Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California should phase out gas-powered cars
The San Francisco Chronicle ^ | August 8, 2017 | Janelle London

Posted on 08/08/2017 10:43:37 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

California is a global environmental leader, but it’s falling behind in one key respect: phasing out gasoline cars. Germany, India, Norway and the Netherlands are moving to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by or before 2030, and France and the United Kingdom by 2040.

Here’s why California should join that list. It would:

Fight climate change: Every gallon of gas burned emits 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change. Transportation is our biggest source of carbon emissions. Shifting to electric vehicles today would cut tailpipe carbon emissions to zero, and total carbon emissions by 75 percent. Why? Because our electricity is clean and getting cleaner. Today, 27 percent of California’s electricity comes from clean, renewable sources like sun and wind. By law, 50 percent of electricity must come from renewables by 2030, and a pending bill would require 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045.

Improve our health: Vehicle emissions are the country’s largest source of air pollution, causing 53,000 premature deaths a year, and increasing the risks of asthma, lung disease and cancers — especially in children and the 4 in 10 Californians living near busy roads. Annually, health impacts from vehicle emissions cost California $15 billion.

Create jobs, lift the economy, increase energy independence: Moving from gas cars to electric vehicles would create an estimated 100,000 additional jobs in California by 2030. Tesla’s factory alone will employ 9,300 with the expansion of the Model 3. Electrification would move dollars from crude oil (mostly imported from OPEC countries and Alaska) to the domestic economy.

California is ready to phase out gas-powered cars because:

The technology is here: Tesla models and the Chevy Bolt already have a range of 220 to 335 miles per charge. Ford is developing a 300-mile range SUV....

(Excerpt) Read more at sfchronicle.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: automobiles; automotive; california; climatechange; electricity; energy; gasoline; globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: Henchster

Both ways appear to work, so the people who were saying not possible apparently majored in gender studies or theater. My numbers were only meant to be approximate, and you can count on near 100% combustion because of catalytic converters


61 posted on 08/09/2017 7:19:28 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

As a retired cal employee. I hope brown the omniscient doesn’t leave us out


62 posted on 08/09/2017 7:19:33 AM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Bob434

I have no idea whether the author is correct or not, but the gas mixture which burns in the combustion chamber is made up partly of gasoline and partly of air.


63 posted on 08/09/2017 7:27:41 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: US_MilitaryRules
LOL! That one slipped by me :-)

-PJ

64 posted on 08/09/2017 7:33:26 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Finalapproach29er

I think water is 8 pounds, gas I think is 6. It’s a good thing the Libs are the people who love science, cause they aren’t so good at math. How can you get 20 pounds of carbon out of 6 pounds of gas?


65 posted on 08/09/2017 7:42:00 AM PDT by nobamanomore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

It really comes down to what is the likely worse case usage scenario for the car or how bad is the inconvenience going to be. There are hidden variables with these cars. In the midwest, the weather variable can be huge in the winter time. I wouldn’t buy an EV for a primary car for that reason alone. On a harsh winter day, that 200 mile EV becomes a ~100 mile EV.


66 posted on 08/09/2017 7:57:23 AM PDT by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: oldasrocks

And they don’t last that long


67 posted on 08/09/2017 7:59:48 AM PDT by dila813 (Voting for Trump to Punish Trumpets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: EVO X
On a harsh winter day, that 200 mile EV becomes a ~100 mile EV.

Right, which is 50 miles round-trip or a recharging stop along the way.

The bias here is that California doesn't have harsh winters, except near the Oregon border or the high Sierras. The policy-makers live in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, where the weather is more temperate.

The problem is that people who live in Redding or the Auburn-Tahoe-Truckee corridor won't survive on EVs alone after California bans gasoline cars.

-PJ

68 posted on 08/09/2017 8:38:14 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Ah, very good, I forgot about the cats. So shortly after start-up, there is virtually 100% combustion 100% of the time.

So now we move from a gallon of gas burned in an internal combustion engine actually pumping 20 pounds of CO2 into the air to...

SO WHAT,WHO CARES?!

69 posted on 08/09/2017 8:58:25 AM PDT by Henchster (Free Republic - the BEST site on the web!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

The ban the ICE people seem to operate on the assumption that ICE pollution can’t be improved and has hit a dead end. That is not how the world works. They need to ban it, because people won’t buy EV’s in the numbers TBTB want.


70 posted on 08/09/2017 9:09:59 AM PDT by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Henchster

So what who cares.

Exactly. Certainly not me


71 posted on 08/09/2017 9:42:39 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This message brought to you by the Musk Electric Vehicle Institute of Pandering and Propaganda.


72 posted on 08/09/2017 10:05:28 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi - Monthly Donors Rock!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

That’s easy, just carry a can of electricity in your electric car!


73 posted on 08/09/2017 12:05:48 PM PDT by The Westerner (Protect the most vulnerable: get the government out of medicine and education!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A certain demographic would be very upset


74 posted on 08/09/2017 12:11:00 PM PDT by RightGeek (FUBO and the donkey you rode in on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightGeek

Low rider don’t use no gas now
Low rider don’t drive too fast


75 posted on 08/09/2017 12:11:53 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: nobamanomore

Good question...


76 posted on 08/09/2017 1:18:16 PM PDT by Finalapproach29er (luke 6:38)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

Six pounds plus change per gallon... times three?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-weight-ratio-co2-fuel/


77 posted on 08/09/2017 6:21:14 PM PDT by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

The energy content of hydrocarbon fuel is mostly tied up in the hydrogen. Energy released by burning hydrogen in oxygen versus the detonation of a military explosive, are about 27 to 1 in favor of the hydrogen for energy content on a weight basis.

The explosive detonation only appears to release more energy because of the brevity of the event—the shorter the time for application of a given amount of energy, the higher the peak power produced. Hydrogen has higher energy—an explosive produces higher power.


78 posted on 08/09/2017 6:43:28 PM PDT by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Westerner

Actually not far off from one idea seen last week. A catalyst was found to allow water to react with aluminum, completely oxidizing the metal in only minutes. The hydrogen left over from the water (H2O)is available to produce electricity within a fuel cell.

This may not make financial sense as a way to power a car on a daily basis, but might make for a great emergency electrical backup system.


79 posted on 08/09/2017 9:07:26 PM PDT by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Should somebody tell this RETARD that a gallon of water weighs 8.43 pounds per gallon.
A gallon of gasoline only weighs a little over 6 pounds per gallon, so where does the other 14 pounds come from.
I understand the byproducts of combustion combine with other elements, but 14 pounds worth?


80 posted on 08/10/2017 10:32:04 PM PDT by 5th MEB (Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson