# California Banning the sale of Gas Powered Automobiles



## compforce (Aug 24, 2022)

> California on Thursday is expected to put into effect its sweeping plan to prohibit the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, a groundbreaking move that could have major effects on the effort to fight climate change and accelerate a global transition toward electric vehicles.


California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars

But wait...  Isn't California the state that doesn't have enough power to keep the lights on?  


> California energy officials warned the state may be at risk of blackouts for the next three summers due to power supply shortages and extreme weather.
> 
> The state could be short about 1,700 megawatts this summer -- enough power for about 1.3 million homes - and that gap may widen to about 1,800 megawatts by 2025, officials said Friday during a media call. These forecasts don’t include other factors such as extreme regional heat waves or wildfires that can take down power lines, they said.


California Warns of Possible Summer Blackouts as Power Runs Low

I can hear the calls now..  "Sorry boss, I can't come in to work today.  The blackout didn't let me charge my car.  What?  No, I can't work remotely, the power is off in the house.

Seriously, I get the whole pollution thing, and while I don't agree with the whole climate change agenda I can understand the fear and the desire to do something about it.  What I don't get is how this is a solution.  Some facts that the CA government should know before enacting this type of radical agenda.


----------



## AWP (Aug 24, 2022)

If only we had more government, just think about how different we could live our lives.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 24, 2022)

Canada hasn't made it law yet but it's an official pledge.  So only a matter of time, likely after the next election; if Trudeau wins again.  The only exception is for commercial and agriculture.  Talk about forcing the green conversion.  The market didn't want it, so they have to force it.

The unintended consequences of banning gas-powered cars by 2035


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 24, 2022)

compforce said:


> California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars
> 
> But wait...  Isn't California the state that doesn't have enough power to keep the lights on?
> 
> ...


A few years ago the government required the average MPG per fleet increase. Trump rolled that back, to 22 I think is the standard, unless it has been increased again. A fortunate byproduct is that there is much benefit in hybrid technology, and hybrid cars are more affordable and an option on most makes and models,  the bad part is the rise in crossovers. 

The market does support an increase in MPG, pretty consistently. I’m all for cars, I love them, I drive a diesel myself, and my other car is what some would consider on the sportier side. 

Fleet average increases are good imo. I don’t think requiring electric is realistic by the point they want it. There are too many limitations on travel that could arise. They are likely hoping for some breakthrough, but hope is not a plan.


----------



## JedisonsDad (Aug 24, 2022)

California is about to create a black market for fake CARB cars from the surrounding states, and drive the used car market through the roof.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 24, 2022)

Just another reminder that the people making up these laws hate us and want us dead. California is an excellent case study in govt corruption and criminally incompetent mismanagement.

As a state, California has more resources and people available to it than a small country and yet is a complete shit show.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 25, 2022)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Just another reminder that the people making up these laws hate us and want us dead. California is an excellent case study in govt corruption and criminally incompetent mismanagement.
> 
> As a state, California has more resources and people available to it than a small country and yet is a complete shit show.



EV cars is an example of the government wanting to kill you?


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 25, 2022)

The government wants less people paying taxes the sneaky fucks


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 25, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> EV cars is an example of the government wanting to kill you?



Although he should have explained his point, I'll give it to him.  It's not an example, it's one of many factors; champagne socialist are ignorant to.  
Canada is doing the exact same things.  Simultaneously demonizing the oil and gas sector, scaring away investment.  Meanwhile, forcing a replacement product that the market is not ready for, nor is the infrastructure.   Toss in the fact that the majority of people in North America will never afford a new car, let alone an EV or plug-in hybrid.  Add all of the other preventable issues that could alleviate much of the self induced inflation.  People are going hungry and in colder climates, will have to choose between staying warm and eating.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 25, 2022)

California invented the concept of lifestyle. For that reason alone they deserve all the earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, Hollywood dipshits and stupid government legislation that comes their way.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Aug 25, 2022)

I'd prefer seeing large scale public & private investment in public transportation across the nation - upgrading older models in existing cities or implementing in cities that are car dependent, as well as investment in rapid transit from city to city and cross country.    The technology is there for both rapid transit and solid local transit systems.  The easier it is for people to get around without a car, the less driving they do.


