William Maley

Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

October 28, 2013

California and seven other states have signed a new pact that hopes to increase the number of zero emission vehicles on their roads to 3.3 million by the year 2025.

Joining California in this pact are Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Vermont. The seven states have already adopted a rule like California where by 2025, 15 percent of vehicles sold must produce zero emissions. To help get to this goal, the eight states have four steps to spur sales of zero emission vehicles

• Amend building codes so it becomes easier to build charging stations
  
• Buy more zero emission vehicles for Government fleets
  
• Further cash incentives and introduce discounted electricity rates for home-chargers
  
• Introduced shared standards for charging stations and common signage
  

"From coast to coast, we're charging ahead to get millions of the world's cleanest vehicles on our roads," said California Governor Edmund Brown in a statement.

Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

View full article

What a joke, just another way to waste tax payers dollars and put more luxury golf carts on the road that cannot travel any real distance. What a way for the governments to control population movement.

Makes one question their real understanding of how these auto's are produced. No one has yet to address the toxic settlement ponds from the battery production.

260 miles isn't "any real distance"? Why do we keep having this conversation over and over? The Tesla Model-S has a longer range than my (currently out of service) Honda CR-V. As EV technology continues to improve, range will either increase or cost for that range will decrease, or a combination of both.

Your Tin-Foil-Hat brigade comment that this is a way for the government to control the movement of the population is beyond dumb, and quite frankly, beneath you. The government is doing THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said by encouraging MORE CHOICE in the mode of transit.

Tesla is not within reach of most people Drew.

Looking at the current Affordable EV's, Nissan Leaf, Spark EV, etc. People cannot go on a real road trip in these auto's.

These are the auto's that local cities and counties are buying and wanting the public to buy and no one seems to be a voice of reason that while they are good products, they do not meet the needs of the mass market.

The GOV is pushing a single version of what the rich have onto everyone and not really supporting equally other options such as BioDiesel or CNG where you have vehicles that can be driven long distances between fill-ups.

I see so much push on Electric and a clear ignoring of alternative power options. I continue to see a wealthy electric only crowd pushing to make everyone go electric and yet while this is an additional option of choice, it ignores what I see as better options that should be equally supported.

Tesla while an outstanding car in today's society, is an exception and not the norm.

Even their own polls seem to show a older, wealthy group of people buying or leasing these cars.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/7238-Model-S-Buyers-What-s-Your-Income

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/17717-Model-S-Owner-Age

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/6998-Model-S-Reservation-Holder-Demographics-Age

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/8920-What-was-your-age-annual-income-and-what-battery-pack-are-you-getting

This in comparison to the average middle income household making 45-55K a year will be looking at auto's in the 30K range.

This in comparison to the average middle income household making 45-55K a year will be looking at auto's in the 30K range.

I can't imagine someone in that low of an income bracket is looking at a car that costs more than $16k or so, let alone $30k.

Edited October 28, 201312 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

This in comparison to the average middle income household making 45-55K a year will be looking at auto's in the 30K range.

I can't imagine someone in that low of an income bracket is looking at a car that costs more than $16k or so, let alone $30k.

Yet they do just like people making 75-85K a year look at the tesla. Does not mean they really can afford it, but they will look and some will buy.

This in comparison to the average middle income household making 45-55K a year will be looking at auto's in the 30K range.

I can't imagine someone in that low of an income bracket is looking at a car that costs more than $16k or so, let alone $30k.

Yet they do just like people making 75-85K a year look at the tesla. Does not mean they really can afford it, but they will look and some will buy.

Tesla seems more like a car for people making $200k or more.... I know when I was making $85k a year $30k car seemed to me a bit high...(but was fine when I got past $100k/yr).

Tesla while an outstanding car in today's society, is an exception and not the norm.

Even their own polls seem to show a older, wealthy group of people buying or leasing these cars.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/7238-Model-S-Buyers-What-s-Your-Income

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/17717-Model-S-Owner-Age

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/6998-Model-S-Reservation-Holder-Demographics-Age

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/8920-What-was-your-age-annual-income-and-what-battery-pack-are-you-getting

This in comparison to the average middle income household making 45-55K a year will be looking at auto's in the 30K range.

This may come as a shock to you, but the early adopters of the first Apple iPod and first Apple iPhone ($499 for the 10gb model in 2001 and $499 for the 4gb model in 2007 respectively) were relatively wealthy people. As the technology improved the price came down, and more people were able to afford it.

Today, the cheapest iPod that isn't a shuffle has a full color screen and 16gb of memory costing only $149 each.

Tesla is, at best, in the circa 2003 iPod time frame when they are still a curiosity that rich people buy, but that price WILL come down. The next generation models are already supposed to be cheaper than the current one.

In bringing this back to the focus of the 8 states pushing with incentives to have people buy EV auto's, My whole point it that they should not just focus on EV but include all alternative energy auto's and let the market sort it out as to who the winner should be.

I would take a CNG/Petrol 2014 Impala over a Nissan Leaf 2014 or Spark EV 2014 model.

Where is my incentive for going green?

You can fill up a CNG vehicle with CNG in even fewer locations than EVs at the moment.

You can fill up a CNG vehicle with CNG in even fewer locations than EVs at the moment.

CNG seems to be one of those technologies that's fallen off the table..it doesn't seem to have much buzz or push compared to electric.

So you want the market to sort it out? How? That's impossible. Natural gas and biodiesel infrastructure will need major government subsidies and inputs.

Electric infrastructure already exists in like, 95% of habited areas. It's wiser of the states to incentivize electric cars which will require fairly minimal taxpayer subsidization, as opposed to rigging up several new infrastructures and creating the necessary regulations just to please this notion of 'free markets.'

Also, there's no conspiracy to limit movement. There's no need to. Your 'FREEDUM LUVIN' government can track you at home and abroad, regardless of technology. Controlling movement is so 20th century.

What a joke, just another way to waste tax payers dollars and put more luxury golf carts on the road that cannot travel any real distance. What a way for the governments to control population movement.

You are seriously delusional.

T3H GOV'MENT TAKIN ARE FURRDUMS

Like the 40 billion in tax breaks and subsidies the oil companies been getting per year for 30 years, or the trillions we have spent in the Middle East to protect the financial interest of the Oil companies.. That not a waste of government tax payer money?

What a joke, just another way to waste tax payers dollars and put more luxury golf carts on the road that cannot travel any real distance. What a way for the governments to control population movement.

You are seriously delusional.

CNG is not delusional, the infastructure in place is wide spread and anyone with natural gas at their home or business can install a fueling appliance and gas at home or work. No need for expensive stations.

If CNG was delusional then why is the train industry converting over their diesel generators to CNG and the trucking industry is moving to CNG. On top of this is the marine industry is moving to have large ships go to LNG compared to Diesel. NG is a valid fuel option.

All I am asking for is if they want to give tax breaks to Electric, then also allow it for BioDiesel or CNG auto's also.

Funny thing about Natural Gas, it has a tendency to leak. Sometimes those leaks cause explosions. More homes have exploded than Teslas have caught fire. Just sayin'

What a joke, just another way to waste tax payers dollars and put more luxury golf carts on the road that cannot travel any real distance. What a way for the governments to control population movement.

You are seriously delusional.

CNG is not delusional, the infastructure in place is wide spread and anyone with natural gas at their home or business can install a fueling appliance and gas at home or work. No need for expensive stations.

If CNG was delusional then why is the train industry converting over their diesel generators to CNG and the trucking industry is moving to CNG. On top of this is the marine industry is moving to have large ships go to LNG compared to Diesel. NG is a valid fuel option.

All I am asking for is if they want to give tax breaks to Electric, then also allow it for BioDiesel or CNG auto's also.

I didn't say CNG was delusional...it was about your 2nd sentence..that is paranoid delusional conspiracy theorist BS.

Edited October 28, 201312 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

This thread is simply fantastic. The wide-eyed dreamers who believe there will be 3.3 million EVs on the road by 2025 are the delusional ones. And so far... the public sides with my view more than the sad, nerdy dreamers. So have your fun, dreamers, it won't change REALITY.

October 18th, 2013.  Tesla Model S.

 

 

Local media reports that the EV was speeding and crashed early in the morning, and "hit a raised pedestrian crossing and briefly took flight before crashing into a wall and tree," according to Yahoo.

http://www.13wham.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/man-car-flames-hopewell-accident-6931.shtml

Oh look, a conventional car hit a tree and caught fire. THEY ARE ALL UNSAFE AND MUST BE BANNED FROM THE ROADS.

October 18th, 2013. Tesla Model S.

In a crash like that it probably would have blown up even if it was a Beetle...

Edited October 29, 201312 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

Diesel fuel is not nearly as explosively combustible as gasoline, but yeah, it could happen. It wouldn't please me as much as this story out of Mexico does, though.

So here are the arguments for and against electrification:

For = Overhauling energy consumption needs in order to make North America's vehicle fleet totally sustainable through the use of alternative energy sources, and reducing oil consumption as it's a resource that needs to be conserved so it may be used in industrial processes, as well as helping reduce smog and particulate emissions. Also:

So you want the market to sort it out? How? That's impossible. Natural gas and biodiesel infrastructure will need major government subsidies and inputs.

Electric infrastructure already exists in like, 95% of habited areas. It's wiser of the states to incentivize electric cars which will require fairly minimal taxpayer subsidization, as opposed to rigging up several new infrastructures and creating the necessary regulations just to please this notion of 'free markets.'

VS.

Against:

HERPA DERPA DERPA DERP!

Pardon? What does that mean in ENGRISH?

And, shall we review? Sales numbers do not lie, silly.

Edited October 29, 201312 yr by ocnblu

http://www.teslamotors.com/fr_CH/forum/forums/tesla-model-s-dead-after-first-day

http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/2013-tesla-model-s-tire-wear-post-mortem.html

http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/2013-tesla-model-s-door-opens-automatically.html

This thread has nothing to do with sales figures.

It's about someone wishing the government spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to create infrastructure for alternative fuel sources, instead of using resources that already exist and are widely, cheaply implemented.

So you're okay with that?

Or, you believe burning a limited resource that is needed for a plethora of industrial processes and consumer goods, while polluting the atmosphere and increasing public healthcare expenses, is the best way forward.

You're endorsing one or both.

Edited October 29, 201312 yr by FAPTurbo

http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/2013-tesla-model-s-ominous-noise.html

http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/2013-tesla-model-s-monitoring-the-rear-wheel-alignment.html

Jeez, I'm glad I googled. Tesla Model S seems to be a high-priced, golf cart, POS. How stupid.

Soooo... with an infrastructure that supposedly already exists (?) why aren't people buying them? I mean, if they are NO DIFFERENT from a real car... then what's the problem?

Will be interesting to see the year end sales figures, but this is from back in the Spring..

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/autos/tesla-sales-bmw-mercedes-audi/

Soooo... with an infrastructure that supposedly already exists (?) why aren't people buying them? I mean, if they are NO DIFFERENT from a real car... then what's the problem?

Electricity is widespread, cheap and easy to implement nearly anywhere in North America.

So again, you've dodged the question:

This thread has nothing to do with sales figures.

It's about someone wishing the government spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to create infrastructure for alternative fuel sources, instead of using resources that already exist and are widely, cheaply implemented.

So you're okay with that?

Or, you believe burning a limited resource that is needed for a plethora of industrial processes and consumer goods, while polluting the atmosphere and increasing public healthcare expenses, is the best way forward.

These are people who have so much money they can afford to buy such an expensive toy without worrying about all the negative consequences, not middle class people who are the bedrock of this great nation, who need something real.

EV's for the middle class people are coming.

It has everything to do with sales figures. These wackos are trying to create demand for a limited-use product that nobody wants to spend their hard-earned money on. By making people pay for incentives... people WHO DO NOT WANT THE PRODUCT.

It has everything to do with sales figures. These wackos are trying to create demand for a limited-use product that nobody wants to spend their hard-earned money on. By making people pay for incentives... people WHO DO NOT WANT THE PRODUCT.

And yet you're posting that comment using technology which was heavily subsidized and incentivized by government in its early days and even today. People used your exact arguments to say personal computers were unnecessary.

If you intend to be on the side of the taxpayer, then why are you inadvertently supporting natural gas and biodiesel, which have infrastructures that pale in comparison to the electrical grid, and will need billions upon billions of dollars to even compete?

"Yes, this the wacko contingent. We need more coal to fuel our electric plants so we can charge up our electric cars that are just so wonderful for the environment!"

