Symbolic Wyoming Proposal Urges Voluntary Phase-out of EV Purchases by 2035 (engadget.com) 453
Though the state of Wyoming is home to one of America's largest wind farms, "Wyoming's legislature is considering a resolution that calls for a phaseout of new electric vehicle sales by 2035," reports Engadget:
In the proposed resolution, a group of lawmakers led by Senator Jim Anderson says Wyoming's "proud and valued" oil and gas industry has created "countless" jobs and contributed revenue to the state's coffers. They add that a lack of charging infrastructure within Wyoming would make the widespread use of EVs "impracticable" and that the state would need to build "massive amounts of new power generation" to "sustain the misadventure of electric vehicles." SJ4 calls for residents and businesses to limit the sale and purchase of EVs voluntarily, with the goal of phasing them out entirely by 2035.
If passed, the resolution would be entirely symbolic. In fact, it's more about sending a message to EV advocates than banning the vehicles altogether. To that point, the final section of SJ4 calls for Wyoming's Secretary of State to send President Biden and California Governor Gavin Newsom copies of the resolution. "One might even say tongue-in-cheek, but obviously it's a very serious issue that deserves some public discussion," Senator Boner, one of the bill's co-sponsors, told the Cowboy State Daily. "I'm interested in making sure that the solutions that some folks want to the so-called climate crisis are actually practical in real life. I just don't appreciate when other states try to force technology that isn't ready."
If passed, the resolution would be entirely symbolic. In fact, it's more about sending a message to EV advocates than banning the vehicles altogether. To that point, the final section of SJ4 calls for Wyoming's Secretary of State to send President Biden and California Governor Gavin Newsom copies of the resolution. "One might even say tongue-in-cheek, but obviously it's a very serious issue that deserves some public discussion," Senator Boner, one of the bill's co-sponsors, told the Cowboy State Daily. "I'm interested in making sure that the solutions that some folks want to the so-called climate crisis are actually practical in real life. I just don't appreciate when other states try to force technology that isn't ready."
There are 9 people in Wyoming (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And one of them is Senator Boner.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: There are 9 people in Wyoming (Score:5, Funny)
Re: There are 9 people in Wyoming (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: There are 9 people in Wyoming (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is that? They aren't great cars in any way that sitting inside one will change your mind. I've been in about 10 - my former workplace had dedicated charging stations at executive stalls. They're okay, but they aren't game-changing in presentation.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Wyoming, and own a Tesla. I do not stand with these other 8 people!
Close. According to Wikipedia, the population of Wyoming is 576,850.
For comparison, I live in Virginia Beach, VA and the population of our *city* is 457,672.
(Va Bch is the most populous in VA according to Google btw.)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And? WY still gets 2 senators and a few representatives. Plus they still get to set their own laws within their state. Were you alluding that they should, because of their small population, be treated differently as a state?
Un-bunch your panties dimwit. I was just noting the number of actual residents vs the 9 of the joke, and offering a comparison, as many people may not know how small the population of Wyoming actually is -- I didn't, but figured 9 was probably too low. :-)
To your point though, given the massive military presence in Virginia Beach (and immediate area) I'll offer that we're probably more important to the country than the entirety of Wyoming. Just sayin' ...
Re: (Score:3)
massive military presence in Virginia Beach (and immediate area)
For reference/citation, from Virginia Beach Economic Development, Military [yesvirginiabeach.com]:
The Virginia Beach MSA has the largest concentration of military personnel outside of the Pentagon, with 89,604 active-duty military personnel here representing every branch in the Armed Forces. In addition, there are 52,240 civilian employees and about 279,000 people who are military-connected.
The numbers speak volumes: the total direct economic impact in the Fiscal Year 2020 (Oct. 1, 2019, through Sept. 30, 2020) was nearly $15.8 billion, and the annual payroll was $13 billion.
As for the entire area, I refer you to Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce, Military [hrchamber.com] -- I think every branch of the military, as well as NASA, have at least one installation around here.