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 25, 2022)

This from the state where the CEO of the most popular EV brand on the market got so fed up, he moved his HQ from it.  You can't make this stuff up.


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 25, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> Although he should have explained his point, I'll give it to him.  It's not an example, it's one of many factors; champagne socialist are ignorant to.
> Canada is doing the exact same things.  Simultaneously demonizing the oil and gas sector, scaring away investment.  Meanwhile, forcing a replacement product that the market is not ready for, nor is the infrastructure.   Toss in the fact that the majority of people in North America will never afford a new car, let alone an EV or plug-in hybrid.  Add all of the other preventable issues that could alleviate much of the self induced inflation.  People are going hungry and in colder climates, will have to choose between staying warm and eating.





AMRUSMCR said:


> I'd prefer seeing large scale public & private investment in public transportation across the nation - upgrading older models in existing cities or implementing in cities that are car dependent, as well as investment in rapid transit from city to city and cross country.    The technology is there for both rapid transit and solid local transit systems.  The easier it is for people to get around without a car, the less driving they do.




You see how they didn’t just make outlandish statements? You see how they laid out their points logically and with level heads? You- Cannonball- do better. And stop making @RackMaster translate your thoughts and emotions.



R.Caerbannog said:


> Just another reminder that the people making up these laws hate us and want us dead. California is an excellent case study in govt corruption and criminally incompetent mismanagement.
> 
> As a state, California has more resources and people available to it than a small country and yet is a complete shit show.


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 25, 2022)

Gunz said:


> California invented the concept of lifestyle. For that reason alone they deserve all the earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, Hollywood dipshits and stupid government legislation that comes their way.


I predict used car sales going through the roof in CA in 2035.  

New businesses will set up shop in NV, register new ICE cars, then resell them as used cars at a markup to Californians.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 25, 2022)

Used car sales are already insane.  Most cost more than new.  The market is fucked now, give it a few year's.


----------



## Dame (Aug 25, 2022)

JedisonsDad said:


> California is about to create a black market for fake CARB cars from the surrounding states, and drive the used car market through the roof.





Blizzard said:


> I predict used car sales going through the roof in CA in 2035.
> 
> New businesses will set up shop in NV, register new ICE cars, then resell them as used cars at a markup to Californians.


Yup. We were just talking about that yesterday. Might have to buy an RV cover or two so we can stock up on cars and park them out back for a bit.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 25, 2022)

AMRUSMCR said:


> I'd prefer seeing large scale public & private investment in public transportation across the nation - upgrading older models in existing cities or implementing in cities that are car dependent, as well as investment in rapid transit from city to city and cross country.    The technology is there for both rapid transit and solid local transit systems.  The easier it is for people to get around without a car, the less driving they do.


The thought of more govt control over transportation kinda scares the crap outta me. In big cities, public transportation is a means of last resort as it's known to be dirty, violent, and serves as way of transporting criminal elements from one part of the city to the other. Public transport works in Europe and Asia, where people are concentrated in dense urban centers. The US not so much.

As silly as it sounds, I'd rather more people have vehicle access and internal combustion technology to keep improving. There's a joke somewhere about minivans having more torque than the muscle cars of the golden era. I can only wonder what better material sciences and engineering can do to make cars better, cheaper, and more efficient. There's more freedom this way.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 25, 2022)

DasBoot said:


> You see how they didn’t just make outlandish statements? You see how they laid out their points logically and with level heads? You- Cannonball- do better. And stop making @RackMaster translate your thoughts and emotions.


Yeah... you should learn to use the search function on the forum. I've actually made a similar case in the energy thread, wildfire thread, and many other threads here. (Govt corruption, mismanagement of resources, rising of aristocratic bureaucrat class, etc)

While witty retorts and silence seem to be your modus operandi, I'd suggest going back and reading a few years of posts with the benefit of hindsight. Might surprise yourself.


