• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

California shakes up auto industry, says all vans and trucks must be electric by 2024

MULTIZ321

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
31,591
Reaction score
9,111
Points
1,048
Location
FT. LAUDERDALE, FL
Resorts Owned
BLUEWATER BY SPINNAKER HHI
ROYAL HOLIDAY CLUB RHC (POINTS)

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,660
Reaction score
17,499
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
Hmmmf. This remains to be seen. There are significant hurdles to overcome to make this come to pass. Not least of which, a lack of available hardware and the infrastructure to support it.
Tesla says they are 'developing' an electric semi, but the announcement was very short on details. Electrify America has some charging infrastructure (that's from the VW diesel debacle) and a couple of other commercial ventures are developing networks. Rivian (Lordstown Motors) says they will have the first electric pickup to market, and showed a prototype recently, but again details are sketchy. It will be eligible for the $7500 tax credit, which other makers (Ford, GM, Tesla) have already outsold. Toyota in conjunction with Paccar is developing a Kenworth Class 8 (full size highway) truck.
I expect a whole bunch of alternately fueled vehicles, but 2024 is pretty close on the horizon.
 

isisdave

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,772
Reaction score
1,292
Points
548
Location
Evansville IN
Resorts Owned
Marriott Waiohai
>>Under guidelines approved Thursday, at least 40 percent of the tractor trailers sold in California would have to be powered by some form of zero-emissions technology by 2024. Medium-duty trucks, such as the Ford F-250 or Chevrolet Silverado HD, would be required to switch over 55 percent of their sales by 2035; and 75 percent of delivery trucks and vans would have to use zero-emissions powertrain technology by 2035, a point by which fully 100 percent of government fleets and last-mile delivery trucks would have to meet the target. <<

So it's not "everything by 2024" but a substantial start, much more by 2035, and the full implementation by 2045. Plenty of time to build charging infrastructure. But they're gonna need some sort of very-fast-charge or battery swap for big rigs -- no way those things are getting taken out of service for half the day to charge. And what about trucks that have to go to other states? And can we guarantee sufficient electricity without using fossil fuels?
 

linsj

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
2,216
Reaction score
447
Points
443
Location
Indianapolis
Resorts Owned
HGVC
And what about people who live in condos and apartment buildings and have no place to plug in a car?
 

pedro47

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
22,270
Reaction score
8,689
Points
948
Location
East Coast
Look for a lawsuit by the auto industry against the state of California. IMO.
 

x3 skier

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,300
Reaction score
2,336
Points
649
Location
Ohio and Colorado
Resorts Owned
Steamboat Grand, The West,
Raintree and, formerly, The Allen House
Let’s see. California has had numerous forest fires, some deadly, caused by electric power lines. So let’s increase demand for electricity so we need more transmission lines so we can have more fires. “We have met the enemy and it is us”.

Cheers
 

klpca

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
8,379
Reaction score
7,459
Points
749
Location
CA
Resorts Owned
SDO, Quarter House, Seapointe, Coronado Beach, Carlsbad Inn, Worldmark
Once you put solar panels on your house, going back to fossil fuels just seems so quaint. My electric bill was about $10 last month. Technology is making everything better at a faster pace.

I will probably look at an electric car next time around. (Looking at the new Mini)
And what about people who live in condos and apartment buildings and have no place to plug in a car?
More and more businesses have dedicated parking places that are charging stations. I expect to see more. Especially at condo/apartment complexes where carport covers provide space for solar panels.
 

linsj

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
2,216
Reaction score
447
Points
443
Location
Indianapolis
Resorts Owned
HGVC
More and more businesses have dedicated parking places that are charging stations. I expect to see more. Especially at condo/apartment complexes where carport covers provide space for solar panels.

My condo complex has open parking. No garages, no carports. Same situation for most of the complexes around here.
 

CalGalTraveler

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,953
Reaction score
8,471
Points
498
Location
California
Resorts Owned
HGVC, MVC Vistana
+1 @klpca We added solar in 2016, we bought an electric vehicle in 2019. We also pay $10 a month for electricity transmission line. We get a rebate of about $150 a year sending extra energy back to the power company. Our gas bill has reduced as well because we augment with electric space heaters in winter because it's free.

Don't need electrical lines when you generate your own solar.

Rarely visit a gas station. All the air conditioning we want. Keep the lights on. Why not? It's free.

Many of the parking lots at schools, malls, condos, and office buildings. have added solar panels in our local area. Solar panels provide shade in summer and rain protection in winter on parking lots in addition to generating electricity. Many have public recharging stations.

Once you have it you will never go back.

