Washington ban on all non electric vehicles by 2030

[Gordon Dewald]

Originally Posted by tetranz

The lifetime carbon footprint of an electric vehicle definitely seems smaller than a gasoline vehicle according to EPA studies.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/el...le-myths#Myth5

The difference is probably not as big as many people would hope but it is significant if those figures are typical.

I guess one big thing with electric is that as power generation on the grid becomes cleaner then even existing vehicles become "cleaner" in the big picture without any other changes.

I checked the link provided and found the text provided by the EPA. It would be better if they provided links to the studies that to support their myth busting information.

A quick search of the internet using "whole of greenhouse life costs of ICE vs EV" will bring up enough hits that show the varying benefit comparisons.

Finding a clean analysis is difficult as there does not seem to be any links to a comprehensive comparison of both. Most contain conditional statements concerning technology improvements.

If anyone finds a good link please post it.

"Just the facts ma'am, just the facts"

[WeRMarshall]

Originally Posted by astrnmrtom

As a long time Washingtoonian, I'm usually finding myself asking one question. Where is all the electricity coming for for the future all electric world? I read stories where people in my state fight wind farms, want to remove all the dams, won't even consider nuclear, and place signs in fields saying Save our farmland - NO SOLAR! etc. I read stories in the summer where many states struggle to keep the grids running, but hey, let's increase demand by going all electric.

So, full circle again. Where's that electricity coming from?

Perfectly said

[vincee]

There are many agencies and organizations providing statistics pros and cons when it comes to any discussion about energy. One agency I wouldn't believe or trust for truthfulness is the EPA. This just might be the most political wing of the Federal Government that is used by all parties to promote their narrative.

Since most scientific communities are an arm of the Federal Gov't, going back to the Manhatten Project, it is really hard to sift through studies and data to find the truths in a subject. Certainly what's reported on the evening news should not be taken as gospel.

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by vincee

One agency I wouldn't believe or trust for truthfulness is the EPA. This just might be the most political wing of the Federal Government that is used by all parties to promote their narrative.

If the EPA is used by everyone to prove their point, then it's not biased.

Originally Posted by vincee

Since most scientific communities are an arm of the Federal Gov't, going back to the Manhatten Project . . .

Mmmmm . . . for example?

How do you explain the National Academy of Sciences then? Founded in 1863 and there were no nukes used during the Civil War and the NAS takes no government money.

Originally Posted by vincee

. . . it is really hard to sift through studies and data to find the truths in a subject.

It is hard! But that's no excuse to dismiss all of it. Learn how to evaluate scientific research.

[CamJam1]

It will be a long time before big trucks and motorhomes are all electric, but hybrid motorhomes do make a lot of sense and I'm surprised we don't have them already. A quick boost from the batteries when accelerating or climbing hills would be great and regenerative braking on the descents would help save the brakes too.

I hear Tesla has quietly shelved plans for their electric semi, or perhaps it's just delayed?

Europe will be ahead of us on going all electric on cars. It's legislated to happen in most European countries within the next ten years, and I expect there will be a real push now that they've decided not to buy any more Russian oil.

[theroc]

Originally Posted by CamJam1

It will be a long time before big trucks and motorhomes are all electric, but hybrid motorhomes do make a lot of sense and I'm surprised we don't have them already. A quick boost from the batteries when accelerating or climbing hills would be great and regenerative braking on the descents would help save the brakes too.

I hear Tesla has quietly shelved plans for their electric semi, or perhaps it's just delayed?

Europe will be ahead of us on going all electric on cars. It's legislated to happen in most European countries within the next ten years, and I expect there will be a real push now that they've decided not to buy any more Russian oil.

In my opinion, the reason I think that hybrid motorhomes do not make a lot of sense is that at this time the real advantage of hybrid efficiency is in the type of driving that takes place in more urban settings where there is a lot of stop-and-go traffic, etc.

Hybrid efficiency decreases at highway speeds. Most, if not all, urban transit agencies now run hybrid diesel/electric buses. Allison has the H50 EP and BAE Systems has HybridDrive that are the most popular applications in transit buses running urban service. MPG is substantially better than a straight diesel set up and emissions are slightly better too.

We knew this when the Prius first came out. Their city MPG was quite a bit better than their highway MPG. Today's Prius has highway and city MPG figure that are pretty close to each other but I believe that their city MPG is still a hair better than their highway MPG.

It's why delivery services such as UPS and FedEx have been using hybrid trucks for some time now. But for OTR trucks, it doesn't make as much sense.

So for motorhomes, to put a hybrid system in a vehicle that doesn't put on very many miles and the miles that it does run are mostly on the highway, there is no real advantage to put in that system that would cost MUCH more but in turn, would not give that much of an advantage of either substantially better MPG or cleaner emissions.

[theroc]

And good grief, there's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation on this thread.

First, it bans the sale or registration of new "PASSENGER AND LIGHT-DUTY" vehicles in the state of Washington starting in 2030.

It does not state the you will not be allowed to enter WA state unless you have an EV ...jeez!!

Second, WA state is not the first state to have similar legislation. Both California and Massachusetts have similar mandates. However, those two states have the target date of 2035 where WA state is the first to shorten it to 2030 instead of 2035.

New MPG Standards: Will states ban non-electric RVs?

The article linked says that Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia also have some legislation on it too. It's just that WA state has the most strict to date and the earliest date for it to happen.

It's the future and no matter how we all cry and moan about having our fossil-fueled gas and diesel engined cars, SUVs, and pickups "taken away" (not really but that's what some of you seem to be implying) from us, it's going to happen ...sooner or later. I'm in WA state --born and raised-- and I don't necessarily like it. But I'm an old fart and probably will never buy a car in 2030 or later, if I'm even alive by the time 2030 rolls around. I'm a die-hard manual transmission person too and hate to see so little choice I have in buying a car now. I plan on purchasing a new manual transmission Jeep Wrangler as my last vehicle I'll ever purchase in the next year or two --so the EV controversy really doesn't concern me. My grandchildren are already looking forward to having EVs as they become adults --like I say, it's going to happen sooner or later.


Here is the initial bill itself when first introduced if anybody is interested ...I believe it has been slightly revised but at least will give you an idea of what's entailed:

Washington State House Bill 1204

[Spk64]

This thread is closed. Time to move on.


Thanks to those posting within the rules.

Site Staff