Wyoming senators want to phase out sales of EVs
teslarati.com
teslarati.com
This is a law proposed by a small group of state legislators. Of course, all laws start as bills like this. But most bills never become law.
A more responsible and less sensationalistic story would talk about the level of support for such a bill, its chances of becoming actual law, its constitutionality, and so on.
This is newsworthy, but not when reported like this.
Or the members that submit them
I err on the side of "just report what the publication says" and let others (appropriately) criticize bad headline-writing.
The issue here is that you linked to a low quality source. As I said, this is newsworthy IMO. But surely there was a better quality source you might have chosen.
If the community is interested in the topic, typically the comments point to more germane information, backstory, and other data that supports/refutes what an article says. That's a healthy behavior, and it's why online communities remain popular.
Submission quality is in the eye of the beholder.
A number of people have attempted to give you kind and constructive feedback. You appear immune to it.
I'll give your opinion the respect it deserves.
It seems Wyoming requires just a simple majority.
https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/SJ0004
The flagging of the article is not justified. There is more here than just a politician conversation or controversial interview.
Humankind's ability to reach new heights of stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
This is kind of like finding someone who supports non-violence, physically choking him, and then sneering at him for going against his principles when he tries to fight back.
Maybe try listening to and understanding people instead of sneering at them.
Accusing the oil industry for destroying the world while cheering for EVs reminds me of that meme with two Spider-Man characters pointing at each other.
The concept of banning one tech or another in this way is backwards thinking and stems from ignorance of the power and beauty of market economics.
People (in the aggregate) will buy the products that work best for them at the price they can afford.
Now it’s true those products often have externalities, sometimes even directly harmful to the people that are buying them! (e.g. fast food)
Except in the gravest product safety sense, these products should be left to compete with each other in the great world marketplace.
The aim of government should be to subsidize the innovations that make products with the best externalities safer, cleaner, faster, better, cheaper, etc. to the point where they can stand alone and win in the open market.
In the case of EVs, what we need is not bans on ICE vehicles in some ever closer looming date. What we’ll need is massive infrastructure improvements to support the intrinsic demand for the truly better/cheaper/faster/safer product.
The initial round of subsidies have more than achieved the boost up the learning curve to make these products ultra competitive.
We are rapidly approaching the point where the only reason someone wouldn’t by an EV is because either it’s truly inappropriate for their use case (see: plows in NYC) or they simply don’t have a convenient way to charge it.
This is a one-sided view of markets. One can both recognize the power of the market which can be a force for both great good and extreme evil. You may be right that banning extant technology is not the best approach to dealing with the failings of government and the market (which cannot ever be cleanly separated) but that doesn't mean that it is backward thinking to consider that perhaps we might be better off if we eliminated or transitioned to a different technology.
California has the infrastructure and population all squeezed into valleys/coastlines combined with very temperate climate making it perfect for EVs. Wyoming has it's population spread out equally everywhere and has little EV infrastructure and terribly cold climate.
But neither of these states should be trying to pass these silly laws just to highlight their respective situations.
Doesn't mean it illegal to own old ICE vehicles so, just that there won't any new ones being sold anymore.
Several US automakers may not make it, though. They are long past their sell by date anyways, and will probably go out of business after abandoning ICE production.
Some jurisdictions might walk their bans back, but you only require a critical mass of the total addressable market to stick to it for it to remain effective. “As California goes, so goes the nation.” and all the jazz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...
But lets have another pledge, it will all be phased out in 2040!
Also, the part about California leading the nation has stopped being true a long time ago. California is an object lesson in government dysfunction, wacky ideas, a crazy, utopian electorate that is disconnected from reality and a shrinking population as people flee to more sane jurisdictions where things actually work. It is by far the most hated state in the nation, and is generally used as a slur.
Edit: I have never lived in California.
Yes, California is still big. But it's no longer a leader. The idea "but California did this" is no longer an argument in favor of something. It's often an argument against doing something.
I am sorry if this triggers you, but it's reality.
For example, https://www.cagrocers.com/california-repeats-worst-run-state...
It has a broad reputation for dysfunction in basically every area. Energy -- it imports 20% of its electricity from the rest of the nation's grid to get around wacky anti-carbon rules for domestically produced energy, and as a result has the highest energy costs in the nation as well as suffering from rolling blackouts. It is the state of constant fires because of forest mismanagement due to a politically influential "don't chop down our precious trees" faction. (California's chronic fires are also blamed on global warming). It has one of the worst education systems and a truly insane educational policy ("we will create 5 million Galois' by eliminating math classes!"). Terrible homeless problem. Terrible crime problem. A shrinking population. Massively dysfunctional housing market. And one of the highest tax burdens. Massive infrastructure problems.
Etc.
It's really hard to think of any area of public policy - from tax policy to education to energy or crime -- and say "Hey, what California is doing is working really well, we should emulate that". Just compare how California stood in areas like test scores, crime, housing affordability, energy prices in 1970 versus 1990 versus today. You see a peak and then a decline followed by collapse.
It’s especially ridiculous since that’s literally just one organization’s opinion on California.
And their opinion is solely based on 4 key indicators and nothing else. I’m not a data scientist but even I know that you can pretty easily find 4 key metrics which allow you to rank states in any way you choose.
If you were to actually look up the organization, you would see it’s just a random blog (not that it is at all surprising considering their name), and that their 2021 rankings had California solidly in the middle of the pack, not that it makes a difference considering how limited their methodology is.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/05/19/the-states-w...
Finally, just because you can’t think of any areas does not mean any don’t exist. You’ve made your opinions clear already.
FYI, California students have among the lowest reading comprehension scores (and math scores) in the nation.
Your opinions are, once again, just that. They’re not facts, regardless how convincing you try sounding. I’m not going to respond to them because I made my thoughts on them clear already. You’re entitled to them, but they’re not anything except that.
