First town in America to ban new gas stations
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
That's not true: it will cause an inconvenience to Berkeley residents using gas-powered vehicles. It's not definitive, but it has an effect on stimulating energy transition.
"We will ban gas stations when more than m out of n nearby cities have either banned gas stations or passed this law."
[0]https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10315
[1]https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/us-driving-last-year-was-l...
[2]https://www.urbanismnext.org/what-to-do/congestion-vmt-reduc...
Also I have no idea what you are talking about with Emeryville. They have three gas stations, all on Powell St. Berkeley has at least 20.
I can't see the US ever being willing to make these sacrifices though. If you compare the $/sqft for housing in the US vs. Europe the difference is shocking (even in big cities like Seattle vs. London), same for gasoline prices, etc.
The US has become accustomed to unparalleled comfort and luxury, with central air conditioning and multiple cars practically the norm. If anything, I imagine they'll try to enforce strict emissions controls on developing nations to have the pretence of doing something.
This statement is tinged with the idea of sacrifice and loss that is unfortunately one of the hallmarks of the environmental movement. How about this? We can have an emissions-free future that is much more awesome than now with the same size cars and homes. Rewiring America explains how (hint: electrify everything):
https://www.rewiringamerica.org/
Of course, it's also a good idea to reduce our overall consumption, but if you tell people they're going to have to live "worse" lives for the sake of the climate — well I don't think that's true or helpful.
Unimaginable to who? I can easily imagine this. The negatives you list are real, but they'll get rapidly better in the next 20 years (longer range cars, more charging stations for example). But in focusing on the negatives you (and the people you say you're speaking for) forget the positives:
- Electric cars already have the lowest cost of ownership of any cars and are often more fun to drive. The electric Ford pickup is basically just a better version of the fossil pickup.
- Heat pumps can both heat and cool homes meaning there's no need for separate AC/heaters. They're also often installed with mini splits meaning that families have finer-grained control over the temperature in various rooms.
- Induction stoves boil water in under a minute and are way easier to clean than gas or even electric resistance stoves. Plus gas stoves actually cause respiratory issues in homes.
- Without emissions, our air becomes a lot more pleasant to breathe, kills fewer people, and thus overall health improves. Cities in particular will have noticeably better air quality.
- Installing and maintaining electrified machines will create millions of new jobs in every zip code in the country and help distribute wealth.
- All of this will be cheaper to run than fossil fuels due to the inherent efficiency of electrification. The average US household will actually save hundreds of dollars a year on energy bills.
One of the tricks that will help make this all doable is to make emissions-free technologies up-front cheaper than the alternatives. So the thing that's the best for the climate is also best for the consumer's wallet. Government rebates would work great here and there's a bill being worked on right now for this: https://twitter.com/USRepKCastor/status/1426230666857959428
(Note: I personally like induction stoves the best. I'm not arguing that gas stoves are a good thing, just that we can get 90% of the benefit for only like 10% of the whining by leaving them alone for now.)
Is this really a sacrifice?
I can't see the US ever being willing to make these sacrifices though. If you compare the $/sqft for housing in the US vs. Europe the difference is shocking (even in big cities like Seattle vs. London), same for gasoline prices, etc.
I would be more concerned with urban design and zoning than square footage. Bigger house means more maintenance, and bigger lot means more mowing. I for one, hate mowing.
The US has become accustomed to unparalleled comfort and luxury, with central air conditioning and multiple cars practically the norm. If anything, I imagine they'll try to enforce strict emissions controls on developing nations to have the pretence of doing something.
A car is not a luxury. It is an unfortunate and out of control necessity that helps increases the cost of living and make societies less egalitarian, because it is a requirement to use car to do anything of note.
My generation Z neighbors (I have two) are very happy to live without a car. They live within three miles of their jobs and use electric scooters for commuting. They have their food and consumer goods shipped to their house. They say that they don’t need to drive anywhere, and the occasion that they want to go somewhere Uber is available. Meanwhile they are saving hundreds to thousands of dollars a month by not having two cars.
