I am working on research towards the goal of introducing strict federal weight penalties for consumer vehicles.
Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically while also having additional benefits like global supply chain material and emission reduction, pedestrian safety, and road maintenance.
If you are involved in automotive, environmental, political spaces - or know someone who is - please reach out, email in bio.
Building upon this, the light truck loophole [1] means that there is currently a sort of arms race ongoing if you are concerned about car safety.
Car manufacturers are happy to build the majority of their consumer-facing vehicles as "light trucks" so they can ignore environmental standards, and those of us that want smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient vehicle need to compromise on safety.
SUVs need to be heavily penalized, and need to have far stricter licensing requirements. This will bring down emissions much more than some blanket move to EVs, and be beneficial for safety as well.
On the surface, weight penalties seem to be an effective way to accomplish this; I am curious if there are any examples or case studies about this that you can cite, 'bryanmgreen.
I'm so relieved someone is working on this. I mean, the cars of the 60s and 70s, many of them were so much lighter. Now all the sudden, cars have become fat and heavy and bloated.
Of course it all comes down to consumer demand and regulations. I suspect Regulations have gone a long way towards making cars heavier and bigger and less efficient.
Strict weight limits would be hugely beneficial for addressing environmental, safety, and infrastructure cost concerns.
A related--albeit more "out-there"--idea is to impose momentum limits in addition to speed limits based on vehicle weight classes. We have a crude version of this on highways, where speed limits for trucks are often lower than the limits for cars (e.g., 70mph for cars, 65mph for trucks).
But I really like the idea of setting different speed limits for different weight classes of vehicles. Driving a Toyota Corolla? Let's call it a Class A vehicle (2,000-2,999 lbs), with a highway speed limit of 70mph. Driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee? That would be Class C (4,000-4,999 lbs), with a speed limit of 50mph.
This would make roads a lot safer, and add an additional, non-monetary, tax on heavier vehicles.
Another big benefit of imposing weight limits on consumer vehicles is that the United States would have a fighting chance of becoming energy independent, even before accounting for the shift to renewables. So we can add improved national security to the list of reasons to pursue this common-sense policy.
Naively that's going to end up disproportionately penalizing EVs[1], which sounds exactly backwards to me. "Weight" is not the correct factor to optimize, basically.
[1] Which are heavy, because they can't source 2/3 of their reaction mass from the atmosphere and have to keep all the reactants in the battery at all time.
> Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically while also having additional benefits like global supply chain material and emission reduction, pedestrian safety, and road maintenance.
Please don't. we don't need more idiots telling us how to live our lives and micro managing us on how you feel we should live.
getting more people on electric scooters would do a lot of good too, if there was safe infrastructure to ride without getting hit by an oversized pickup. The city of Paris is doing the right thing here:
I'm a huge fan of the 15 minute city. It's a bit hard to retrofit that into existing sprawling cities. One avenue I'm excited about in places like Austin is building dense mixed use development areas like https://brodieoaksredevelopment.com/ which turns a massive strip mall into a much denser area as a destination.
This then makes it feasible to build public transit between these areas and start building things up along those transit lines.
These regulations should result in a lot of smaller cars. The easiest way for a manufacturer to get the fleet average down is to build and incentivize the sale of small EV's, because they will bring the fleet average down a lot more than a Hummer EV which has a horrible MPGe. Assuming of course they are successful in closing the truck loophole. They claim to be trying to close it, but time will tell.
The problem with these solutions is they always ignore one major detail: families. It's pretty hard to pack your kids and groceries into a tiny car or on a scooter.
Encouraging tiny cars for the masses may also encourage a Japan-style demographic time-bomb.
Small cars already exist. The Chevy Bolt, Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model 3 are small EVs for USA standards. VW Golf, Mini Cooper, Mazda 3, Kia Rio are more examples of smaller cars.
They're just not as popular as SUVs and trucks in the USA. People want big cars, so companies manufacture big cars too.
Electric scooters would work for 5 months of the year where I live (and we have and use them when we can).
I am an automotive EE that was on before 2008… there is no much irony in your post that hurt feelings by Californians be damned I’m going to explain it to you.
Thank Obama for large cars.
When he came in and you saw the “all cars will have xx MPG by 2025” or whatever year seemed like a lifetime away, the car mfgs said ”ok, but unless you reinvent the stoichiometric ratios of gasoline, this can’t be done”.
And they were right. There are some truths to ICE vehicles that until we have drastically different tires, and roads, and aluminum or composites are way cheaper (the latter not recyclable at all btw), some of these climate change proposals and dreams are just PR bullshit for the people that want to see it.