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 25, 2022)

AMRUSMCR said:


> I'd prefer seeing large scale public & private investment in public transportation across the nation - upgrading older models in existing cities or implementing in cities that are car dependent, as well as investment in rapid transit from city to city and cross country.    The technology is there for both rapid transit and solid local transit systems.  The easier it is for people to get around without a car, the less driving they do.


Are you familiar with how the government operates at all?  We actually have rapid transit options but the government is involved. Rail systems in particular are an archaic concept.

And who would fund this amazing fantasy?

Public transportation is really only viable in a handful of cities for a variety of reasons.


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 26, 2022)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Yeah... you should learn to use the search function on the forum. I've actually made a similar case in the energy thread, wildfire thread, and many other threads here. (Govt corruption, mismanagement of resources, rising of aristocratic bureaucrat class, etc)
> 
> While witty retorts and silence seem to be your modus operandi, I'd suggest going back and reading a few years of posts with the benefit of hindsight. Might surprise yourself.


So every time you post, everyone is supposed to spend 20 minutes combing over your old posts to find citations? 

It’s almost like you don’t want to provide any facts to back up your claims, then cry “i AlReAdY pOsTeD tHeM, wItTy MaN!” 

So with your logic- you can post anything, say “the sky is NOT blue.” When asked for proof, you can shield your self by hiding behind your supposed prior posts as evidence. 

You may well have posted them, you may just be saying you did to be lazy and continue to try and spread your “alt right weaponized herpes mindset” without ever having to back up those “smooth brain” views. 

So maybe just add some citations when you speak with your typical god-like authoritativeness.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 26, 2022)

California's economy allows it to inflict massive changes in business and politics.  It's a juggernaut.  But its prosperity allows the people who run the states to make some really, really bad decisions.  IMO this is one of them.

As the OP noted, California can't even keep the power on reliably in their state. California regularly experiences rolling blackouts which would impact the possibility of charging. Batteries aren't up to the task of efficiently storing all the power that would be necessary to keep all the lights on and charge all the cars. We can throw all the economic incentives at it that we want, we've already run up against a physics problem and I can't think of any tech on the horizon that will solve those issues.

So-called "clean" energy is expensive, and the people who are going to suffer in all of this is the poor.... and they will keep right on electing the same kind of people who create these kinds of policies.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 26, 2022)

California—the state that invented smog—seems to think it’s ozone layer is going to be less depleted than everybody else’s. 

I’m sure the PRC, for example, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses and mercury, will be inspired by California’s environmental innovations.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 26, 2022)

Gunz said:


> California—the state that invented smog—seems to think it’s ozone layer is going to be less depleted than everybody else’s.
> 
> *I’m sure the PRC, for example, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses and mercury,* will be inspired by California’s environmental innovations.



How dare you escalate the rhetoric with your narrow-minded racist and xenophobic attacks, which have no doubt been caused by your sinful capitalist nature!  Now I am off to display my military power....


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 26, 2022)

I think the biggest issue with the leader's and "thinker's", of the Green Religion; is the ignorance of modern nuclear.  It's the only current technology that could provide enough energy to support any current emissions goals.  That also ignores the complete redesign and construction of the entire grid.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Aug 26, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> Are you familiar with how the government operates at all?  We actually have rapid transit options but the government is involved. Rail systems in particular are an archaic concept.
> 
> And who would fund this amazing fantasy?
> 
> Public transportation is really only viable in a handful of cities for a variety of reasons.


1. Yes.  Don't be condescending.  If you want to engage in a discussion or debate with an exchange of ideas, I'm your huckleberry.  I will not be talked at like I am either a child or lacking in higher education.  Control your tone, moving forward.  

     When I use the term rapid transit, I mean fast passenger transportation.  I did not say we use our current, but made the suggestion we should      upgrade the existing transportation options.