Re: There are 9 people in Wyoming (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, we're not. We have two senators and one representative. I'm not a fan of any politician who just votes for party, so they really aren't my favorities, although I did like Sen. Enzi.
With one representative, we can't push through any legislation on our own. None. 0. Nada. Currently California has 52 representatives. If California wants a particular piece of legislation that will benefit its state, they have 12% of the total votes in the house. If it just needs a simple majority, they're almost 1/4 o
Re: There are 9 people in Wyoming (Score:5, Informative)
> If California wants a particular piece of legislation
"California" doesn't want anything. People do. And the people who live in California have dramatically less representation in the Senate than the people who live in Wyoming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There are 9 people in Wyoming (Score:4, Informative)
There are fast chargers in Cheyenne, Laramie (+50mi, 8 chargers), Rawlins (+100mi, 16 chargers at 2 sites), Rock Springs (+105mi, 8 chargers), Jackson (+180mi, 12 chargers at 2 sites), and depending on where you're going from the northwest corner, either West Yellowstone (+120mi, 8 chargers), or Gardiner (+130mi, 2 chargers).
Slow chargers are of course much more common and frequent in case you felt like stopping or needed to top up a bit. So even if you were going Rawlins to Jackson on the more remte route through Hwy 287 through the Wind River Reservation (Google says its faster to go through Rock Springs), which is ~280mi without road closures (there's currently a closure making it ~300mi), if you make say 2x stops on that ~5 1/2 hour drive, say a 10 minute bathroom-and-stretch break and a 25 minute meal break (that would be typical for me on such a driving length... maybe one more bathroom break, depending on how much liquids I was drinking), that would add enough charge to effectively reduce the route to ~255mi of battery consumption. One could of course always stay longer if they wanted or needed to.
Also, given the rate at which new chargers get built, don't expect that route to have as few chargers as it does for long.
Re: There are 9 people in Wyoming (Score:5, Informative)
EVs aren't a perfect answer for everyone, at least not yet, but it's good enough for most people. Your exceptions, which apply to a very tiny percentage of the population, do not undermine that.
Most ICEs are built to handle one fuel, gasoline (perhaps with a small bit of ethanol added, sometimes E85). Others can handle diesel. There are effectively no true multi-fuel ICEs out there.
That hydrogen still has to come from somewhere, and hydrogen is still overwhelmingly produced using inefficient methods that produce CO2. In 2019, the global production of 70 million tons of hydrogen produced 830 million tons of CO2. That doesn't include the distribution costs, and hydrogen leaks through any small gap it can find (and even through no gap, migrating straight through the container walls because a proton is so small). New distribution and storage networks will have to be built out, and that will include some very heavy, very expensive storage tanks that will have to be buried for safety, adding even more expense and, since the tanks will be buried using construction equipment, a lot more CO2. It would be more cost-effective to run power lines and set up chargers.
Toyota is largely responsible for getting people to think differently about how their cars are powered, thanks to the success of the Prius hybrids. But they got stuck on that and haven't pushed the boundaries much since then. The CEO recently complained that making BEVs would put the workers who build engines out of a job, a concern that seems touching at first, but on closer inspection was more about saving the investments that Toyota has made on ICE, hybrid, and pluggable hybrids and trying to preserve market share against an industry that is rapidly turning to BEVs and which Toyota is now very far behind. They just launched their first (and so far only) BEV model last May, but production and sales numbers are paltry, with production at only 1000 vehicles per month and US sales measured in the hundreds. Meanwhile, GM and Ford are each producing and selling hundreds of thousands of BEVs annually, with plans to ramp up significantly as chip supply limitations ease and battery production plants come online.
Manufacturers aren't going to "fix the ICE" because they're moving away from it and have invested billions to do so. Even Toyota's production hydrogen vehicles use fuel cells to power electric motors. Hydrogen may carve out a niche for itself, but it has zero chance to make a significant dent in BEV production, much less become the dominant power source for vehicles.
Re: There are 9 people in Wyoming (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Let them go.
But what will happen when gasoline is phased out in 2065? Coal fired steam engines will be all the rage. At this rate Wyoming is setting themselves up to go full steampunk.