1593212344406.png
 
Last edited:

Luanne

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
19,480
Reaction score
10,367
Points
1,198
Location
New Mexico
Resorts Owned
Maui Lea at Maui Hill
San Diego Country Estates
My condo complex has open parking. No garages, no carports. Same situation for most of the complexes around here.
I don't know how difficult, or expensive, it is to install charging stations. Even though there aren't many electric cars in our area we do have some charging stations around town. My sil worked at Google and they had them throughout their parking complex.
 

cman

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
719
Reaction score
814
Points
453
"Under guidelines approved Thursday, at least 40 percent of the tractor trailers sold in California would have to be powered by some form of zero-emissions technology by 2024."

Just means that those that can't afford to go electric will just buy their trucks/vans in other states. Electric is where the industry is headed, but the infrastructure to support it won't be in place by 2024. My grand kids most likely won't know what terms like "carburetor" or "fuel injection", and I'll have to relearn everything I know about cars. Actually, I think it's a good thing.
 
Last edited:

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
2,025
Reaction score
2,675
Points
324
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
The future is clear and fossil fuels aren't part of it. Time to change, and dinosaurs just slow us down.

On the surface your comment makes lots of sense, but unfortunately, simplistic statements rarely solve major problems. The "dinosaur" invective is also less than helpful, IMPO. Calling people names because they raise valid issues, rarely fosters fruitful dialogue. The plan may make perfect sense for relatively densely-populated, more southern states like California, but the issues in getting there are more complex for non-southern or more rural areas.

The goal is laudable, but the issues associated with the goal also need to be solved. Fortunately the article points out that the ultimate objective is not expected to be met in the next four or five years, but is a longer-term goal over the next 25 years or so. That is a much more practical approach than the title implies. Let's please have a polite discussion and drop the "dinosaur" comments. Here is my take, and the comments are not intended to apply solely to California, but cover the issues on a much broader, continental scale.

First, as commented upon by isisdave, if the source of the additional electricity needed to fuel these electric vehicles is from oil-, gas- or coal-fired generating stations, fossil fuels are still involved. That is not a true solution to the fossil fuels issue. It just looks better on the surface. It will take time to build the infrastructure to eliminate fossil fuels, and I'm not just referring to California.

Second, the statement by x3 skier about electric power lines causing some of the horrific fires we have seen lately is a valid commentary and should not just be dismissed. The trees and brush burned in forest fires are a form of organic fuel, not unlike fossil fuel, and they also release CO2 into the atmosphere. Ideally a way can be found to minimize any occurrence from electrical lines.

Third, fully-electric (vs. hybrid) vehicles may make perfect sense in a more southern state like California, but there are still inherent issues for other jurisdictions. In the more northern states of the USA, plus most of Canada, we have sub-freezing temperatures in winter. Extreme cold cuts EV vehicle range significantly. This is not just due to less efficient operation, but also because more of the battery power is needed just to heat the cabin, operate window deicers, et cetera. It can cut the range to the point of impracticality for anything other than short or major-city commutes.

Fourth, remote areas of the continent require a method that will allow long-distance travel with some type of quick recharge or battery swap. If people need to stop for an hour, rather than 5 minutes, to be able to go another 300 miles, they will not buy-in. This is even more important in long-haul trucks, which transport most of the goods and services we use daily, especially in the winter.

None of these problems should be insurmountable, given the longer time frames mentioned in the article. We have already started down that road. But to state that the future is clear and doesn't include fossil fuels is overly simplistic. It makes for a nice "sound bite", but since when has the future ever been that clear? I'm still waiting for the flying or turbine cars that were promised in the sixties!! Not all of us who raise issues are opposed to reducing the dependency on fossil fuels nor acting as "dinosaurs" to try to slow down the process!
 
Last edited:

CalGalTraveler

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,953
Reaction score
8,471
Points
498
Location
California
Resorts Owned
HGVC, MVC Vistana
Here is my take.

First, as commented upon by isisdave, if the source of the additional electricity needed to fuel these electric vehicles is from oil-, gas- or coal-fired generating stations, fossil fuels are still involved. That is not a true solution to the fossil fuels issue. It just looks better on the surface. It will take time to build the infrastructure to eliminate fossil fuels, and I'm not just referring to California.

Second, the statement by x3 skier about electric power lines causing some of the horrific fires we have seen lately is a valid commentary and should not just be dismissed. The trees and brush burned in forest fires are a form of organic fuel, not unlike like fossil fuel, and they also release CO2 into the atmosphere. Ideally a way can be found to minimize any occurrence from electrical lines.

Third, fully-electric (vs. hybrid) vehicles may make perfect sense in a more southern state like California, but there are still inherent issues for other jurisdictions. In the more northern states of the USA, plus most of Canada, we have sub-freezing temperatures in winter. Extreme cold cuts EV vehicle range significantly. This is not just due to less efficient operation, but also because more of the battery power is needed just to heat the cabin, operate window deicers, et cetera. It can cut the range to the point of impracticality for anything other than major city commutes.

