California is a governor's signature away from banning 100LL in 2031

ateamer said:
It’s a problem if unleaded avgas is not as available as 100LL. With this law, they’re assuming that an unleaded product is going to reach universal distribution by then. At the pace that the aviation and petroleum industries are moving on this, it might not happen by then.
Click to expand...
With a statutory motivation, such distribution is incentivized to happen.
 
fast99 said:
If unleaded pipes are is the best thing for aviation engines drinking water pipes there would be no reason for the law. Everyone would buy it use them. Leaded fuel pipes would be gone. The industry and individual owners should decide. After all its their life and money. Not some political hack that knows next to nothing on the subject.
Click to expand...
Now, how does that read? Had there been a better, more economical option than lead for pipes or boosting octane at the time of their initial use, lead would probably never have been used widely for either.

In both cases, “political hacks” are/were not the subject matter experts and didn’t claim to be. True experts in their fields used the best evidence of the day to promote the best regulations for the circumstances - written by “political hacks”.
 
fast99 said:
Requiring chargers and higher capacity electric at some new business construction. No ICE cars in a few states by 2035 and I believe here in Washington that's 2030. Rebates to make EV's "appear" more appealing.

Not going any further with this, I will get banned.
Click to expand...
Go further. Please cite your assertions. Ain't none of that here in Nebraska.
 
PaulMillner said:
It's only been 30 years since lead was banned in mogas in California... maybe you're thinking of the beginning of lead phase down? That was 1990 for avgas, nationwide.

Paul
Click to expand...
I’m thinking of knowledge and availability, not ban dates. The final ban was in the 1990s but unleaded mogas was available long before that. AMOCO was selling unleaded Super Premium decades before the ban. I remember it was around when I was a kid in the 1950s and heard it was introduced years before that.

If banning is the only thing that gets action, I think it makes California’s action reasonable in the extreme. Maybe you know - is the legislative action a compromise given the inclination of several communities to seek immediate bans?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Who's forcing any change to battery cars?
Click to expand...
I’m hoping you are joking by asking. If not I can tell you that at least in my state (Ct) the governor and legislature have both been pushing hard all year to pass a law requiring all new vehicles sold in the state to be electric by 2035. It was only voted down because a few politicians realized the charging infrastructure wasn’t there and if you lived in an apartment or rental unit with only on street parking there is no way to charge a car overnight. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean it’s practical or should be implemented.
 
PaulMillner said:
It's only been 30 years since lead was banned in mogas in California... maybe you're thinking of the beginning of lead phase down? That was 1990 for avgas, nationwide.

Paul
Click to expand...
Maybe you're too young to remember, but way back in 1975 catalytic converters were legally mandated on all new US cars as part of the 1970 Clean Air Act. Those cars required unleaded gas. That was 49.7 years ago......
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Now, how does that read? Had there been a better, more economical option than lead for pipes or boosting octane at the time of their initial use, lead would probably never have been used widely for either.

In both cases, “political hacks” are/were not the subject matter experts and didn’t claim to be. True experts in their fields used the best evidence of the day to promote the best regulations for the circumstances - written by “political hacks”.
Click to expand...
There are still lead pipes in drinking-water supplies all over the country. Even in California. The cost of removing them would outweigh and possible benefit.

Believing that government should pick winners and losers isn't right or wrong, but one would hope that people who believe in that government philosophy would have the selection would be based on an unbiased weighing of the alternatives. Is the cost of banning lead in avgas less than the cost of not banning it?
 
Last edited:
kmacht said:
I’m hoping you are joking by asking. If not I can tell you that at least in my state (Ct) the governor and legislature have both been pushing hard all year to pass a law requiring all new vehicles sold in the state to be electric by 2035. It was only voted down because a few politicians realized the charging infrastructure wasn’t there and if you lived in an apartment or rental unit with only on street parking there is no way to charge a car overnight. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean it’s practical or should be implemented.
Click to expand...
The law wasn't passed- your own post said it was voted down.
As for practicality, China somehow makes it work- about 40% of their cars are electric already.

fast99 said:
No ICE cars in a few states by 2035 and I believe here in Washington that's 2030.
Click to expand...
Show me the law in any state that says you have to give up your gas car in 2035 (or 2030).
 
