renewable figure you quote is hydro and geothermal. You'll find that the hydro share changes, depending on rainfall. No joy for activists there, Jay, I'm afraid. But come now think of some green piece of nonsense and let's hear about that..  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I provided you the link earlier. Are you incapable of doing research?

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation

I think it is more important to examine the issue from the total perspective. I know you favor selling points, so I have to counter that. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

Hydro should be torn down and replaced with renewables, shouldn't it?  I thought all the dams and so forth had wrecked the environment, just like fossil fuel plants.  All that cement must have warmed up the climate a bit too, right?  Logic says that if one should be destroyed, so should the other.  Or is that inconvenient to the greenies now, and they just so happen to need to add hydro to their numbers?

I'm sure you know dams do a lot more than generate power (flood prevention, water storage).

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

So even in California, the home of green nuttiness .. solar and wind still account for just 21 per cent of the power supply and that's after many years of trying. In fact I recall looking at the figure a few years back and nothing much has changed in that time. The rest of the renewable figure you quote is hydro and geothermal. You'll find that the hydro share changes, depending on rainfall. No joy for activists there, Jay, I'm afraid. But come now think of some green piece of nonsense and let's hear about that..  

 

In 2010 GWh produced in state from 

Solar = 969

Wind = 6,172

In 2019

Solar = 28,513 (only 30x growth in 10 years,, closer to 40x growth if you count imports which went from about 0 to 10,000.  Yeah, don't know why I would find joy in such non sense)

Wind = 13,680  (we have maxed out our in state on shore wind, we already import 14,569 twice what we produce in state and its next stage of growth will be through imports from Wyoming) 

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-electrical-energy-generation

btw - we passed our first renewable energy act in 2006, all of 14 years ago, and its goal was 33% renewables by 2020 not including hydro. So we have succeeded and the next goals are renewables requirement for electric utilities to 50% by 2026, 60% by 2030, and 100% by 2045

Edited October 29, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

51 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I think it is more important to examine the issue from the total perspective. I know you favor selling points, so I have to counter that. 

The discussion was about California and when you didn't like the numbers you changed the topic. California is showing what is possible in a very short time span.  

[Boat + 1,315]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The mandate is only for California and probably will not be accepted by the public. It will likely be changed to a longer time frame and only for small cars. Not large SUVs or trucks. Natural gas makes more sense for the existing fleet. They can be converted and would last longer. Used cars can be imported from 49 states. 

Tech reducing the price point and increased popularity will be the actual mandate in the end no matter what the politicians say. That’s what will drive demand for a transition and the extent of it. Like Trump can’t demand loyalty from a guy like me, no government will be able to push through a vehicle mandate I don’t want. There are crazies on the left as well that want to do our thinking for me. Like that has a chance.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

42 minutes ago, Boat said:

Tech reducing the price point and increased popularity will be the actual mandate in the end no matter what the politicians say. That’s what will drive demand for a transition and the extent of it. Like Trump can’t demand loyalty from a guy like me, no government will be able to push through a vehicle mandate I don’t want. There are crazies on the left as well that want to do our thinking for me. Like that has a chance.

You probably thought that about buying a CA emissions car 15 years ago yet here we are - every car sold in the US is a CA emissions car. The regulations push manufacturers into investing in the new tech which is what drives down the cost that in turn garners your demand.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

39 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You probably thought that about buying a CA emissions car 15 years ago yet here we are - every car sold in the US is a CA emissions car. The regulations push manufacturers into investing in the new tech which is what drives down the cost that in turn garners your demand.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-15/california-trump-administration-lawsuit-auto-emissions-climate-change

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-15/california-trump-administration-lawsuit-auto-emissions-climate-change

1. it is stuck in court, 23 states have filed suit

2. if Biden wins the Trump rollback will be rolled back

3. Five automakers finalize deal with California to clean up car emissions:

https://calmatters.org/environment/2020/08/california-clean-car-emissions/

The California Agreement is a separate, voluntary agreement between the state and four automakers (Ford, BMW, Volkswagen, & Honda) based on more ambitious standards than those to be finalized by NHTSA and EPA. The same day the revised federal standards were released, California announced that Volvo would also be entering into an agreement with the state. The automakers involved will voluntarily comply with agreed-upon standards nationwide, which is notable because they account for about 30% of vehicle sales in the U.S. This agreement is not affected by the revised federal standards. For more information, see our blog on the California Agreement here

http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/EELP-Car-Rules-Backgrounder-Final-Updated.pdf