On your first and second point. Solar doesn't require fossil fuels and since most solar installations are local or by neighborhoods (neighborhood grids to support condos and apts), the need for a massive centralized power line network to distribute energy from fossil fuels is minimized. 80 - 90% of the homes in my neighborhood and most of our local schools and hospitals are already on solar because it makes economic sense not because of religion.

We've come to realize that 95% of our auto travel is local in our suburban area so electricity range is not an issue most of the time. We still have an ICE truck and ICE car but may drop one in the future and rent for longer trips saving on maintenance, and insurance. OTOH we may buy a hybrid for those longer trips.

Agree with your Third point about rural and cold regions. Not one size fits all. Technology is improving rapidly and I expect that by the mid to late 2020's that battery range, maintenance and time to charge will be solved. Not sure about cold/little sun but there are also promising wind solutions on the horizon which may augment solar or Hybrid as you suggest.

The transition from horse to autos for mainstream transportation took only 10 years. (1901 - 1911) Sure there were still horses at the end of the 1911 but those were a small portion of a market that was getting even smaller.
 
Last edited:

pedro47

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
22,270
Reaction score
8,689
Points
948
Location
East Coast
Question. Are there any auto manufacturers companies in the state of California?
This mandate by the state of California could generate a new American Revolution in the automobile industry. That would mean new jobs and high paying jobs. IMO.
 

Yellowfin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
424
Reaction score
218
Points
103
Also, the zero electricity bill is over simplistic because it ignores the upfront cost to install the solar panels. How much did they cost upfront? How much were the various tax credits for the solar panels (paid by you and everyone else from your taxes). How much are the tax credits for the electric cars?
 

Luanne

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
19,480
Reaction score
10,367
Points
1,198
Location
New Mexico
Resorts Owned
Maui Lea at Maui Hill
San Diego Country Estates
Question. Are there any auto manufacturers companies in the state of California?
This mandate by the state of California could generate a new American Revolution in the automobile industry. That would mean new jobs and high paying jobs. IMO.
Well, there is Tesla. :D

There is also a Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant in Fremont.
 

CanuckTravlr

TUG Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
2,025
Reaction score
2,675
Points
324
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Resorts Owned
HGVC Ocean 22
On your first and second point. Solar doesn't require fossil fuels and since most solar installations are local or by neighborhoods (neighborhood grids), the need for a massive centralized power line network is minimized. 80 - 90% of the homes in my neighborhood and most of our local schools and hospitals are already on solar because it makes economic sense not because of religion.

We've come to realize that 95% of our auto travel is local in our suburban area so electricity range is not an issue. We still have an ICE truck and ICE car but may drop one in the future and rent for longer trips.

Agree with your Third point about rural and cold regions. Not one size fits all. Technology is improving rapidly and I expect that by the mid 2020's that battery range, maintenance and time to charge will be solved. Not sure about cold but there are also promising wind solutions on the horizon which may augment solar.

You live in California. Solar power makes sense. But your personal example only looks at a particular type of consumer, such as yourself, with space relatively nearby for sufficient solar panels and what seems to be mostly short commutes. If the state wants 100% EV use, that covers a much broader range of consumer for electricity.

I prefaced my statements by saying that the objective may make perfect sense for more southern states like California. That would include the use of solar panels. Solar panels above about 42 degrees north latitude make much less sense, at least as a primary source of power. Our daylight hours in winter are much shorter and many of them heavily overcast. So solar power cannot be relied on for 100% of power, unless you are a masochist who loves to freeze in the dark!! Solar power here is more often used for seasonal needs, such as heating swimming pools, or as a supplement to the main North American electrical grid.

Even in parts of California, if you go to 100% of the vehicles as EV, then it is not likely to only come from solar panels at someone's home or in their neighbourhood grid. To get power to chargers for all of those vehicles each day as they go about their business, particularly commercial vehicles, you will still likely need electrical power lines. Less densely populated areas may also require charging stations in-between destinations.

For some of those uses, the power may have to come from larger, non-local, commercial, solar-panel fields. They will need power lines to get the electricity to where the users and charging stations are. In remote areas, running those power lines through forests is therefore not obviated.

In more northern states and provinces the main electrical grid will still be needed. I will also mention that California imports significant quantities of hydroelectric power over that grid, mostly from the Pacific Northwest and Canada. That electricity travels through northern California forests to get to the populated areas.

And I never mentioned religion!!
 

CalGalTraveler

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,953
Reaction score
8,471
Points
498
Location
California
Resorts Owned
HGVC, MVC Vistana
You live in California. Solar power makes sense. But your personal example only looks at a particular type of consumer, such as yourself, with space relatively nearby for sufficient solar panels and what seems to be mostly short commutes. If the state wants 100% EV use, that covers a much broader range of consumer for electricity.