I personally (a millennial) have put less than five thousand miles on my car in the last 5 years. People say cars are a requirement for American life, but I find that’s becoming less true for more and more Americans.
Maybe more media-visible Americans are living in such areas now, but supply is extremely tight. A lot of these neighborhoods tend to be older, being poor in previous decades, and now those poor people are getting pushed out to the suburbs where cars are a great required expense.
If you go out a few times a week, not having a car in most American cities is quite difficult/burdensome/expensive. Uber alone would be $100 round trip if I wanted to go into the city from where I live. Public transit? Isn’t available past 11pm.
For many people, yes.
> Bigger house means more maintenance, and bigger lot means more mowing. I for one, hate mowing.
No one is forcing you to buy a big home with a maintenance burden. Out of respect, don't force other people into buying smaller ones.
You can easily give everyone a McMansion and live in some sub 1.5C utopia as long as we focus on where we get our energy and resources from. Stop focusing on consumption quantity because it just sounds like envy.
Heat pumps just move heat around... They do not create heat. If they did - we'd have some violations of laws. All they're doing is going to transfer geothermal, solar, wind, etc. power into heat transfer - which is transferring heat from outdoors into your home... Which then goes back outdoors at some point. There isn't any "heat" creation here.
What model are you speaking of where they claim electric cars are not viable for the future? (Assuming renewable energy sources and sustainable use of natural resources, etc.)
I'm not going to dispute the point about heat pumps more because I don't know enough about them to argue credibly about it. Maybe you're right and it's a perfect solution to the problem.
> What model are you speaking of where they claim electric cars are not viable for the future? (Assuming renewable energy sources and sustainable use of natural resources, etc.)
That assumes away the problem I think. Is it really inconceivable that we're going to start hitting limits to resources, especially if we're doubling down on cars which all have their own large batteries, sprawling asphalt, and all the rest of it? It seems really hard to imagine to me that we're going to chance on technology that makes it just as sustainable for everyone to live in a McMansion and drive an F-150 an hour to work as for people to ride trains or bicycles and live in denser housing. Certainly we could do much better than now before we started to nip at that stuff but I feel like there have to be limits. If it's so easy and we have all the answers I have to wonder why all the kicking and screaming to get there.
You have been sucked into believing by corporations that you are the issue but it's the corporations who are the issue. They want you to take personal responsibility for their issues. Everything is pushed onto the end user and the individual as responsibility rather than a corporation to do things in a manner that is best for us all. You know why? Cause that's good for the corporations! They can do horrible things and not have to deal with any of the externalities that they're creating and rake in the profit! These strategies have been mainstream for well over 50 years now.
Keep believing that personal responsibility is really the key to solving climate change but it will continue to do nothing and mean nothing. The responsibility is within your governmental body to take over how corporations are producing their products, harvesting resources, generating power, and the externalities that their products create.
Do you really think it's a coincidence that the products sold to you are not environmentally-friendly/sustainable/whatever? It's not because consumers demand them... Consumers just want something cheap... But consumers aren't paying for externalities upfront... neither are corps... No one pays. Thus, cheaper. You offer two comparable products but one is cheaper - people choose the cheaper one! On top of that, our world and economy is built on these natural resources. Imagine if oil became $0 or $1000/barrel. It'd wreck certain parts of the economy either way - there is a heavy investment and lobbying infrastructure built upon maintaining the status quo.
You really are using the personal responsibility framework to a high extent. Corps are the biggest issue. Most issues of CO2 generators and other such things - people are very happy to use their replacements because there is very little difference in quality of life (sometimes it's even improved). The things people most want that create CO2 and there's no way around it ever are very low contributors to CO2 overall. You could easily wipe out over half of CO2 emissions in USA by just converting everything to renewable energy resources. (electric cars + electricity production + using heat pumps)
By comparison the US is brand new and has abundant land. Add to that the fact that many houses in the US are timber-framed things that are easy to change and extend, and you have a recipe for big homes.