Re: (Score:2)
An automobile with a big key on top that you turn to tighten a spring. This is the wind-me-up state after all!
Re:There are 9 people in Wyoming (Score:5, Funny)
The price of horses will go up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This proves oil is dying and that WY knows it. (Score:5, Insightful)
When people say "oil is dying", they don't mean it's going to vanish from the face of the year; rather, that the lion's share that's produced just to burn it will no longer be produced for that reason.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to think that all of the oil is getting burned off as gasoline.
The author is completely aware that oil is used for other things other than fuel, that's why they go out of their way to state that they're only talking about oil in the context of fuel because that is where they take issue with oil production.
Perhaps you should be more attentive in reading others posts prior to replying.
Re: (Score:2)
When preventing a toxic wasteland for your grand-children takes a back seat to your state's backward economy...
Senator Boner? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
is that ironic? in 2 ways?
Not when you consider the Senator's first two names [youtube.com].
Red state vice signaling at its best (Score:5, Interesting)
Gotta love the effort to just knee jerk react to change with eye roll worthy vice signaling.
Re:Red state vice signaling at its best (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. EVs are so efficient at converting stored energy into motion, that even with a dirty grid (such as Wyoming, which has a lot of coal generation [eia.gov]), an EV has lower total lifetime emissions [fueleconomy.gov] than the typical US combustion-based vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Red state vice signaling at its best (Score:4, Insightful)
You're probably the problem with the right at the moment. Some makes a solidly centrist and non-political comment about knee jerk reactions and vice signaling and you immediately counter with a violent reaction. Is this because you feel "right" is the same as "violence"? I know many peaceful people on the right who would strongly disagree with your attitude.
Re:Red state vice signaling at its best (Score:5, Interesting)
A conservative though will always be cautious or is the right wing will throw caution to the wind in order to preserve and protect what they believe is the natural and correct order.
The world makes a heck of a lot more sense once you understand the difference between right wing and conservative. And you can understand what motivates reactionary right wing.
Re:Red state vice signaling at its best (Score:5, Interesting)
Trying to constrain all politics into a left-right axis is a really poor description of the world. IMHO, it's an ill-defined axis to begin with. I'd argue that the Populism-Meritocracy axis is currently the most important in much of the west.
Populism: "Certain groups of 'others' are to blame for our problems"
Right-populism: Immigrants, gays, minorities, feminists, etc are to blame. Extreme version = Facism
Left-populism: "The Rich" are to blame. Extreme version = Communism.
Meritocracy: "Success and failure is largely a result of individual actions and not conspiracies of 'Others'."
Right-meritocracy: Social context is irrelevant, the rich deserve all they earn, the poor deserve to be poor -> Libertarianism
Left-meritocracy: Social context is critical; the rich may be rich because of their actions, and deserve to be rewarded for that, but ALSO need to pay to support the social environment that helps others succeed -> Social Democracy).
But there's so many other axes you could add. For example, the left-right axis is currently normally something like: Right: "ethnic purity, traditional religion, traditional sex and gender roles, capitalism, science skepticism", and Left: "ethnic diversity, religious diversity, diversity of sex and gender roles as per individual preferences, socialism, science trust". But a person can - and commonly does - have a mix of such views. For example, while polling shows a sizable gap in trust in science between Democrats and Republicans in the US, it's not like there's a shortage of Democrats who are antivax and into woo like crystal magic and the like. And I had to write "...axis is CURRENTLY..." because axes change. For example, "left" often used to imply antiwar, but both the left and the right in the west in general are currently roughly similar in their odds of supporting or opposing wars.
Left-Right is kind of a jumbled concept, to be honest.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't confuse the right wing with conservatives.
Don’t confuse conservative views with authoritarianism. Authoritarianism/liberalism axis should not be confused with either the right or the left. Many examples of left leaning governments exist with extreme authoritarian principles and are used to demonize any semblance of properly caring for and nurturing a society to the benefit of all. Even the survivors fleeing to America are confused and vote right because they don’t want to have their basic human rights stripped again.