2. Like I said, funding would be both public and private.  This can be on a federal level, state level, and city level depending on what is being implemented and who it is serving.  Cross country = Federal.  Cross state = State.  Cross City = City.  Public transportation is just like funding other infrastructure like highways, bridges and roads.  Large employers would have an investment in this as well in the form of a corporate tax, as this provides them a more diverse workforce that can be brought in from other areas not centrally located to them.

     Pubic Transportation infrastructure implementation and upgrades will create jobs and when running, assist the lower income brackets of our
     society that may not be able to afford the conversion to electric cars (they can't afford cars now...) and/or create job opportunities they would
     not have had w/out pubic transportation options.

3. And those reasons are?  Please expound on your statements so that there is something that can be discussed.  I'm all for learning which can't be done with blanket statements.


...


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 26, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> I think the biggest issue with the leader's and "thinker's", of the Green Religion; is the ignorance of modern nuclear.  It's the only current technology that could provide enough energy to support any current emissions goals.  That also ignores the complete redesign and construction of the entire grid.



Right or wrong(wrong) people are afraid of nuclear power.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 26, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Right or wrong(wrong) people are afraid of nuclear power.


For sure.  People seem to have a near-pathological fear of nuclear power.  And some of it justified (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima).  What's fascinating to me is the interests moving behind the scenes to promote green and denigrate nuclear in favor of their national interests.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 26, 2022)

For sure, when nuke goes wrong, it goes wrong bad.

Still, given then number of nuke power plants they still have a better safety profile and cleaner energy than just about anything else.*

*Per my bro-in-law, who was an electrical engineer with Duke Power.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 26, 2022)

DasBoot said:


> So every time you post, everyone is supposed to spend 20 minutes combing over your old posts to find citations?
> 
> It’s almost like you don’t want to provide any facts to back up your claims, then cry “i AlReAdY pOsTeD tHeM, wItTy MaN!”
> 
> ...


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 26, 2022)

AMRUSMCR said:


> 1. Yes.  Don't be condescending.  If you want to engage in a discussion or debate with an exchange of ideas, I'm your huckleberry.  I will not be talked at like I am either a child or lacking in higher education.  Control your tone, moving forward.
> 
> When I use the term rapid transit, I mean fast passenger transportation.  I did not say we use our current, but made the suggestion we should      upgrade the existing transportation options.
> 
> ...


My intent was not to be condescending but re-reading it, certainly see how you took it as such. My bad.

To the topic at hand, I’ll address a few of the issues but this post is ultimately going to be much longer than I want.

As I mentioned, outside a few major urban areas, public transit is proven not to be viable. If it were, there’d be private options just as there is with air transportation (in the early days, much of the public transit was actually privately owned). It’s not competitive from a cost or service perspective. Realities of such proposals simply trump the theoretical benefits. Every new rail project is plagued by massive cost overruns and lower than expected ridership, which is really a failure in estimation or a political unwillingness to recognize true cost. It’s actually a pretty disingenuous sales pitch. Ridership cannot sustain the massive operating costs. It requires huge public subsidy because the riders simply wouldn’t be able to afford a ticket if the actual costs were passed on – and still most systems can’t cover it.

Large employers won't contribute additional funding. If we learned one thing the past couple years, it’s that we don’t need to be physically present in large office spaces to be productive. Technology again has proven to be a huge game changer. Moreover, large employers aren’t looking for additional expenditures. They’re looking at tax incentives (read cuts) to locate their business in a given area as a tradeoff for providing a community with jobs.

As mentioned in my previous post, one of the huge challenges of rapid transit is the fact that rail is an archaic concept. Street cars died out for a reason. It’s also why Disney’s monorail of the future never took off.  Rail is an inflexible solution. As population centers shift, rail is tied to an incredibly expensive and inflexible route. Express bus routes offer a significantly better solution; they utilize shared infrastructure with routes that are easily changed as demand shifts. Cities on the East Coast were largely built at a time (1800's) when people walked to places or traveled by horse and carriage. They’re more condensed in every way; walk Boston as an example. Most of the country is not like that. Communities were built differently. The area is much more vast.  In terms of cross-country travel, I’ve used Amtrak several times. It’s slow and cumbersome, largely because it shares rails with freight. The only option is to have dedicated rail which would be insanely expensive to build with unsustainable ridership levels in the era of air travel.  Empire Builder is one of Amtrak's most popular trains with 500K riders annually, yet, they only cover ~65% of it's current operating costs.