Where they are legal (very small percentage of land area), America's tight housing markets see smaller townhomes and apartments sprout like weeds.
British cities like London would have plenty more space if they built up, even slightly. Comparable European cities have 4-8 story apartment buildings in the inner city; London quickly becomes single houses.
> There wasn't much land to start with, and changing the use of land that's had buildings on it for 1000 years is incredibly hard.
Most of London is much, much younger than that. London expanded in the late 19th century, as railways and metro lines were built.
Heat pumps are probably the most efficient way we have to both cool AND heat a house. This is especially true when combined with solar panels and smart thermostats.
The general level of craftsmanship is lackluster, agreed.
> Americans are the least-informed people history has ever known
Both this and your prior statement are reflections regarding the diversity of the United States: we have a lot of good stuff and a lot of bad stuff. You can find either in abundance and pretend it's the only option, or you can look at it and see a nuanced perspective.
I’ve lived in Japan and their housing is far superior. It is newer in general, well-built, quiet, warm, efficient, comfortable, functional, and cheap. American housing stock is none of those things, at twice the price.
Don't houses in Japan only last 20-30 years? Isn't the only reason they're newer in general that they have to be rebuilt so often? Houses in America last way longer than twice that, so only paying twice as much seems like a bargain in comparison.
And to address your other anti-American points…the world’s rich come here for health care, and it’s the best in the world for cutting edge care. Our highway system is one of the best in the world and we don’t care about high speed rail because of that. Your heavy biases can’t really cover up the facts.
That is coming very close to personal attack, which is against the site guidelines.
Frankly California's more gilded counties like Sonoma have a perverse incentive to reduce gas stations: it reduces congregation and attendance by the homeless. This feels like the "cashless" argument playing out all over again. Sure, its perhaps easier and more efficient for the business to simply refuse to accept cash but at the end of the day its a poor people ban.
You just say those words, get an emotional reaction.
Superchargers have nothing to do with financial transactions. You can't buy a soda or lotto ticket and claim to belong there.
I believe in 10 years they will be building gas stations with the chargers in the front, store in the middle, pumps in the back.
EV drivers have even more need for someplace to hang out/browse for 10-20 minutes or so. Not everyone wants to sit in their car while charging.
Gas stations in general are very polluting, for both the ground and noxious fumes. Because of this, in CA they are already banned 300 ft (~90m) from any sensitive uses like schools or playgrounds, and even then there is evidence that this perimeter is not enough.
You don't actually need to fill up with gas in order to stop and eat. This doesn't seem as bad as you seem to think. It's just change.
I could MAYBE understand the argument that the pumps help subsidize the cost of the convenience store and you'd see X% of locations close with no replacement taking over the location, but the whole point is that we have to make a choice between jobs + status quo or change + less climate impact.
TL;dr- I'm pretty sure we have enough gas stations at this point to meet demand.
You're going to spend $1M+ on all the buildings, pumps, tanks, etc. And the population of gas cars in the road is slowly decreasing today, and expected to rapidly decrease in the future. Will you really get a good return in your investment when profits on selling gas are very slim, and the risks of EPA regulations giving you huge fines for gas leaks and soil decontamination costs are so large.
Besides, most money for a "gas station" is made from the convenience store. Like you said, gas profits are slim. They make some money, but their primary purpose is to drive customers to the convenience store. When the tides do change, they'll probably just gradually swap out pumps for chargers and continue business as usual.
I'd understand it in a town with regular queues at gas stations. But there aren't many of those left today.
There may also be other factors at play with the convenience store. Is there a store like that within walking distance? That's another market opportunity. In my home state there is a gas station chain who is very popular for their pizza. They actually opened another station in my home town specifically to keep up with demand for the pizza.