Cap'n Jack said:
As for practicality, China somehow makes it work- about 40% of their cars are electric already.
Click to expand...
China is still building coal-fired electric generation plants. 75% of their electricity is fossil-fuel derived (61% coal), and that is the fastest growing segment of the generation fleet. In fact, over the past three years, they are getting less from [renewable] hydroelectric, not more. China uses more than half of all the coal being burned on the planet, and it's increasing.

So, yes, they are using more EVs than we are, and they are destroying the atmosphere to do it.

 
Lindberg said:
There are still lead pipes in drinking-water supplies all over the country. Even in California. The cost of removing them would outweigh and possible benefit.
Click to expand...
There is a currently ongoing “survey” of this. Every single public water supply system in the country must submit a report for every single service line in their system, what it’s made of, before the end of the year or loose their permits and be shut down. If it’s lead or galvanized steel that ever had lead upstream of it, it will have to replaced. I was involved in doing this for a very small system that thankfully was built after the lead ban so it was easy, I cannot imagine the effort it is going to take to finish the reporting in a major metropolitan area.

What I found surprising was that lead “goose necks” ( the pure lead connectors used to tie service lines to main lines), are explicitly to be excluded when determining if the service line has any lead. Perfectly logical.. (if it was added as an afterthought once the regulation was passed and somebody realized every city east of the Mississippi and many on the west coast would have to replace their entire water systems in an impossible short amount of time, world wide production of the plumbing components wouldn’t be enough to keep up, let alone skilled works to complete it, even ignoring the cost unless they were excluded).
 
StraightnLevel said:
China is still building coal-fired electric generation plants. 75% of their electricity is fossil-fuel derived (61% coal), and that is the fastest growing segment of the generation fleet. In fact, over the past three years, they are getting less from [renewable] hydroelectric, not more. China uses more than half of all the coal being burned on the planet, and it's increasing.

So, yes, they are using more EVs than we are, and they are destroying the atmosphere to do it.

Click to expand...
We are using less hydroelectric too. How many dams are being removed in the USA? How many people in PoA were complaining about the replacement of coal plants with renewable alternatives? That was a platform on one of the current presidential candidates a few years ago- more coal. When the USA needs the power, it will be there.

The practicality that was in question is that somehow, while most people in China live in multi-family housing and park on the street, they are able to get their vehicles charged.
Here's the statement that prompted my reply:
kmacht said:
...and if you lived in an apartment or rental unit with only on street parking there is no way to charge a car overnight. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean it’s practical or should be implemented.
Click to expand...
 
The other interesting thing about this thread: this is purely a state’s rights issue. I suspect many of the same people opposed to a state deciding what it will do for this particular issue fully support other states banning, well, stuff that if I mentioned it would lock the thread.
 
StraightnLevel said:
...So, yes, they are using more EVs than we are, and they are destroying the atmosphere to do it...
Click to expand...
Assuming the alternative to electric vehicles is internal combustion engines, is the above statement based on burning coal in power plants being worse for the atmosphere than burning gasoline in vehicles?
 
Last edited:
Llewtrah381 said:
The other interesting thing about this thread: this is purely a state’s rights issue. I suspect many of the same people opposed to a state deciding what it will do for this particular issue fully support other states banning, well, stuff that if I mentioned it would lock the thread.
Click to expand...
The Constitution expressly reserves regulation of interstate commerce to the federal government.
 
Palmpilot said:
is the above statement based on an assumption that burning coal in power plants is worse for the atmosphere than burning gasoline in vehicles?
Click to expand...
It's not an assumption.