Another big challenge is that public transportation is not a point-to-point solution. It can’t be. It only provides a partial solution of delivery to a destination. For some, maybe that’s OK, others not so much. We also live in a society where flexibility is highly valued, again we realized this more with technology the past couple years. Time is money. Speed is life. Even with the best rapid transit solution, riders are still tied to it’s schedule, which may or may not align with their needs.

The subject of public transit also can’t ignore the public safety concerns that come with it as well, especially these days, but that can be an entire topic on it’s own. It does, however, impact ridership, which plays into the overall viability of these solutions.

Again, this was a longer post than I had planned but those are some of the key reasons that outside a few major urban areas these solutions remain unviable...and why I view it as a fantasy.

I may not agree with some of the conclusions of the article but it does a reasonably good job of laying out how we got to where we are:
Why Is American Mass Transit So Bad? It's a Long Story. - Bloomberg


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 26, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> For sure, when nuke goes wrong, it goes wrong bad.
> 
> Still, given then number of nuke power plants they still have a better safety profile and cleaner energy than just about anything else.*
> 
> *Per my bro-in-law, who was an electrical engineer with Duke Power.


Yeah, the first sentence is my hang up.  
Nuclear power plant accidents: listed and ranked since 1952

The bet on nuclear seems short-sided and comes with a whole host of potential Faustian bargains, many which will remain long after we're gone.  Maybe that's why so many people are willing to make the trade-off?  

The problem is that it probably provides the best solution to meet demand.  I'm still not real comfortable with it but, unless the demand side of the equation changes, we're stuck until a better technology is discovered.  Nonetheless, I don't like and honestly probably favor other solutions until that new technology is found.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 26, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> Yeah, the first sentence is my hang up.
> Nuclear power plant accidents: listed and ranked since 1952
> 
> The bet on nuclear seems short-sided and comes with a whole host of potential Faustian bargains, many which will remain long after we're gone.  Maybe that's why so many people are willing to make the trade-off?
> ...



I think nuclear power, I think of the Zen Master..."we'll see...."


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 26, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> Yeah, the first sentence is my hang up.
> Nuclear power plant accidents: listed and ranked since 1952
> 
> The bet on nuclear seems short-sided and comes with a whole host of potential Faustian bargains, many which will remain long after we're gone.  Maybe that's why so many people are willing to make the trade-off?
> ...


What's interesting about that accident list is that only three took place in the US in my lifetime, and only one of those, Three Mile Island, was a major incident.  

Compare that to major US oil disasters, or coal fires, or about anything else in the same time period, and the risk seems manageable.


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 26, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> What's interesting about that accident list is that only three took place in the US in my lifetime, and only one of those, Three Mile Island, was a major incident.
> 
> Compare that to major US oil disasters, or coal fires, or about anything else in the same time period, and the risk seems manageable.


To me, the difference is the lasting impact or potential lasting impact.  

Ex. 
Oil spill...terrible but area is relatively limited and impact, while it may last a couple decades, lessens significantly over that time.

Nuclear...much larger impact area and devastating local impact that may present hazard to surrounding environment for millennium.  The worst part is that even after decommissioning, spent fuel/waste remains a potential hazard for, again, millennium.  There is no way to shorten or lessen this impact.

That's not to suggest there aren't problems with the other solutions as well.

Geez, I almost sound like a luddite.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 26, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> To me, the difference is the lasting impact or potential lasting impact.
> 
> Ex.
> Oil spill...terrible but area is relatively limited and impact, while it may last a couple decades, lessens significantly over that time.
> ...