Banning gas stations is just the California equivalent of a suburb in North Carolina banning a litany of alcohol related businesses.
I'm just saying that the trend has to already exist for a municipality to change something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXLfHJ6fIJo
And, since every trend must begin with a single data point, maybe it is a new trend. We just won't know anything about the direction until we accumulate more data points.
What is the correlation between pandemic related gas shortages and a need for more fuel pumps (vs. more of the fuel to be delivered to the pumps because of pandemic related supply chain issues)?
Also, where are these constant waiting lines currently happening? I'm personally in NJ, an extremely densely populated state, and haven't seen anything other than the normal rush hour "4 pumps, 6 cars" type of lines. The larger filling stations (6+ pumps) almost never have more cars than pumps at any time I've driven past.
Even for the few people looking to buy a new vehicle there are few "affordable" EVs on the market, the ones which are available are relatively expensive, and plenty of other reasons to consider gas-powered alternatives. Charging is still relatively slow and charge stations are relatively hard to come by compared to gas. The batteries are also still incredibly expensive to repair or replace - in some cases seemingly by design.
I really don't understand this. If you want to stop automotive gas consumption, you need to stop people from buying gas-powered vehicles, not stop them from building gas stations.
While for now they are a necessary part of the transportation system, gas stations have very obvious downsides at least from a local perspective.
That's another result of fuel consumption, not the construction of new gas stations. The toxic fumes aren't reduced because a driver goes an extra couple minutes out of their way to use one of the existing stations.
The goal is to reduce automotive emissions. Gas stations don't incentivize automotive emissions - it's the other way around.
Local road emissions are linked to poor health conditions like asthma.
The ban would be great news to the existing gas stations as well would be interesting to know how busy they currently are.
No. Because it will be quite a few years before anyone even starts noticing any reduction in gas stations. I think it's more of a political posturing than an indication of an emerging trend.
I own several vehicles of various vintages and there is not a single one that I couldn't crank up and drive from an existing gasoline station in my home town to any other connected, accessible location on my continent. Indeed, I can actually drive the 4WD vehicles I own deep into the countryside where there are no gasoline stations and never have a single fuel supply related problem with proper planning and equipment.
The fuel tanks on my vehicles range in volume from 10.5 US gallons to 33 US gallons and fuel economy numbers range from 32 mpg down to 12 mpg. That means for any of my vehicles I have a range of more than 300 miles (10.5 * 32 = 336 miles and 33 * 12 = 396 miles).
I will encounter lots of existing gasoline stations along any route I choose.
I think the idea behind building new stations has to revolve around making it more convenient for people moving to new subdivisions to fuel their vehicles locally. If you don't build out gasoline station infrastructure near new construction then those who choose to live there are required to monitor their fuel consumption closely enough that they always know when they should gas up on the way home. They should be doing this anyway IMHO.
I don't think we need new gasoline stations in summary because I think all places are already accessible with our current infrastructure.
And I would like to expand on or clarify a statement in the article that is very important and was not stated well.
From the article about halfway down:
>>But it’s not all good news. The long-term shift to electric and a mass closures of gas stations will create toxic “brown sites” across the country. A typical gas station can spill up to 100 gallons of gasoline annually, ... ...these poisoned plots will present an environmental problem of monumental proportions.
This paragraph makes it seem as if the existence of a gas station is environmentally fine until that station is closed or decommissioned at which point it becomes a brown site requiring remediation. That is not true at all. Once you fill the tanks and begin serving gasoline to customers there will always be some spillage at the pumps. The gasoline station becomes a brown site when it begins operation but you are typically only able to begin remediation when the station is shut down and no longer serves gasoline or when there is a documented leak from the underground tanks that makes it critical to shut down the station for repairs. Therefore, all existing gasoline stations are already toxic environmental sites and the problem is indeed monumental today.
I see no reason to add to the problem by building new gasoline stations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
The argument should have been that it takes time to transition off petrol cars and poor people need more time to transition so hasty decisions like banning gas stations should only be done in conjunction with policy that speeds up the transition.