MIT’s report shows how much these stats can swing based on a few key factors. [...] When they did the math for coal-heavy West Virginia, the EV actually created more carbon emissions than the hybrid.
Click to expand...
An EV in Oregon is very environmentally responsible. An EV in China is making matters worse.

climate.mit.edu

Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars?

Yes: although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions.
climate.mit.edu climate.mit.edu
 
StraightnLevel said:
I don't believe that this is correct. While we haven't grown our hydro fleet, our generation from hydro has not dropped:

View attachment 133085
www.hydro.org

All About Water Power Facts: Explore the Data - National Hydropower Association

All About Water Power: Explore the Data …
www.hydro.org www.hydro.org
Click to expand...
How about as a percentage of total energy? And I did make a mistake- while we are removing dams, most of those were not energy producers.


This reference seems to contradict this comment:
StraightnLevel said:
In fact, over the past three years, they are getting less from [renewable] hydroelectric, not more.
Click to expand...

Hydropower in China

Hydropower accounted for 14% of China’s total installed power generation capacity and 13% of total power generation in 2023.
www.power-technology.com www.power-technology.com

In any case, you still haven't shown that this statement holds in China, which is the context of my statement:
kmacht said:
...and if you lived in an apartment or rental unit with only on street parking there is no way to charge a car overnight. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean it’s practical or should be implemented.
Click to expand...
Somehow, with so many electric cars, and people living in high-rises and multi-family buildings, they manage to get them charged.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
This reference seems to contradict this comment:

Hydropower in China

Hydropower accounted for 14% of China’s total installed power generation capacity and 13% of total power generation in 2023.
www.power-technology.com www.power-technology.com

In any case, you still haven't shown that this statement holds in China, which is the context of my statement:
Click to expand...
It holds. From the 2023 EIA report on China's energy infrastructure that I linked earlier:

at 1,300 terawatthours, total hydropower was still slightly lower than its previous peak in 2020.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, China is still building coal generation faster than they are decommissioning old plants, and they are using dirtier grades of coal:

Coal, which accounted for the largest share of all generation (61%), and petroleum-fired generation both increased slightly from 2021. ... China’s coal consumption increased by 6% in 2022 to just shy of 5 billion short tons in 2022. ... Although total coal production increased 6% in 2022, coal-fired generation increased only by 1% because much of the increase in coal output had a lower heat value. As a result, more coal was used to generate about the same amount of electricity.
Click to expand...

China added 19.5 GW of coal power capacity in 2022, despite pledging to reduce coal consumption. Additionally, construction of coal projects that started in 2022 will add 50 GW of capacity which is over 50% more than capacity that started construction in 2021. There were 106 GW of new coal power capacity granted permits in 2022, a 360% increase from 2021.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
For a quick logical analysis of going “totally renewables”/electric, I propose doing the following… in the United States the government publishes yearly consumption numbers of petroleum products, (diesel fuel, gasoline, propane, natural gas..) and yearly coal consumption. These all have established BTU values, multiply the quantities by the btu’s, then using a conservative estimate of 40% of these btu’s being put to work (engines being less efficient, direct burn for heating applications being much more) convert this 40% number to KWH (divide by 3412) of electrical need to replace it and see the ENORMOUS scale of upgrade needed to do it. It truly is huge, not just on production but distribution, then add in the extra energy needed for the materials to make this upgrade (aluminum production for bigger transmission wires uses a lot of electricity), copper for the needed transformers to distribute it exceeds the global available resources, the transmission losses (and losses in charging/discharging batteries adds more load requirements).. I think you can get where I’m going with this. 20 minutes of back of the envelope calculations show there is a snowballs chance in…someplace.. of actually working at current consumption levels. Even if the green generating source was available (which it isn’t). Nuclear, maybe, if done right, but nobody seems to ever want to talk about it being the single viable generation source that could replace fossil fuels.
 