Like I said, when it goes wrong, it goes wrong bad.  BUT: truly renewable, clean, almost unlimited energy.

I agree with you regarding the impacts after decommissioning.  That spent fuel is around literally forever.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Aug 26, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> {entire post}


Thank you!  I am at work but will take a look tonight/this weekend to see if there's anything that changes my mind after a little research and an opportunity to read the article you cited.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 26, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> To me, the difference is the lasting impact or potential lasting impact.
> 
> Ex.
> Oil spill...terrible but area is relatively limited and impact, while it may last a couple decades, lessens significantly over that time.
> ...


That's what I don't get about the climate alarmists (not you).  If tHe WorLD Is GoinG To eND!!! in like 12 years if we don't Do SuMTHinG!! about climate change, then isn't it worth the risk to go nuclear?


----------



## Gunz (Aug 26, 2022)

Jane Fonda was in that movie The China Syndrome so everybody who likes Jane Fonda hates nuclear power. The reverse may also be true.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 26, 2022)

Devildoc said:


> That spent fuel is around literally forever.



Launch it into outer space. Oh wait, we wouldn’t want to contaminate outer space. We might cause a nuclear reaction in the Sun or something.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 26, 2022)

I would like to see some advancement in the world of nuclear power....seems like the DOE is looking into it a bit. But, admittedly, I know little of this field.

"*The US Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded USD36 million for 11 projects seeking to increase the use of nuclear power as a reliable source of clean energy and to limit the amount of radioactive waste produced from advanced reactors."*

DOE funds for reducing advanced reactor wastes : Waste & Recycling - World Nuclear News


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 26, 2022)

Kraut783 said:


> I would like to see some advancement in the world of nuclear power....seems like the DOE is looking into it a bit. But, admittedly, I know little of this field.
> 
> "*The US Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded USD36 million for 11 projects seeking to increase the use of nuclear power as a reliable source of clean energy and to limit the amount of radioactive waste produced from advanced reactors."*
> 
> DOE funds for reducing advanced reactor wastes : Waste & Recycling - World Nuclear News


I've read some articles about thorium as an alternative but I'm not sure how realistic it truly is. Seems almost too good to be true.  If it were viable, I'd expect to see more discussion and R&D around the technology - maybe there is circles that matter (I clearly am not allowed to hang out in those circles). Scalability seems to be a major hurdle.

Here's a very rose colored glasses article but it illustrates the "promise":
Destroying nuclear waste to create clean energy? It can be done

And here's the "don't hold your breath" counter article:
Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option

Pros and cons:
Thorium As Nuclear Fuel: the good and the bad

That said, China and India are probably doing the most research here with China supposedly bringing an experimental thorium reactor online any day.


----------



## Steve1839 (Aug 26, 2022)

Thorium, as well as some of the non-fissionable isotopes of uranium, can be converted to fissionable material in a breeder reactor...if memory serves me, our breeder reactor program was pretty much shut down during the Carter administration, partly due to the discovery of the snail darter in the waters near the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (which was never built)...

A fairly decent bit in Wikipedia (not exactly my first choice for scientific information, but it tracks with what I studied as an undergrad...).

ETA the link I was going to attach...

Breeder reactor - Wikipedia


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 26, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Launch it into outer space. Oh wait, we wouldn’t want to contaminate outer space. We might cause a nuclear reaction in the Sun or something.


It wouldn't be the first time you lot have considered it. 

Project A119 - Wikipedia


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 26, 2022)

Gunz said:


> Launch it into outer space. Oh wait, we wouldn’t want to contaminate outer space. We might cause a nuclear reaction in the Sun or something.



Rockets are super safe and reliably never explode on launch.


----------



## AWP (Aug 26, 2022)

SpitfireV said:


> It wouldn't be the first time you lot have considered it.
> 
> Project A119 - Wikipedia



Consider it? We went out and did it. ARPA detonated several weapons to test EMP as a means of ballistic missile defense.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 26, 2022)

AWP said:


> Consider it? We went out and did it. ARPA detonated several weapons to test EMP as a means of ballistic missile defense.