However they typically live where they can get by without a car, as even a cheap car requires unexpected $700 repairs and can not be relied upon.
A lot of the car-dependent design of most of the US is to try to keep people like that out of neighborhoods.
Many don't even have a driver's license they get a "voluntary ID" card, government issued. At best they'd get a pre-paid credit card or maybe a debit card. But most often it's cash only. All those payday loan stores exist for a reason!
As for expense, the total cost of ownership for electric vehicles is often less than equivalent gas vehicles, even if the purchase price is slightly higher.
When a car is paid for by a loan, this lower total cost of ownership is directly realized in the monthly payment. If a person is paying up front with cash on a car, they are making their own value judgement about the time value of money, and can choose to finance whatever portion the prefer in order to realize this lower TCO.
No. The tide is not turning. The vast majority of charging stations are inside the city. And the vast majority of places in those stations a slow, 3kW ones, with a sprinkle of 11kW in between. There are maybe ten 50kW ones in the entire Stockholm area.
If the only thing you do is commuting, and you have a place to charge your car overnight at/near your home, then you can drive an electric car. For anything else? Good luck.
I agree we need to improve charging station availability. With a few exceptions, EVs are generally not well-suited to long-distance travel.
How is it a red herring? It's a real need that has to be addressed to make EVs viable.
On Saturday we drove to a popular destination just 70 kilometres away from Stockholm (that is, 140 kilometres both ways). That popular destination has a total of 6 charging places with may be three of them with 22kW chargers, and the rest of them 7kW and 3kW.
To ensure we wouldn't get stuck, on Saturday morning I drove into the city to one of the 50kW chargers hoping they wouldn't be occupied, and spent an hour waiting at a cafe while the car was charging.
On Sunday we went for a longer trip. An unimaginable 135 km from Stockholm. I hoped to once again charge the car in the morning, but the 50kW charging spot was taken, so I had to contend with a 43kW one. It didn't charge as fast. We only had 260 km worth of charge in the car, and had to make a 1-hour-long stop at a McDonalds on the highway that had a total of 4 quick chargers that were miraculously unoccupied.
> For those people, EVs provide a better overall experience.
Somehow you assume that's the only experience "those people" are ever going to have.
> just charging at home is a viable option.
Ah yes. "Just". It's simple. Just charge at home. You only have to provide charging infrastructure at home. And provide that infrastructure for all homes (because the end goal is to make all cars electric, isn't it?).
Right now I live in an apartment complex with 154 apartments. It's one of the Stockholm's suburbs that is basically a village with a commuter train passing through it. Surely, you can get to the city, and public transportation is still excellent, but you do end up driving significantly more than you would in a city (if for the sole reason that all distances are increased compared to the city).
So, you need to provide electric outlets to all ~154 parking places near the complex. And to ~200 outlets to the neighboring complex. And to the next one. And to the next one... Who is going to pay for that, I wonder? Though I know. The "revolution" will happen at the expense of people who are told they will benefit from it.
For me, an EV needs about 8 miles of range for commuting, and about 1000 for vacation, and it's just silly to own 992 extra miles of battery the other 355 days a year.
Which is to say, I think we're rushing prematurely into completely ending gasoline vehicles. They should be phased out, but "phased" is the operative word -- let some linger in applications where they're still better suited. I currently drive a hybrid and I plan to replace it with a PHEV, not a BEV, for that reason.
No-one is going to confiscate all gasoline vehicles, but they need to pay for the externalities in air pollution, CO2 emissions and noise pollution, etc.
If the US paid $6+ a gallon like most of Europe does, I think the tide would change pretty soon.
The average EV costs $19k more than the average gas-powered car. This gap is closing but for the time being only upper-middle to upper class Americans can switch to EVs, so making gas artificially scarce/expensive will disproportionately affect those who can't afford to make the switch.