 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

12 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

1. it is stuck in court, 23 states have filed suit

2. if Biden wins the Trump rollback will be rolled back

3. Five automakers finalize deal with California to clean up car emissions:

https://calmatters.org/environment/2020/08/california-clean-car-emissions/

The California Agreement is a separate, voluntary agreement between the state and four automakers (Ford, BMW, Volkswagen, & Honda) based on more ambitious standards than those to be finalized by NHTSA and EPA. The same day the revised federal standards were released, California announced that Volvo would also be entering into an agreement with the state. The automakers involved will voluntarily comply with agreed-upon standards nationwide, which is notable because they account for about 30% of vehicle sales in the U.S. This agreement is not affected by the revised federal standards. For more information, see our blog on the California Agreement here

http://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/EELP-Car-Rules-Backgrounder-Final-Updated.pdf

Ahh good point, it seems the Obama admin and the auto makers failed to notify the US customer base they were paying for California emission equipment. A very very big no no...Time to add this to the lawsuit.

https://www.beustring.com/newsletters/consumer-law/federal-automobile-information-disclosure-act/

 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

 

Yet another failed attempt to make a point. The disclosure act has no requirements for describing the standard equipment that makes up a car. Manufactures chose of their own free will to make California emissions cars standard equipment across all states.

The sticker must clearly and legibly state:

• The make, model, and serial or identification number of the car
• The final assembly point of the car
• The name, location, and place of business of the dealer to whom the car is to be delivered
• The name of the city or town at which the car is to be delivered to the dealer
• The method of transportation used in making delivery of the car, if the car is driven or towed from the final assembly point to the place of delivery
• The manufacturer’s suggested retail price for the car
• The manufacturer’s suggested retail price for optional equipment installed on the car
• The amount charged to the dealer for the transportation of the car to the place of delivery
• The total amount of the last three items listed above

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yet another failed attempt to make a point. The disclosure act has no requirements for describing the standard equipment that makes up a car. Manufactures chose of their own free will to make California emissions cars standard equipment across all states.

The sticker must clearly and legibly state:

• The make, model, and serial or identification number of the car
• The final assembly point of the car
• The name, location, and place of business of the dealer to whom the car is to be delivered
• The name of the city or town at which the car is to be delivered to the dealer
• The method of transportation used in making delivery of the car, if the car is driven or towed from the final assembly point to the place of delivery
• The manufacturer’s suggested retail price for the car
• The manufacturer’s suggested retail price for optional equipment installed on the car
• The amount charged to the dealer for the transportation of the car to the place of delivery
• The total amount of the last three items listed above

Great point...every car sold after March 31 needs a new Monroney...actually the cost is over 1500 per copy. It will be most interesting for the citizens of 49 states to become aware they have paid 1500 or more for their cars simply to be in compliance with California's issues...

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/31/21201036/trump-epa-obama-fuel-economy-rule-rollback-emissions-consumer-cost

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

55 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Great point...every car sold after March 31 needs a new Monroney...actually the cost is over 1500 per copy. It will be most interesting for the citizens of 49 states to become aware they have paid 1500 or more for their cars simply to be in compliance with California's issues...

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/31/21201036/trump-epa-obama-fuel-economy-rule-rollback-emissions-consumer-cost

Actually the article states the amount as $1,000 more for a car. As long as the sticker also includes how much more they will spend in gasoline costs it sounds like a fine idea. 

Perhaps the sticker could also explain that the automakers who agreed to the new restrictions did so to get their 2008 bailouts and are now not living up to their agreement. The most notable company that did not take bailout money is Ford, the lead company in the agreement with CA to keep using our standards. The F-150 is going to remain a CA emissions vehicle.

Oh and there are 14 other explicit CARB states and a total of 23 states that have filed suit to *keep* CA emissions.  

 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Jay McKinsey