Now… what happened next was the car manufacturers explained, they came to a compromise. Between CARB and CAFE and NITSA and etc, the administration agreed that they would judge on footprint of vehicle.
Actual quote from one of these closed doors discussions: ”If you are going to grade us on footprint, we’re going to give you footprint”.
A single car going down the road today in CAFE eyes, is not one car. It might be 1.3 cars, because its footprint is 1.3x a 2008 comparable vehicle.
It’s not just footprint though! It’s drivetrain, weight, exemptions, regulation workarounds, class.
Chrysler, erm Fiat, erm Stellanis sell Jeep Wranglers 2dr electrics, so they can sell more diesel trucks. Among 20 other examples.
I don’t know the future with what is about to happen here. But I FUCKING PROMISE YOU this isn’t what it seems and the Biden Admin knows it already. If I had to guess, I would expect the mfgs to push a lot of basically disposable EVs that will last 50k miles and have batteries destined for landfills to make up for the vehicles they want to sell.
Recycling lithium is not currently cheaper than mining new, and I do not expect that to change soon. If you ask me, I would rather a steel car that lasts 300k be made over vehicles that won’t make it to 100k and are just trashed. But… I don’t get a say.
EDIT: As a nearly non-sequitur anecdote, I did cause a guy recently to have an ideological breakdown. He is a city planner complaining that a 9’x20’ parking space is killing him, and cars are only getting larger. I explained in detail the history and he had a lot of trouble coming to terms with it. He thought “his side” could do bo wrong.
We got an eBike a year ago, and have put nearly 1500 miles on it. We took our kids to school with it for a while (we moved away from the area their schools were in), and I regularly do grocery shopping for our family of 4.
I am pretty comfortable getting around on a regular bike, but the eBike is really a game-changer. If it's hot out, I can use more assist and not show up sweaty. If it's cold and/or wet, I can layer with pretty thick gear and not worry about being hot/sweaty, for the same reason.
My biggest shock: they included trucks. For the past many years, the restrictions on cars have been tightening, but everyone drives a truck that’s exempt from the requirements
My brother is a contractor in the Bay Area and he told me that PG&E will not allow the installation of 220 volt EV charging infrastructure in new construction or a home remodel unless the homeowner can prove they already own an EV. Add to that the issue of people who live in apartment buildings and condos and I don't see how we can scale up consumer demand quickly enough.
How does PG&E have the authority to regulate the instalation of EV charging? Do you mean they won't install a higher amp service panel like 200A instead of 150A?
If that's the case, it's not that crazy or unusual. While you used to be able to pay to upgrade your service panel, if everyone on the same block or segment of the grid all wants the higher service panel then it will require upgrades to the existing electrical lines and sub stations.
It makes a lot of sense to limit installing larger service panels to customers who will actual use it rather than haphazardly over provision the grid. But you can still easily charge an EV at 50A on a standard 150A or even 100A panel.
It's cheaper and easier to install a smart panel than to upgrade your service. You probably only need >100A service if you run your oven, dryer, aircon & car charging simultaneously. A smart panel will ensure that never happens. A cheaper alternative to a smart panel is the "Dryer Buddy" and competitors.
> My brother is a contractor in the Bay Area and he told me that PG&E will not allow the installation of 220 volt EV charging infrastructure in new construction or a home remodel unless the homeowner can prove they already own an EV.
How can they do that? Could you just say you want to install an electric dryer in your garage (or even buy a used one off of CraigsList and literally do it for a week)?
Do you know what the story is with that prerequisite? Speaking for literally everyone, I'd rather have charging infrastructure I can't utilize quite yet than a car I can't charge to use quite yet.
yeah, im pretty sure the US can cut a lot of emissions by making any car with an average fuel economy of under 25mpg considered a truck for license purposes (which includes training). Boom.
So far I bought a small suv because there were pretty much no other options on the market. Even Ford Mustangs are now SUVs.
“In a hot fucking minute” Which is why his attempt will be thrown out in court. Making changes to regs likes these requires bureaucratic paperwork or they get thrown out like many of 45s rushed regulation reversals did.
I mean this sincerely because I don't get it -- even if you're a republican DeSantis is batshit insane and is arguably closer to neo-fascism than Republican. What's the draw?
Like even if I liked the policy changes he's proposing I would be wary of him being the one to make them since he seems to give zero fucks about the democratic process or procedure if it gets in his way. Once you break the glass and people don't accept democratic results or don't believe it matters I don't see us repairing it.
I really want an EV, but they don't work for me. I live in an urban area and park on a city street. EV ownership would add a lot of complications to my life due to the current state of charging infrastructure.
I think EV adoption will eventually plateau until we solve overnight charging for cars parked on city streets or there is a large increase in rapid charging availability and speed.