This really is a serious problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This really is a serious problem (Score:5, Interesting)
A conservative gentleman named Bret Stephens wrote this in an opinion piece recently, I feel it's a relevant analysis here:
"When people get on a bad path, whether it’s drinking or gambling or political or religious fanaticism, they tend to follow it all the way to the bottom, at which point they either die or have that proverbial moment of clarity. I’ve been waiting for Republicans to have a moment of clarity for a while now...
Part of the problem is that so many Republicans no longer get into politics to pass legislation. They do it to become celebrities. The more feverish they are, the better it sells."
The party literally quit publishing an official platform after 2016. There is no plan. There is no vision, except division. There are no ideas, only a progressive ramp up from rage, to violence, and finally total destruction of the nation.
Trumpism - It's terminal.
Re:This really is a serious problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Ya, I was baffled by the lack of party platform for awhile, but I think they have too many strange bedfellows to have them come to any agreement anymore. Remember, the most fervently traditional Republican (and the word "conservative" actually *means* being traditonal), supposedly the bedrock of the party, is called a RINO these days. The party seems to be about team politics - us versus them and paint our face red white and blue at the game. This is why they can't even muster the courage to censure George Santos (my wife, Morgan Fairchild, ya, that's it) because he's a part of their "team".
Their whole schtick for a long time has been to be contrarian. Trumpism is all about contrarianism - whatever it is, they're against it, whatever you say, they'll call it a lie. When out of power, contrarianism is great, it holds those in power to account. But when contrarians get into power they have nowhere to go, no ideas of their own.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: This really is a serious problem (Score:3)
Re: This really is a serious problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Because in a fair fight, they are in the minority. They can't win a fair fight based upon demographics. They win because of gerrymandering (a problem on both sides). So thus their approach is often to try to change laws to keep them in power. This isn't new, the conservative south has tried a lot of tactics in the past, such as making votes in rural (mostly white) counties count more than votes in cities (with more non-whites). Right now the view is that they can have their legislatures override the popular vote, which seems clearly contrary to constitutional amendments, but then they probably don't like the amendments. Probably why the Jan 6th invasion of the capitol wasn't denounced more strongly except by a few, because "the ends justify the means".
Before Trump announced candidacy for 2016, there were high ranking Republican meetings about how to become relevant in a changing world. This included discussions about how to appeal to the Hispanic voters, who would normally be a natural social conservative group. That got thrown out the window when Trump came in and ignored all that and called the high ranking Republicans RINOs.
Re: (Score:3)
They win because of gerrymandering (a problem on both sides).
Oh look, bothsidesism
Republicans win because they do ten times more gerrymandering, literally.
Re: (Score:3)
The republicans lose the popular vote - and have for decades. They win because they are straight up better at "politics" - as in, the ugly, manipulative side of politics. They know how to jerk the system to their favour, and they are ruthless in exercising that capability. The democrats are terrible at it.
Re: (Score:2)
But when contrarians get into power they have nowhere to go, no ideas of their own.
And that is exactly it. Unfortunately, these assholes can get voted into office because too many voters cannot see what is going on, but they cannot run anything competently after that. They just do not have the honor, integrity or skill to do it. So they just continue to lie and be opposed to everything and things slowly go to hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wokeism is a somewhat similar problem with the democrats, but it doesnt run nearly as deep. The moderate democrats are still mostly in charge, bernie sanders and AOC are kept well on the fringe, and theres still some effort to actually get stuff done. The republicans dont even pretend to be inte
Re: This really is a serious problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: This really is a serious problem (Score:2)
Re:This really is a serious problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to read the Weekly Standard ca. 2010. They were wrong about a lot of things, of course, but I respected them because it wasn't batshit. It was written for thinking people. If there were any good ideas coming out of the conservative movement, that's the kind of outlet where they'd show up.
The magazine shut down in 2018. Can you guess what killed it? They published some articles critical of Trump, and circulation started dropping. A chunk of the editors were Trumpistas, and they felt they couldn't work for a publication that was in any way critical of him.