Flatiowa said:
For a quick logical analysis of going “totally renewables”/electric, I propose doing the following… in the United States the government publishes yearly consumption numbers of petroleum products, (diesel fuel, gasoline, propane, natural gas..) and yearly coal consumption. These all have established BTU values, multiply the quantities by the btu’s, then using a conservative estimate of 40% of these btu’s being put to work (engines being less efficient, direct burn for heating applications being much more) convert this 40% number to KWH (divide by 3412) of electrical need to replace it and see the ENORMOUS scale of upgrade needed to do it. It truly is huge, not just on production but distribution, then add in the extra energy needed for the materials to make this upgrade (aluminum production for bigger transmission wires uses a lot of electricity), copper for the needed transformers to distribute it exceeds the global available resources, the transmission losses (and losses in charging/discharging batteries adds more load requirements).. I think you can get where I’m going with this. 20 minutes of back of the envelope calculations show there is a snowballs chance in…someplace.. of actually working at current consumption levels. Even if the green generating source was available (which it isn’t). Nuclear, maybe, if done right, but nobody seems to ever want to talk about it being the single viable generation source that could replace fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong.....but it's also not quite that simple.

When EV charging can be done off-peak (at night), it doesn't require additional base load capacity. It may well require more local capacity WHERE THE CHARGING IS HAPPENING (which is not trivial), but it's effectively using excess capacity that today goes unused.

But yes, it would require a big nationwide investment to get our electrical infrastructure set up to serve a significant shift away from liquid-fueled transportation to BEVs.
 
StraightnLevel said:
It holds. From the 2023 EIA report on China's energy infrastructure that I linked earlier:



Meanwhile, China is still building coal generation faster than they are decommissioning old plants, and they are using dirtier grades of coal:




Click to expand...
You still haven't explained why Chinese people, despite living in multidwelling homes and parked on the street, are able to charge their electric cars. Nearly 47% of their cars are electric.
kmacht said:
...and if you lived in an apartment or rental unit with only on street parking there is no way to charge a car overnight. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean it’s practical or should be implemented.
Click to expand...
As for the rest of it...the sources disagree.
 
Will add EV cars and trucks generally weight more than a comparable ICE vehicle. As an example, the local transit added a few EV busses. Those busses use a different tire to accommodate the increased weight. So, what about the roads? Has anyone calculated the energy [or even done a study] needed to repair roads more often?

An earlier post someone brought up the aluminum for transmission lines. A friend is an engineer in Oregon. His firm is doing engineering on a large church expansion. Oregon is requiring added electrical capacity for several chargers. They don't have to install chargers at this time but the capacity has to be preinstalled, to the tune of an additional $400k. Can we assume there will be an increase the amount of material for the project?

My point is how much of this is added to the no emissions statement. My bet is none.


Retired wind turbine blades are primarily sent to one of a small number of landfills that accept them in Iowa, South Dakota, or Wyoming in the United States12. The blades are difficult to recycle or repurpose, so they are mostly buried in landfills when decommissioned34. Around 8,000 blades will be decommissioned in each of the next three years in the United States alone, and once they are buried in a landfill, they will remain there forever1. Experts predict that by 2050, the world will throw away two million tons of wind turbine blades each year3.
 

Attachments

  • blades.jpg
    blades.jpg
    624 KB · Views: 10
StraightnLevel said:
You're not wrong.....but it's also not quite that simple.

When EV charging can be done off-peak (at night), it doesn't require additional base load capacity. It may well require more local capacity WHERE THE CHARGING IS HAPPENING (which is not trivial), but it's effectively using excess capacity that today goes unused.
Click to expand...
And on the flipside, EVs can suck up wind and solar power during their production peaks acting as, well, batteries to level out that load.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
You still haven't explained why Chinese people, despite living in multidwelling homes and parked on the street, are able to charge their electric cars. Nearly 47% of their cars are electric.
Click to expand...
I didn't make the claim. Not my circus, not my monkey.