Coal fired plants are at an end. Any new ones currently being built are likely to be the last ones. In fossil fuel generation, natural gas is where it's at for efficiency, broadness of scale, cheapness of fuel and cheapness of construction, cleanliness, and demand responsiveness.

The coal argument is invalid.

agree, Coal is coming to an end. Natural Gas is the big wave of electrical production, plus the new CNG auto's that are here now and coming.

i dont see coal going away, maybe no new plants but we'll still get a lot of electricity from it.

volt type cars need to become more common. GM should put a voltec style powertrain as an option in all their bread and butter cars in the next gen. malibu voltec for example.

a cruze volt with a 3 cyl 1.0 turbo and about 500 pounds less than the current volt at a cheaper price by thousands would start to mainstream this.

if the combustion engine were flex fuel too would be interesting.

I don't see CNG taking off. ANy alternative powertrain that becomes mainstream will have some component of electric propulsion. I dont believe we need the government to mandate this crap though. I'd rather the manufacturers build this stuff and convince the public through great product than the govt force feeding half baked ideas (which is what happens when it goes through govt)

Edited October 29, 201312 yr by regfootball

i dont see coal going away, maybe no new plants but we'll still get a lot of electricity from it.

Look again then....

The 150th Coal fired generation plant shut down since 2010 just shut down last month.

I don't see CNG taking off. ANy alternative powertrain that becomes mainstream will have some component of electric propulsion. I dont believe we need the government to mandate this crap though. I'd rather the manufacturers build this stuff and convince the public through great product than the govt force feeding half baked ideas (which is what happens when it goes through govt)

The government isn't mandating it. It is encouraging an environment for the EV car infrastructure to grow.

China is buying our cheap coal.

So according to the EPA and their goals, 2040 all coal plants are to be gone replaced by Natural Gas, Nuclear or alternative energy such as Solar, wind, etc.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm

May of this year Natural Gas Power Plants surpassed Coal as King on our way to cleaner energy.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/01/173258342/natural-gas-dethrones-king-coal-as-power-companies-look-to-future

Big question is what will this do for Natural Gas rates and will we end up with deregulation like oil that allowed speculation to run up prices?

While I think putting so many of our eggs in just the natural gas basket is asking for trouble (Just ask the UK), for the moment, natural gas prices are so cheap, we have too much. Companies are drilling wells and then capping them because they have no place to store the gas, so they might as well just store it where it is until it is time to bring that supply to market.

"Yes, this the wacko contingent. We need more coal to fuel our electric plants so we can charge up our electric cars that are just so wonderful for the environment!"

blah blah blah stupid blah blah blah who the f cares

http://www.cleancoalusa.org/about-us

Coal is the dominant source of our electricity

In 2012, coal was responsible for 37.4 percent of electricity generated in the U.S., and it is projected to remain the dominant source through the year 2040. It’s simple: Coal is one of our country’s mostabundant domestically produced energy resources – and America has more coal within its borders than any other country. In fact, there are more than 260 billion tons of coal reserves in the U.S., and at our current rate of consumption, that reserve could power our nation for 290 years.

Coal helps keep electricity prices affordable

Generally, states that use more coal to generate electricity have lower electricity rates. In 2012, twenty-nine states that used more than half of their electricity from coal paid an average of 8.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, while states that only generated nine percent of their electricity from coal paid 12.44 cents per kilowatt-hour. These low coal-using states paid twenty-six percent more than the national average price of electricity, while the coal-heavy states were eleven percent less than the national average.

blah blah blah stupid blah blah blah who the f cares

if the energy source is abundant and available, whether it is oil into gasoline, or coal into electricity it will get used in some way. the abundance of it should shape the market and lower cost for either, until you throw non market forces into the picture.

So according to the EPA and their goals, 2040 all coal plants are to be gone replaced by Natural Gas, Nuclear or alternative energy such as Solar, wind, etc.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm

May of this year Natural Gas Power Plants surpassed Coal as King on our way to cleaner energy.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/01/173258342/natural-gas-dethrones-king-coal-as-power-companies-look-to-future

Big question is what will this do for Natural Gas rates and will we end up with deregulation like oil that allowed speculation to run up prices?

screw the EPA, did they ask the states?