The magazine's fate mirrors the fate of the GOP. Nobody halfway-reasonable can stick around there anymore. Everyone demands nothing less than batshit insanity from them. If you can't or won't go there, you get excommunicated.
People love the cliche of "both sides are the same", but that is certainly not true now, if it ever was. One party is ineffective and bought out by big corporations. The other one is a death cult.
Re: (Score:3)
Were those the same "principled conservative thinkers" responsible for the 2014 debacle? Where the GOP took the House and Senate and proceeded to thumb their noses at their own voters who put them there, essentially creating Donald Trump's candidacy from whole cloth?
There's a reason why some of those "principled conservative thinkers" left the Republican party: some of them exited the premises with boot prints on their posteriors. Bill Kristol in particular.
Re:This really is a serious problem (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the stuff that is called woke now by the right used to just be basic human politeness. I have had people yell at me that education is becoming more woke because teachers are asking what students want to be called and then using whatever name, within reason, that the students give. I remember teachers doing that 30 years ago also and it never caused any controversy. Books that used to be assigned to almost all students is now considered woke like To Kill a Mockingbird.
Most of the stuff people are asking for is not unreasonable. If you have preferred pronouns and I remember them I will use them because I honestly don't care. It does not harm me in any way at all to call you what you prefer to be called. If I need to interact with you and get work done then I want to do that with as little friction as possible.
I feel the same way about wearing masks. If someone wants me to wear a mask I will because I don't know about their health or the health of people they interact with. It doesn't harm me in any way at all and if it helps someone else that is good.
This is just basic human decency.
Re:This really is a serious problem (Score:4, Funny)
Let's say we have 3 parties in a winner-take-all system. Great, 30% of the population votes for reasonable candidate #1, 30% for reasonable candidate #2, and 40% go for the angry shouting guy with the funny mustache. That's pretty much how a certain german guy got power about a century ago.
The solution to that is coalition governments, but those can be even worse, with some extreme party that represents 3% of the population can suddenly topple a government anytime they feel like it.
I feel like the US system is pretty good, but we need the republicans to take a slight step back towards reason and pragmatism, and get over this "I'm a berserker" mentality. IMO we need one moderate left party and one moderate right party fairly competing for representation and power.
Re:This really is a serious problem (Score:4, Informative)
Nice quote. It also shows that real conservatives are not the problem. They can see reality and they can be talked to and compromises can be found. I mean even a group as extremely conservative as the Vatican scientists has acknowledged that climate change is real, man-made and a massive problem. If they can do it, anybody actually rational can do it. The problem is the fake "conservatives" that are basically just fanatics cheering for irrationality and power and their own superiority to anything, with a thin pretend "conservative" layer on top.
The problem with climate change is that not only the fanatics die, everybody dies. It is a systemic problem. Were it not, we would just have one tribe self-destroy and we could all watch the show and cheer them on. But with a systemic problem that is not really a good idea. Hence that "moment of clarity" is the only way out. Unfortunately that seems not likely to happen anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
They are desperately poor with a per clot gdp that is nearly $10,000 less than Alaska and $15,000 less than Texas.
What is interesting is this bill is about infrastructure. And building out the infrastructure for electric
Re: (Score:3)
It's basically trolling. Nobody thinks this measure will pass. But it also exists to highlight the heavy-handed nature of ICE bans.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. To be fair, these, aehm, "people of negative worth" would not be the first ones to self-annihilate because of ideological lock-in and denial of rationality. And if it were just them, I would say let them kill themselves and the whole would get markedly better. Unfortunately we are sitting all in the same boat and anybody behaving this evil will make things a bit worse for everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is a major issue. And every little bit we reduce climate change matters.
EVs have thus far reduced US oil consumption by a half of one percent.
The more uncertainty there is about how EVs will be treated in the state, the less likely people will be to adopt charging infrastructure or get EVs in the state now, knowing that the infrastructure is less likely to be as expansive in a few years.
I doubt it, there are already hundreds of charging stations and everyone who cares know where they are.