Cap'n Jack said:
Nearly 47% of their cars are electric.
Click to expand...
This claim doesn't agree with the data - and is effectively impossible in any case, unless you crushed a few hundred million ICE powered vehicles within the past two years (China has more than 300 million road vehicles). Chinese EV sales were only 29% of new vehicles in 2022, so it's simply not conceivable that they could be 47% of the entire fleet; the 6.9 million that were sold in 2022 is only about 2% of the total fleet.

What was your source for this statement?

Within China, EV sales have increased from 16% of the domestic car market in 2021, to 29%, or 6.9 million vehicles, in 2022.
Click to expand...

bolt.earth

China’s EV Market: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Scope - Bolt.Earth

bolt.earth bolt.earth
 
StraightnLevel said:
I didn't make the claim. Not my circus, not my monkey.


This claim doesn't agree with the data - and is effectively impossible in any case, unless you crushed a few hundred million ICE powered vehicles within the past two years (China has more than 300 million road vehicles). Chinese EV sales were only 29% of new vehicles in 2022, so it's simply not conceivable that they could be 47% of the entire fleet; the 6.9 million that were sold in 2022 is only about 2% of the total fleet.

What was your source for this statement?



bolt.earth

China’s EV Market: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Scope - Bolt.Earth

bolt.earth bolt.earth
Click to expand...
Yeah- whatever-
You replied to my comment about whether people can charge vehicles in an urban setting, but now you won't answer the question.
I know that I need to be careful crossing the street in China because almost half the cars are electric....and you can't hear them coming through the intersection to turn in front or behind you.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Yeah- whatever-
You replied to my comment about whether people can charge vehicles in an urban setting, but now you won't answer the question.
I know that I need to be careful crossing the street in China because almost half the cars are electric....and you can't hear them coming through the intersection to turn in front or behind you.
Click to expand...
"almost half"? :rolleyes2:

What's your source for that 47% claim? I've added a number of links and quotes to back up every single thing I've written here, as have several others. Where is yours?
 
StraightnLevel said:
"almost half"? :rolleyes2:

What's your source for that 47% claim? I've added a number of links and quotes to back up every single thing I've written here, as have several others. Where is yours?
Click to expand...
You are being silly, logical data driven from measurable fact statements have no weight in modern discussions. It’s completely counter to modern buisness or governmental policies. You’ve fallen behind the times, you should know by now you just establish arbitrary goals established by people with zero technical abilities to determine what is reasonable, establish this as the the “new policy” and then drive away the knowledge base whom understand the impossibility of the request and offer resistance to the new policy then throw mountains of cash at the new bright eyed, fresh out of college degreed dude who thinks he can change the world with zero experience, or consciousness that almost anything he can think of has been tried before and failed and that’s why it isn’t done.. get with the program man
 
kmacht said:
I’m hoping you are joking by asking. If not I can tell you that at least in my state (Ct) the governor and legislature have both been pushing hard all year to pass a law requiring all new vehicles sold in the state to be electric by 2035. It was only voted down because a few politicians realized the charging infrastructure wasn’t there and if you lived in an apartment or rental unit with only on street parking there is no way to charge a car overnight. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean it’s practical or should be implemented.
Click to expand...
I am a big fan of EV and have been driving them since 2013 but I do think that switching to EV is a big problem. TBH as much as California wants to pretend it's the greenest state in the US they have been systematically screwing over people who own solar. This has a lot to do with the Electric companies making sure they are protecting their income as more people go to solar. EV adoption will only move people from oil monopoly to local electric company/coop monopoly which to me is much more of a problem.
 
How much does it cost to modify a piston aircraft engine so you can "roll coal"? You should already have a mixture control...
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Cap'n Jack said:
You still haven't explained why Chinese people, despite living in multidwelling homes and parked on the street, are able to charge their electric cars. Nearly 47% of their cars are electric.