How sure are we there will not be some accounting shenanigans allowing you to offset your rolling coal fleet with some paper certificates scheme that assures you might have cut down some rainforest but didn't.
> If they really wanted to cut, emissions bycicles and trains are the way to do it.
Exactly, what we really need to do is have a restrictive permitting system for cars like some cities have for guns. If you can't show good cause for needing a car, you shouldn't be able to get permit to buy one. Just use public transit or bike.
So, US proposes to basically do nothing and hope that technology will improve its emissions to something that's not remotely tolerable. That Biden sure is a epic leader.
Eh. And who will suffer? Poor people. Why? 'Drive a bus', that is why is the gist of reasoning here. Naturally, upper income and wealthy individuals will still drive crazy toys, but that is ok.
These requirements apply to new vehicles. Most poor don't buy new, and if they do, there are vehicles like the Bolt that are cheaper than your typical new SUV. Presumably the market will respond with options, similar to how in 2008 the poor couldn't afford smartphones. Additionally, the cost of "fuel" to go 300 miles is roughly $10-15 for EVs versus $40-50 for gas (assuming an efficient 4 cylinder), along with eliminating costs for 2-3 oil changes every year.
[+] [-] bryanmgreen|2 years ago|reply
Cars are simply massively overbuilt for their average use case. Reducing weight of vehicles is a very achievable goal that will cut emissions dramatically while also having additional benefits like global supply chain material and emission reduction, pedestrian safety, and road maintenance.
If you are involved in automotive, environmental, political spaces - or know someone who is - please reach out, email in bio.
[+] [-] quadrifoliate|2 years ago|reply
Car manufacturers are happy to build the majority of their consumer-facing vehicles as "light trucks" so they can ignore environmental standards, and those of us that want smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient vehicle need to compromise on safety.
SUVs need to be heavily penalized, and need to have far stricter licensing requirements. This will bring down emissions much more than some blanket move to EVs, and be beneficial for safety as well.
On the surface, weight penalties seem to be an effective way to accomplish this; I am curious if there are any examples or case studies about this that you can cite, 'bryanmgreen.
----------------------------------------
[1] https://jalopnik.com/every-car-looks-like-this-thanks-to-a-g...
[+] [-] pascalxus|2 years ago|reply
Of course it all comes down to consumer demand and regulations. I suspect Regulations have gone a long way towards making cars heavier and bigger and less efficient.
[+] [-] sevenf0ur|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nateoearth|2 years ago|reply
A related--albeit more "out-there"--idea is to impose momentum limits in addition to speed limits based on vehicle weight classes. We have a crude version of this on highways, where speed limits for trucks are often lower than the limits for cars (e.g., 70mph for cars, 65mph for trucks).
But I really like the idea of setting different speed limits for different weight classes of vehicles. Driving a Toyota Corolla? Let's call it a Class A vehicle (2,000-2,999 lbs), with a highway speed limit of 70mph. Driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee? That would be Class C (4,000-4,999 lbs), with a speed limit of 50mph.
This would make roads a lot safer, and add an additional, non-monetary, tax on heavier vehicles.
Another big benefit of imposing weight limits on consumer vehicles is that the United States would have a fighting chance of becoming energy independent, even before accounting for the shift to renewables. So we can add improved national security to the list of reasons to pursue this common-sense policy.
[+] [-] avalys|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajross|2 years ago|reply
[1] Which are heavy, because they can't source 2/3 of their reaction mass from the atmosphere and have to keep all the reactants in the battery at all time.
[+] [-] TheLoafOfBread|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autokad|2 years ago|reply
Please don't. we don't need more idiots telling us how to live our lives and micro managing us on how you feel we should live.
[+] [-] riffic|2 years ago|reply
getting more people on electric scooters would do a lot of good too, if there was safe infrastructure to ride without getting hit by an oversized pickup. The city of Paris is doing the right thing here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/10/20/paris-ma...
[+] [-] SECProto|2 years ago|reply
Note that your source is very outdated. Paris just opted to ban electric rental scooters effective September.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/parisians-vote-ban-e-sc...
[+] [-] maherbeg|2 years ago|reply
This then makes it feasible to build public transit between these areas and start building things up along those transit lines.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ARandomerDude|2 years ago|reply
Encouraging tiny cars for the masses may also encourage a Japan-style demographic time-bomb.
[+] [-] jwcooper|2 years ago|reply
They're just not as popular as SUVs and trucks in the USA. People want big cars, so companies manufacture big cars too.
Electric scooters would work for 5 months of the year where I live (and we have and use them when we can).