. But given how much gasoline powered cars produce other negative externalities and pollutants, this is harmful to the people of Wyoming, even if one for some reason doesn't care about climate change.
Given current energy mix in Wyoming (basically all coal) phasing out EVs is actually caring about climate change. There is no math in which EVs don't produce a heck of a lot MORE carbon than ICE counterparts in this state.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Then why is no one acting like it is?
Because the human mind has major shortcomings when dealing with diffuse existential threats.
People either deny that there's a problem, or assert via handwaving that there are "silver bullet" solutions that are being held back by a vast conspiracy, or both.
The bottom line is we are doomed by this bug in the human brain. Because nobody can deal with climate change and environmental degradation rationally, we will be in another dark age or worse by the next century.
Sez you (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things are obvious from those lines. One, you are a climate change denier. Two, EVs are a solution that you think is not ready. Your loyalty to the oil and gas industry is only seen as commendable by your donors from those industries.
Ah, but,,, (Score:2)
It appears that you have never driven an EV.
Tesla owner
The arrogance/ignorance is mind blowing (Score:5, Insightful)
Teslas are wonderful in warm weather and in places where people drive no more than a couple of hundred miles per day, carry no cargo, and have lots of time to sit around charging. I love the Model 3 and the Model Y and would have bought one had if I'd had an extra $60K+ sitting around so I could have one for fun drives. Unfortunately, neither model had the passenger and/or cargo capacity I needed - ICE vehicles were the only practical option even with all the insane subsidies the EV guys are getting.
EVs are just not yet the best thing in many areas of the country yet, nor for people who cannot afford a fleet of vehicles to cover all their needs. It's no knock on Teslas (which I consider the hands-down best EVs) but what works in sunny Southern California, or even in the Bay Area, and makes a 30 mile commute pleasurable is simply not the solution needed in much of rural America. People need vehicles with serious passenger and/or cargo capabilities, with no range reduction from cold weather, which can be refuelled anywhere in two minutes, have serious towing capacities, etc.
People with these REQUIREMENTS are not idiots, or knuckle-dragging primitive barbarians, or luddites; they're most-often serious hard-working decent people with real needs that the folks in huge east- and west-coast cities constantly disrespect and ignore. By disrespecting them and ignoring them, these coastal types then fail to design products that meet their needs and then insult them for not choosing the stupid and impractical [for them] option (which happens to be the only option the coastal types created - shocker). It further adds insult to injury to have some elitist jackass like governor Newsom push legislation to ban a thing these people need (with the openly-said agenda that it will use the market power of his state to deprive these people who do not even live in his state). It should be no surprise that an elected representative of these people would symbolically push back - and it only highlights the very divisive matters to see the comments of so many people in big cities responding as they do.
What would the dialog look like if all of America's ranchers and farmers only produced food that had to be eaten within an hour of being harvested, and if their lawmakers pushed laws that banned any other type of food? What then if city dwellers complained that there was no way to get food from the farms to the cities in under an hour and such food would not meet the demands of city dwellers, and the response of the farmers was to denounce the city dwellers as morons and refuse to listen to their concerns and come up with food that would work for city dwellers? I know, it's an odd illustration, but the farmers in that scheme would obviously be total jerks to most slashdot readers. Having those farmers and their supporters continue to hammer the theme that the 1hour food was superior and anybody who did not agree and find a way to adopt it deserves to die would only add insult to injury.
The people responding in such a hostile way to an obviously symbolic statement are displaying a total lack of humility, compassion, basic human decency, end/or curiosity; people with some normal degree of introspection would instead ask people in rural America WHY they do not see a Tesla (or a Volt, etc?) solving all their transportation problems. Then, instead of trying to suggest ways people could wedge an impractical e-car into their lives and, using lots of work-arounds, possibly maybe slightly address some of the concerns, it would be better to think up better vehicle designs to meet those needs that apparently never occur to urban design teams. People who have never lived in rural America, while depending on rural America for many of the things they need, often display an amazing level of ignorance about most of the nation, and they seem to prefer to throw insults instead.