You didn't nuke actual celestial bodies though- well, except ours. 

It's quite interesting the uses people considered and tested nuclear weapons for in the 50s/60s.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 26, 2022)

AWP said:


> Consider it? We went out and did it. ARPA detonated several weapons to test EMP as a means of ballistic missile defense.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 26, 2022)

Electric cars, so clean.

Tesla Model S

Motor- 100lbs of smelted copper

Battery- 1200 pounds

960lbs of smelted nickel
180lbs of smelted cobalt
60lbs of smelted aluminum

Oh soo green.

Takes something like 5 tons of raw ore to make a Tesla battery.

Mining for cobalt is also very manpower intensive going in rat tunnels. https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap.../congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion-battery/

"Green energy" is a myth. Can I use the eff word.

Then governments that want to force you into electric cars won't make the power generation investments to keep the grid alive. Because save the environment. You know, windmill blades are not recyclable. They get buried in Nebraska and Iowa.

The only thing that will address our power demands is Nuclear. The fact that we're not investing in that shows how corrupt our government is. No one can be an adult. But hey, we voted for the clowns and get what we deserve right? Eff.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 27, 2022)

TLDR20 said:


> Rockets are super safe and reliably never explode on launch.



So we lose a few hundred thousand Floridians. Half of them will be New Yorkers. Restart the countdown.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 27, 2022)

"You know, windmill blades are not recyclable. They get buried in Nebraska and Iowa."  Wonder where they will bury the electric car batteries, I really hope someone is looking on how to recycle or repurpose them.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 27, 2022)

Kraut783 said:


> "You know, windmill blades are not recyclable. They get buried in Nebraska and Iowa."  Wonder where they will bury the electric car batteries, I really hope someone is looking on how to recycle or repurpose them.



Launch them into outer space. It will solve everything.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 30, 2022)

It's almost as if this was predicted.  Wake up North America, this is inevitable.

Electric car users warned as charging more expensive than PETROL


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 30, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> It's almost as if this was predicted.  Wake up North America, this is inevitable.
> 
> Electric car users warned as charging more expensive than PETROL


The consumer costs/TCO also don't take into account the electrical upgrades required for a charger at your home. This is a task most homeowners are not able to do themselves; requires an electrician.  And that's assuming you're a home owner with off-street parking, not something all urban homeowners have. And if you're a renter and your landlord is unwilling or unable to make this upgrade  then that's another issue.

Remember the Green New Deal agenda and how after it was exposed Democrats distanced themselves from it saying there was no way to pay for it.  They lied. It's damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!


----------



## AWP (Aug 30, 2022)

Nuclear energy: environmentally bad.

Batteries: For a green planet, yo!

People are so stupid. Someone send the big space rock to planet earth, stat.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 30, 2022)

Blizzard said:


> The consumer costs/TCO also don't take into account the electrical upgrades required for a charger at your home. This is a task most homeowners are not able to do themselves; requires an electrician.  And that's assuming you're a home owner with off-street parking, not something all urban homeowners have. And if you're a renter and your landlord is unwilling or unable to make this upgrade  then that's another issue.
> 
> Remember the Green New Deal agenda and how after it was exposed Democrats distanced themselves from it saying there was no way to pay for it.  They lied. It's damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!



It's not just the home charger.  It's the grid up to your home.  In an older home and you need to upgrade your service just to provide the amperage for the charger.  Then if everyone on your street upgrades or installs a charger; the transformer may need upgrading.   Throw in the current roaming blackouts.  People are stupid.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 30, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> It's almost as if this was predicted.  Wake up North America, this is inevitable.
> 
> Electric car users warned as charging more expensive than PETROL


The only reason it's currently cheap is because the government subsidizes it.  If the government didn't subsidize renewables we wouldn't be in this nonsense...but hey, green politics are great.