[+] [-] rqtwteye|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SV_BubbleTime|2 years ago|reply
I am an automotive EE that was on before 2008… there is no much irony in your post that hurt feelings by Californians be damned I’m going to explain it to you.
Thank Obama for large cars.
When he came in and you saw the “all cars will have xx MPG by 2025” or whatever year seemed like a lifetime away, the car mfgs said ”ok, but unless you reinvent the stoichiometric ratios of gasoline, this can’t be done”.
And they were right. There are some truths to ICE vehicles that until we have drastically different tires, and roads, and aluminum or composites are way cheaper (the latter not recyclable at all btw), some of these climate change proposals and dreams are just PR bullshit for the people that want to see it.
Now… what happened next was the car manufacturers explained, they came to a compromise. Between CARB and CAFE and NITSA and etc, the administration agreed that they would judge on footprint of vehicle.
Actual quote from one of these closed doors discussions: ”If you are going to grade us on footprint, we’re going to give you footprint”.
A single car going down the road today in CAFE eyes, is not one car. It might be 1.3 cars, because its footprint is 1.3x a 2008 comparable vehicle.
It’s not just footprint though! It’s drivetrain, weight, exemptions, regulation workarounds, class.
Chrysler, erm Fiat, erm Stellanis sell Jeep Wranglers 2dr electrics, so they can sell more diesel trucks. Among 20 other examples.
I don’t know the future with what is about to happen here. But I FUCKING PROMISE YOU this isn’t what it seems and the Biden Admin knows it already. If I had to guess, I would expect the mfgs to push a lot of basically disposable EVs that will last 50k miles and have batteries destined for landfills to make up for the vehicles they want to sell.
Recycling lithium is not currently cheaper than mining new, and I do not expect that to change soon. If you ask me, I would rather a steel car that lasts 300k be made over vehicles that won’t make it to 100k and are just trashed. But… I don’t get a say.
EDIT: As a nearly non-sequitur anecdote, I did cause a guy recently to have an ideological breakdown. He is a city planner complaining that a 9’x20’ parking space is killing him, and cars are only getting larger. I explained in detail the history and he had a lot of trouble coming to terms with it. He thought “his side” could do bo wrong.
[+] [-] davidw|2 years ago|reply
I am pretty comfortable getting around on a regular bike, but the eBike is really a game-changer. If it's hot out, I can use more assist and not show up sweaty. If it's cold and/or wet, I can layer with pretty thick gear and not worry about being hot/sweaty, for the same reason.
[+] [-] bdcravens|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikanj|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hardtke|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KingMachiavelli|2 years ago|reply
If that's the case, it's not that crazy or unusual. While you used to be able to pay to upgrade your service panel, if everyone on the same block or segment of the grid all wants the higher service panel then it will require upgrades to the existing electrical lines and sub stations.
It makes a lot of sense to limit installing larger service panels to customers who will actual use it rather than haphazardly over provision the grid. But you can still easily charge an EV at 50A on a standard 150A or even 100A panel.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tablespoon|2 years ago|reply
How can they do that? Could you just say you want to install an electric dryer in your garage (or even buy a used one off of CraigsList and literally do it for a week)?
[+] [-] bdcravens|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tbihl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Justsignedup|2 years ago|reply
So far I bought a small suv because there were pretty much no other options on the market. Even Ford Mustangs are now SUVs.
[+] [-] neogodless|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 35208654|2 years ago|reply
That pedigree out of the way, I’ll give my cynical take: this will get rolled back by President DeSantis in a hot fucking minute.
[+] [-] mint2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spivak|2 years ago|reply
Like even if I liked the policy changes he's proposing I would be wary of him being the one to make them since he seems to give zero fucks about the democratic process or procedure if it gets in his way. Once you break the glass and people don't accept democratic results or don't believe it matters I don't see us repairing it.
[+] [-] cpascal|2 years ago|reply
I think EV adoption will eventually plateau until we solve overnight charging for cars parked on city streets or there is a large increase in rapid charging availability and speed.
[+] [-] bdcravens|2 years ago|reply
> EV adoption will eventually plateau until we solve overnight charging for cars parked on city streets
In the US there are 140 million homes and 3 million EVs. Not to diminish your needs, but there's a lot of low-hanging fruit there.
[+] [-] ambicapter|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PeterStuer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abhayhegde|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panick21_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tablespoon|2 years ago|reply
Exactly, what we really need to do is have a restrictive permitting system for cars like some cities have for guns. If you can't show good cause for needing a car, you shouldn't be able to get permit to buy one. Just use public transit or bike.
[+] [-] Glench|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timcavel|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] einpoklum|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hdhuegau6hfhd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|2 years ago|reply