The past 20+ years have seen a remarkable reduction in the ability of many people to stop, think, and consider the needs and arguments of other people - and often by people who claim the mantle of "open minded" and "tolerant" and "inclusive".
Re: The arrogance/ignorance is mind blowing (Score:5, Interesting)
You're sure using a lot of words to say "I'm confusing passenger cars vs utility vehicles with EV vs ICE."
EV's are good in areas with reliable power grids (Score:2)
In vast rural areas like Wyoming, discrete power like a gallon of liquid fuel is probably best.
In areas with reliable power grids, like cities, EVs make a lot more sense.
Re: EV's are good in areas with reliable power gri (Score:2)
Re: EV's are good in areas with reliable power gr (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, even using 100% coal created electricity, the BEV ends up still being much better environmentally than using hybrids or efficient ICE vehicles.
Even with using things like NMC lithium batteries and simply trashing the batteries at end of life and mining for brand new ones, it's still better to use a BEV.
They also ignores that Tesla recycles more than 90% of old batteries materials into new batteries. Also the majority of new Tesla vehicles use LFP batteries that last several times longer than NMC batteries and don't need nickel or cobalt.
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: EV's are good in areas with reliable power gri (Score:5, Insightful)
EVs mostly charge at night, when coal plants reduce output and the percent from wind and hydro goes up.
An EV can last for 20 years. Wind power is rapidly increasing in Wyoming. Look at the future, not the past.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for someone to find a way to build cars out of coal ash.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for someone to find a way to build cars out of coal ash.
I get the joke, but damn, coal ash is horrible. Depending on the source of the original coal, it is laden with heavy metals, including radioactive ones. It is frequently stored in big open piles that wash into rivers if there is a flood, polluting them with said heavy metals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Coal ash is nasty, nasty stuff, and is another very good reason to phase out coal ASAP.
Re: EV's are good in areas with reliable power gri (Score:3)
Why do you think rural power grids are so unreliable? Rural areas usually lack natural gas so houses are heated with electric heat pumps and water heaters. Having a reliable power grid is just as important outside the city as inside.
Re: (Score:3)
RazorSharp blathered:
Rural areas usually lack natural gas so houses are heated with electric heat pumps and water heaters. Having a reliable power grid is just as important outside the city as inside.
I've lived in the country for a couple of decades. In forested areas, the overwhelming choice for home heating is wood stoves. In grasslands, it's propane.
Heat pumps have become increasingly popular in recent years, but they don't work when the power goes out. Wood stoves and propane, however, do ...
Re: EV's are good in areas with reliable power gr (Score:2)
Woodstoves and propane are almost always supplemental forms of heat. Heat pumps, whether air or geothermal, have become pretty standard.
I mean, I have met some hillbillies that use old diesel furnaces, have large outdoor wood burners, or even use kerosine. I would not point to these outliers as representative of most.
Perhaps my state just has a better power grid than yours, but in my time living in the city and outside of it, the reliability has been about the same.
Re:EV's are good in areas with reliable power grid (Score:4, Informative)
64% of the population of Wyoming is urban or suburban.
Wyoming already has good infrastructure for EVs, with a reliable grid and superchargers along all the Interstate highways.
Re: EV's are good in areas with reliable power gri (Score:2)
In large remote areas, BEVs actually become even better than ICE vehicles.
Gas needs fairly complicated, dangerous, and expensive infrastructure that forever needs inputs from a relatively limited source. Even current BEVs don't need that much more density of charging stations than ICE requires of gas stations. Either way, the range of BEVs has been getting better and better.
With electricity, you can install lines that will last decades and need very little maintenance, especially if buried. Those lines also
Re: (Score:3)
Who is financially sponsoring this bill? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who is financially sponsoring this bill? (Score:4, Informative)
And 90% is from right-wing bullshit that the faux "cowboys" eat up because they think it makes them look manly, when it fact, they're some of the biggest welfare queens in the country. Their government ranks #5 in the states most dependent on Federal money, then they brag about not having a state income tax.
https://wallethub.com/edu/stat... [wallethub.com]
Re:Who is financially sponsoring this bill? (Score:4, Informative)
Right-wing doesn't care about free market. They tried to intervene with social media and tech companies.