> You wouldn't happen to be from California, by any chance? I can see the ninja-like reading comprehension and reasoning skills are strong here.
I’m not, but nice ad hominem you tried there. Not that my words would be worth more or less based on where I live, but that clearly matters a lot to you.
I think that's backwards. Instead, for it's still to be practical to buy new ICE cars in states where they are legal you just need those states to cover enough population that it's worth it for some manufacturer to keep producing the cars. I would expect that to happen even if we were only talking about 5% of the population living in those states if those states continue to have strong demand for ICE vehicles (and so the remaining manufacturer could sell a lot of whatever they kept producing).
Building power plants and electric infrastructure takes decades. And if electricity is less reliable and more expensive than gasoline (which is what will inevitably happen in any market where demand is greater than supply), then there’s no economic incentive for anyone to buy EVs.
Wyoming has no excuse. It’s willful ignorance attempting to protect a dying industry. They’re attempting the same with their coal industry, so it’s not unexpected, just disappointing.
https://trib.com/business/energy/demand-for-wyoming-coal-is-...
California
Wyoming will start to look like Cuba: people will drive antiques, and local machinists will crop up to reproduce out-of-stock parts. They've got oil, so presumably they could even maintain their own gasoline supply through corporate welfare. As the second least-populous (people per square mile) state in the union, I think they could even pull it off.
Richer Wyomingians will be able to buy electric cars out of state, but if it gets that far, I suspect such a choice would bear substantial physical risk even driving around in one (which is already a nuisance in some places).
Most EVs in the state are visitors and the highways are going to be electrified anyway. This is going to do nothing to save the oil and gas industry.
"The median ratio across the US is 14.2 EVs to ports, with Wyoming having the best (lowest) ratio at 4.2 to 1 and New Jersey had the worst (highest) at 41.7 to 1."
https://evadoption.com/ev-charging-stations-statistics/charg...
Would be nice to factor in population, too.
Walking through any working-class neighbourhood shows it, even in relatively modern cities like Puerto Vallarta, let alone looking at any of the small towns scattered across the nation. As’ anyone living in a small town along the popular Costa Alegre: brown-outs and black-outs are common. There is no capacity whatsoever to start hooking up charging stations for the population.
Assume the car drives 12500 miles a year. Likely less in Puerto Vallarta unless it's used as a cab. But whatever.
Typical EV's get 3.5 to 4 miles per kwh. Call it 3.75 miles/kwh.
So need 12500/3.75 => 3333 kwh/year.
One Watt of solar produces about 2kwh/year.
So need 3333 kwh / 2kwh/Watt => 1666 Watts
Assume Mexico cost for an array is $2/Watt.
Cost is 1666 Watts X $2/Watt => $3333
That's about a 1/10 to 1/20th the cost of a new EV.
No idea what counterpoint you’re trying to make. Whatever it is, it certainly isn’t applicable to the lives of people living in poor third-world communities.
Electric cars are fundamentally better because developing country could just use some of the excise tax they charge on cars to buy solar panels. And the power from solar isn't subject to price shocks and interruptions like oil and gas are.
Unless that is solved EV;s will never break 20-30% of sales
That is the problem right there, I do not believe they can do that that definitively, and there are more than a few horror stories already where a person buys a Used EV, the battery tested fine on purchase, but then just a few months later a cell goes out... and since you can not just replace a single cell well now they have a $20,000 bill often more than the car is worth
>>Used cars are already ticking time bombs because of the engine, transmissions, etc
this is a known risk already assimilated into the market, with network of repair options and 3rd party parts dealers to lower the cost of repairs
EV manufacturers are trying (often successfully) at blocking these 3rd party repair options and making the cost to repair an EV $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I disagree that the batteries are not serviceable. My car has had a module replacement which served to restore battery and vehicle capacity after a single module (mostly) failed. That was done at a dealer under warranty, but there are many aftermarket suppliers capable of doing the same (and I’d have DIY’d it in my driveway if it wasn’t covered under warranty).
Tesla Famously have blocked their supercharger network from rebuilds as well
It is not a technical limitation it is an economic and political one.
>That was done at a dealer under warranty
And most likely with out that warranty your car would have been economically totaled. Which is normally any repair that costs 55-60% of the current market value.
If it happened again now (outside the warranty period), it would cost me ~6-8 hours and around $70 for the module.
If you are referring to the conservative-popular meme that I think you are, that wasn’t even for an BEV, but an old PHEV whose (fairly small) battery was out of production.
> EV manufacturers are trying (often successfully) at blocking these 3rd party repair options and making the cost to repair an EV $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Mechanics are expensive these days, even for ICEs. Yes, repairing an EV is expensive, but so is repairing a newer ICE.
I would love to hear criticisms against EVs that didn’t apply to cars in general.
I'd be happy to bet on that!
There's no state in the US where electric cars are a majority of what are sold today, with the highest fraction being CA at 18%. [1]. Naive extrapolation gives you 57% of CA in 2030 and 30% of US. [2] The combination of "some people are going to still prefer gas cars" and "those people are concentrated in some states" means I'd expect many ICE options available in 2035.
[1] https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/10/19/california-zev-sales-near-...
https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/ranks/Car-...
I say let them be an economic laboratory.
Literal nonsense. Surely countries efficiently engaging in commerce don’t need artificial controls on which products they can and can’t sell
Also I do not know how they can stop the creation of charging stations. IIRC, Biden wants to pepper Interstate highways with charging stations. So at the very least, there will still be stations in WY no matter what that bill says.
Another example, politician A makes a personal attack, politician B says personal attacks are wrong and then makes one themselves = hypocrisy. If they just reply with another personal attack without the moral objection = not hypocrisy.