I prefaced my statements by saying that the objective may make perfect sense for more southern states like California. That would include the use of solar panels. Solar panels above about 42 degrees north latitude make much less sense, at least as a primary source of power. Our daylight hours in winter are much shorter and many of them heavily overcast. So solar power cannot be relied on for 100% of power, unless you are a masochist who loves to freeze in the dark!! Solar power here is more often used for seasonal needs, such as heating swimming pools, or as a supplement to the main North American electrical grid.

Even in parts of California, if you go to 100% of the vehicles as EV, then it is not likely to only come from solar panels at someone's home or in their neighbourhood grid. To get power to chargers for all of those vehicles each day as they go about their business, particularly commercial vehicles, you will still likely need electrical power lines. Less densely populated areas may also require charging stations in-between destinations.

For some of those uses, the power may have to come from larger, non-local, commercial, solar-panel fields. They will need power lines to get the electricity to where the users and charging stations are. In remote areas, running those power lines through forests is therefore not obviated.

In more northern states and provinces the main electrical grid will still be needed. I will also mention that California imports significant quantities of hydroelectric power over that grid, mostly from the Pacific Northwest and Canada. That electricity travels through northern California forests to get to the populated areas.

And I never mentioned religion!!

Agree. It's 80/20 rule. Rural will have issues. But 80% will do a lot!

I said power lines minimized, not eliminated. Much less energy from fossil fuel plants needed. My home is powered by the sun and is a net contributor to the grid and powers our EV. We could buy a Tesla Power wall and completely disconnect from the grid if we desired. This would eliminate transmission lines to our home. If our neighbors did the same we wouldn't need all the transmission lines to our neighborhood. But do agree that some will still be needed.

My apologies, my comment about religion was not directed at you. Another poster mentioned this.

Also, the zero electricity bill is over simplistic because it ignores the upfront cost to install the solar panels. How much did they cost upfront? How much were the various tax credits for the solar panels (paid by you and everyone else from your taxes). How much are the tax credits for the electric cars?

People have 3 options:

1) Lease their roof. The energy company e.g. SunRun pays to install and maintain and they take the tax credits. They profit over the long haul after the 6 - 7 year payback. Zero upfront capital cost to the homeowner. Homeowner has an energy bill offset by the solar their roof produces over the life of the lease.

2) For solar capital purchase 30% of the cost back in a tax credit. 6 year payback avg. Our EV was very low cost with state tax rebates plus VW discounts and government mandated payments from Dieselgate. (Thanks VW!)

3) Community pooling. For those without a roof or parking area for solar, our county now offers a green energy option which buys excess solar from homes like ours, and commercial buildings and offers it as an alternative to the electricity company which is fossil-fuel based. No capital needed. Just switch energy companies. Transmission keeps the energy local vs. across counties and states.
 
Last edited:

Blues

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,495
Reaction score
506
Points
473
Location
Monterey County CA
First, as commented upon by isisdave, if the source of the additional electricity needed to fuel these electric vehicles is from oil-, gas- or coal-fired generating stations, fossil fuels are still involved. That is not a true solution to the fossil fuels issue. It just looks better on the surface.

True, ignoring solar energy, you still need to burn fossil fuel to generate the electricity. I've always hated the term ZEV - Zero Emission Vehicle - for this reason. It's a lie.

But burning the fuel at a centralized power plant can greatly increase the efficiency. ICE cars typically perform at about 20% efficiency. Typical power plants are about 50% efficient. So you get about 2.5 times the efficiency by going electric. Or conversely, you'll burn about 60% less fossil fuel. That's a noble goal to try to achieve.

And that doesn't even take into account transitioning to renewable sources.
 

CalGalTraveler

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
9,953
Reaction score
8,471
Points
498
Location
California
Resorts Owned
HGVC, MVC Vistana
Question. Are there any auto manufacturers companies in the state of California?

Tesla. FYI It now occupies the old Ford/ NUMMI (Toyota + GM) plant in Fremont
 
Last edited:

Yellowfin

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
424
Reaction score
218
Points
103
True, ignoring solar energy, you still need to burn fossil fuel to generate the electricity. I've always hated the term ZEV - Zero Emission Vehicle - for this reason. It's a lie.

But burning the fuel at a centralized power plant can greatly increase the efficiency. ICE cars typically perform at about 20% efficiency. Typical power plants are about 50% efficient. So you get about 2.5 times the efficiency by going electric. Or conversely, you'll burn about 60% less fossil fuel. That's a noble goal to try to achieve.

And that doesn't even take into account transitioning to renewable sources.
But the electric cars also only convert 40-50% of the electricity to energy so when you combine the efficiency of the power plant, the transmission losses and the efficiency of the electric car, you are not better off than the efficiency of a gas car.
Also, I do not know where you got the 50% efficiency for the power plants, I see they are more in the 35-40% range.

 
Last edited:
Top