U.S. proposes 56% vehicle emissions cut by 2032, requiring big EV jump

[1] Which are heavy, because they can't source 2/3 of their reaction mass from the atmosphere and have to keep all the reactants in the battery at all time.

Car manufacturers are happy to build the majority of their consumer-facing vehicles as "light trucks" so they can ignore environmental standards, and those of us that want smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient vehicle need to compromise on safety.

SUVs need to be heavily penalized, and need to have far stricter licensing requirements. This will bring down emissions much more than some blanket move to EVs, and be beneficial for safety as well.

On the surface, weight penalties seem to be an effective way to accomplish this; I am curious if there are any examples or case studies about this that you can cite, 'bryanmgreen.

----------------------------------------

[1] https://jalopnik.com/every-car-looks-like-this-thanks-to-a-g...

Please don't. we don't need more idiots telling us how to live our lives and micro managing us on how you feel we should live.

Of course it all comes down to consumer demand and regulations. I suspect Regulations have gone a long way towards making cars heavier and bigger and less efficient.

A related--albeit more "out-there"--idea is to impose momentum limits in addition to speed limits based on vehicle weight classes. We have a crude version of this on highways, where speed limits for trucks are often lower than the limits for cars (e.g., 70mph for cars, 65mph for trucks).

But I really like the idea of setting different speed limits for different weight classes of vehicles. Driving a Toyota Corolla? Let's call it a Class A vehicle (2,000-2,999 lbs), with a highway speed limit of 70mph. Driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee? That would be Class C (4,000-4,999 lbs), with a speed limit of 50mph.

This would make roads a lot safer, and add an additional, non-monetary, tax on heavier vehicles.

Another big benefit of imposing weight limits on consumer vehicles is that the United States would have a fighting chance of becoming energy independent, even before accounting for the shift to renewables. So we can add improved national security to the list of reasons to pursue this common-sense policy.

Encouraging tiny cars for the masses may also encourage a Japan-style demographic time-bomb.

This then makes it feasible to build public transit between these areas and start building things up along those transit lines.

Note that your source is very outdated. Paris just opted to ban electric rental scooters effective September.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/parisians-vote-ban-e-sc...

They're just not as popular as SUVs and trucks in the USA. People want big cars, so companies manufacture big cars too.

Electric scooters would work for 5 months of the year where I live (and we have and use them when we can).

I am an automotive EE that was on before 2008… there is no much irony in your post that hurt feelings by Californians be damned I’m going to explain it to you.

Thank Obama for large cars.

When he came in and you saw the “all cars will have xx MPG by 2025” or whatever year seemed like a lifetime away, the car mfgs said ”ok, but unless you reinvent the stoichiometric ratios of gasoline, this can’t be done”.

And they were right. There are some truths to ICE vehicles that until we have drastically different tires, and roads, and aluminum or composites are way cheaper (the latter not recyclable at all btw), some of these climate change proposals and dreams are just PR bullshit for the people that want to see it.

Now… what happened next was the car manufacturers explained, they came to a compromise. Between CARB and CAFE and NITSA and etc, the administration agreed that they would judge on footprint of vehicle.

Actual quote from one of these closed doors discussions: ”If you are going to grade us on footprint, we’re going to give you footprint”.

A single car going down the road today in CAFE eyes, is not one car. It might be 1.3 cars, because its footprint is 1.3x a 2008 comparable vehicle.

It’s not just footprint though! It’s drivetrain, weight, exemptions, regulation workarounds, class.

Chrysler, erm Fiat, erm Stellanis sell Jeep Wranglers 2dr electrics, so they can sell more diesel trucks. Among 20 other examples.

I don’t know the future with what is about to happen here. But I FUCKING PROMISE YOU this isn’t what it seems and the Biden Admin knows it already. If I had to guess, I would expect the mfgs to push a lot of basically disposable EVs that will last 50k miles and have batteries destined for landfills to make up for the vehicles they want to sell.

Recycling lithium is not currently cheaper than mining new, and I do not expect that to change soon. If you ask me, I would rather a steel car that lasts 300k be made over vehicles that won’t make it to 100k and are just trashed. But… I don’t get a say.

EDIT: As a nearly non-sequitur anecdote, I did cause a guy recently to have an ideological breakdown. He is a city planner complaining that a 9’x20’ parking space is killing him, and cars are only getting larger. I explained in detail the history and he had a lot of trouble coming to terms with it. He thought “his side” could do bo wrong.

If that's the case, it's not that crazy or unusual. While you used to be able to pay to upgrade your service panel, if everyone on the same block or segment of the grid all wants the higher service panel then it will require upgrades to the existing electrical lines and sub stations.

It makes a lot of sense to limit installing larger service panels to customers who will actual use it rather than haphazardly over provision the grid. But you can still easily charge an EV at 50A on a standard 150A or even 100A panel.

How can they do that? Could you just say you want to install an electric dryer in your garage (or even buy a used one off of CraigsList and literally do it for a week)?

Like even if I liked the policy changes he's proposing I would be wary of him being the one to make them since he seems to give zero fucks about the democratic process or procedure if it gets in his way. Once you break the glass and people don't accept democratic results or don't believe it matters I don't see us repairing it.

> EV adoption will eventually plateau until we solve overnight charging for cars parked on city streets

In the US there are 140 million homes and 3 million EVs. Not to diminish your needs, but there's a lot of low-hanging fruit there.

Exactly, what we really need to do is have a restrictive permitting system for cars like some cities have for guns. If you can't show good cause for needing a car, you shouldn't be able to get permit to buy one. Just use public transit or bike.