As for the rest of it...the sources disagree
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Cap'n Jack said:
The law wasn't passed- your own post said it was voted down.
As for practicality, China somehow makes it work- about 40% of their cars are electric already.


Show me the law in any state that says you have to give up your gas car in 2035 (or 2030).
Click to expand...
The law wasn't passed because the governor pulled it right before the vote because there was a major rate hike in electric rates the week before and people were ****ed off when they started seeing their new monthly electric bills show up. A month later after people calmed down over the rate increase, he and the democrats in the state legislatures are back trying to get the 2035 all electric car requirement passed again. They are recessed for the summer but it will come back up for vote again this fall.

As far as how Chinese people are able to drive all electric cars without being able to charge at home? You tell me since you seem to be the expert on China.

I can only tell you what the issues were that people brought up earlier in the year here in Connecticut. Almost all of it was around charging, the electric grid, and cost to buy. If you can not charge your car where you live and there are not enough charging stations where most people work, driving and leaving your car somewhere else to charge for hours every day is not feasible for most people. There were also many concerns over the electric grid. We are constantly being told to turn AC's off or down during hot summer days or face rolling blackouts because the power grid in the Northeast can't handle it. If the grid can't support the current populations use today how is it supposed to support every house installing and using car chargers? Finally, there is the cost. China has far different requirements for cars than the US. You can buy a cheap electric car in china as long as you are good with giving up all the safety and creature comforts that the US market demands. Eliminate any tax incentives in the US for electric car ownership and the numbers don't work for the average person. The cheapest Tesla you can buy right now is $38,990. A Toyota Corolla base mode is $22,050 and a Honda Civic is $25,345. Both get right around 40mpg on the highway. At $3.25 a gallon you need to drive over 208,000 miles before you save a single dime on gas buying a tesla over a corolla.

I'm not against electric cars or people that own them. I may consider one for my self when I retire if I own a home that I can charge it at and I plan to mostly drive locally. I just don't agree that they should be mandated as the only cars available to buy as many states are trying to do. Electric cars need to be able to become functionally and financially feasible on their own first without using tax incentives or penalties to try and force the market in a direction that may not be in the best interest of everyone.
 
Flatiowa said:
You are being silly, logical data driven from measurable fact statements have no weight in modern discussions.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right. Sorry. I'll try not to confuse the issue with facts again.

:lol:
 
StraightnLevel said:
"almost half"? :rolleyes2:

What's your source for that 47% claim? I've added a number of links and quotes to back up every single thing I've written here, as have several others. Where is yours?
Click to expand...
What I see when I'm in Shenzhen and Shanghai. I'll grant that they probably have more cars sold than elsewhere. California probably has more electric cars than the rest of the nation, but I don't see that they are a very large proportion of the vehicle population as I see in China.

China still buys the most electric cars (in 2020, more that the next several countries combined)

Electric Car Use by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com worldpopulationreview.com
What is interesting is Norway EV market shares are are around 80%
www.wri.org

These Countries Are Adopting Electric Vehicles the Fastest

Norway and China are among the top countries scaling electric vehicles at rates needed to meet international climate goals.
www.wri.org www.wri.org

Yet they still can get them powered.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
You still haven't explained why Chinese people, despite living in multidwelling homes and parked on the street, are able to charge their electric cars. Nearly 47% of their cars are electric.
Click to expand...
Could it possibly be that when the CCP says buy electric, the people are not going to make a fuss like they do here?
Gaining public compliance is a lot easier in a dictatorship than it is here.
 
francisco collazos said:
EV adoption will only move people from oil monopoly to local electric company/coop monopoly which to me is much more of a problem.
Click to expand...
I can't drill for (and refine) my own oil.
But I can easily put 10-20 kW of solar panels on (or near) my house and not have to deal with the electric company, if things become unreasonable.
But I unserstand that wouldn't work for someone living in an apartment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top