Re: Who is financially sponsoring this bill? (Score:2)
And with every other market, especially fossil fuels.
Almost all red states take more than they give in federal money. The ones that do give at least as much as they take, are only from federal lands with mineral rights.
The economies of red states are heavily subsidized by daddy blue states.
This bill is just part of their efforts to use the government to prop up fossil fuel companies. Because a bunch of big red states have very large government job programs involving fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh...So what happened to the free market fellas?
The modern Republican Party is based on social conservatism.
They don't give a crap about free markets.
Trumpism is protectionist and economically populist, demonizing businesses along with the liberal elite for keeping the little guy down.
Republicans are falling out of love with America Inc. [economist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The modern Republican Party is based on social conservatism.
No, the modern Republican Party is based on "othering" groups of people and blaming those groups for society's ills. "sticking it to the libs" and all that.
Historically, there was another party that focused on "othering" and blaming .....
Other types of jobs... (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:2)
Wyoming isn't a tobacco state, but if it was, would they pass a law to permit unrestricted age purchase of cigarettes and removal of health warnings too, because of all the jobs Big Tobacco provides?
Oh, I know! Make lead paint and gasoline legal again in Wyoming! That'll show the Woke Libs and put it in their eye!
Re: (Score:2)
It was only about 15 years ago that they got rid of drive-thru bars where you could get your mixed drink in a styrofoam drink cup to “take home”. Wink, wink.
So they are not entirely incapable of progress, just really, really slow to catch up with more sane states.
Zero emissions is a lie (Score:3)
‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That Claim Has Zero Basis [nationalreview.com]
EVs are possible courtesy of slave labor in the Congo [youtube.com] and China. Conflict minerals such as cobalt and 3TG(tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold) should be treated no differently than blood diamonds.
According to the video 73% of global cobalt comes from Congo. There is no OSHA and no mine workers union. They are mining toxic materials with no masks, no gloves, no boots and no eye protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you waste your time reading articles that are nothing more than strawmen arguments?
Might be difficult (Score:2)
You don't have to follow the crowd, please live in the past. They might be difficult when major manufacturers are phasing-out ICE cars.
Whoosh!!!! (Score:2)
Whoosh, whoosh, whoosh!
A radical proposal (Score:3)
How about they let Wyoming citizens who want electric cars buy them (with their own money)?
And those who don't want them, not to buy them.
The legislature doesn't need to decide these things for people. I know - I'm a crazy radical.
translation... (Score:3)
"....the people of Wyoming are too stupid to figure out a moderate-sized problem given 12 years time."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Someone finally tells the truth (Score:2)
I'm all for letting people choose, as long as it's in a level free market.
If you removed all the subsidies from both fossil fuels and renewables, people would very quickly switch to renewables.
The problem is communists in the government from those red states have been focused for decades on making sure that the industry remains incredibly subsidised both directly and indirectly. States like Texas and Montana have very large government job programs involving fossil fuels, and they'd lose them in a free marke
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to tax cars based on damage to the road, we should start by taxing heavy trucks, since they do almost all the damage, while cars to a tiny amount of damage.
Shipping costs might go up, but maybe that's not a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to tax cars based on damage to the road, we should start by taxing heavy trucks, since they do almost all the damage, while cars to a tiny amount of damage.
Shipping costs might go up, but maybe that's not a bad thing.
In all seriousness, I would vote for this.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't being ironic. I was being serious.
Re: (Score:2)
So we need to keep 'just jump' as an option for travel.
Whoa there, buddy (Score:3)
Do you understand that the ENTIRE CIVILIZATION you live within was built with oil, gas, and coal and that "green"/"renewable" energy sources could never have done it (they were a BYPRODUCT OF IT) and have not yet proven they can take-over and even carry the burden of just SUSTAINING a civilization that is already existing and functional????
No civilization of any significance has yet been run on solar panels and windmills, and certainly none so-run within the next few centuries will have enough energy to sup