----------



## Topkick (Aug 30, 2022)

15 states are following California's lead. Your future president Gavin Newsom is already making his mark.

Several states will follow California’s lead in banning gas-powered car sales by 2035


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 30, 2022)

Holy shit, there are states that have trigger lies tied to California's politics? Someone call a priest, we need an exorcism.


----------



## compforce (Aug 31, 2022)

and...


> CALIFORNIA (WTVO) — With California’s power grid under strain due to extreme heat and high demand, the utility grid operator is asking residents to avoid charging their electric vehicles. This comes days after the state announced a plan to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035.


https://www.mystateline.com/news/na...c-vehicles-days-after-announcing-gas-car-ban/


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 31, 2022)

compforce said:


> and...
> 
> https://www.mystateline.com/news/na...c-vehicles-days-after-announcing-gas-car-ban/


I'm completely shocked.  Clearly that story isn't correct.

You know, I think historians may've got it wrong. We may actually be the greatest generation.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 31, 2022)

Greatest generation of nitwits.

Present company excluded.


----------



## CQB (Sep 1, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> It's almost as if this was predicted.  Wake up North America, this is inevitable.
> 
> Electric car users warned as charging more expensive than PETROL


Given the predicted energy shortfall this coming northern winter, do you heat your home or drive your car. Hmmm, hard choice. 

UK faces prospect of blackouts this winter, senior Tory MP claims


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 1, 2022)

Diablo Canyon just got a 5 year extension. Guess some people in California actually believe in Science!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1565261451199033344


----------



## Topkick (Oct 6, 2022)

Apparently electric cars aren't so good in wet weather...who would've thunk it? Sarcasm aside, there are probably going to be a lot of growing pains in this fantasy. (i.e Hope you charge it before the power goes out)

Also, self driving cars should be fun.

Electric vehicles are exploding from water damage after Hurricane Ian, top Florida official warns

Electric vehicles catching fire in aftermath of Hurricane Ian, Florida official warns


----------



## AWP (Oct 6, 2022)

Topkick said:


> Apparently electric cars aren't so good in wet weather...who would've thunk it? Sarcasm aside, there are probably going to be a lot of growing pains in this fantasy. (i.e Hope you charge it before the power goes out)
> 
> Also, self driving cars should be fun.
> 
> ...



Good thing water puts out fire...oh, not electrical fires. My bad. That's quite the conundrum there, folks!


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 22, 2022)

This is going to do nothing but fuck up the already fucked automotive industry.  I can imagine it's only a matter of time before some of them pull out of the Canadian market altogether.   

Canada moves to mandate electric vehicle sales starting in 2026


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 22, 2022)

Marauder06 said:


> For sure.  People seem to have a near-pathological fear of nuclear power.  And some of it justified (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima).  What's fascinating to me is the interests moving behind the scenes to promote green and denigrate nuclear in favor of their national interests.


3 mile island was so overblown.

Electric cars are not green,  and this is about control and not saving the earth.

Government can significantly increase their control over our lives by limiting our ability to travel.

I can't do Randolph AFB to Hurlburt Field , or Randolph AFB to Tucson by car in one day if I have to make multiple charging stops.


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 22, 2022)

RackMaster said:


> This is going to do nothing but fuck up the already fucked automotive industry.  I can imagine it's only a matter of time before some of them pull out of the Canadian market altogether.
> 
> Canada moves to mandate electric vehicle sales starting in 2026


I said it before earlier in this thread, the move to EVs is so misguided and short-sighted.  Hydrogen is a significantly better long-term solution.  It just needs investment in the infrastructure, which could be an easy conversion for existing gas stations, in the same way the EV infrastructure was built.


----------



## AWP (Dec 22, 2022)

All of this EV forced conversion shit... We just went through a shortage of computer chips for cars last year. Now imagine the number of electronic components required for a battery powered car. 

People are so stupid...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 22, 2022)

AWP said:


> People are so stupid...


This could have been your whole post.


----------



## AWP (Dec 22, 2022)

Touche'. That's fair.


----------

