Wyoming's would-be ban on sale of electric vehicles veers off road No, Wyoming lawmakers didn't get their bill backwards. A group of them led by Republican state senator Jim Anderson actually introduced a resolution last week to ban the sale of electric vehicles in the Cowboy State by 2035. While it cites the importance of the oil and gas industry to Wyoming and the need to protect it, Senate …
Wyoming has abundant reserves of coal. The state currently gets over 73% of its electrical power from this energy source. So just how would that power be shut off?
As for John Deere....gosh if the rural states don't need to supply food for the urban states, I guess they won't need nearly as much for themselves. No big deal to fire up the the old tractor. And there will be plenty of fertilizer available if they stop mono-crops and treat the soil properly.
Wyoming might have a lot of coal, but how much active mining is there in the state? They would need to import all the heavy equipment needed for mining, since they don't make D11 dozers and big rock trucks.
They may think they are self sufficient in their fantasies, but they are only self sufficient if civilization falls apart and everyone left is living a Mad Max existence.
Same here we have an "agricultural land reserve" (definitely not a green belt to restrict housing) because what would happen if we couldn't import food?
Of course we don't have any tractor factories or fertilizer plants in the reserve and most of the farms are greenhouses for flowers so it's not clear how strategic it is.
This post has been deleted by its author
They could sell their coal to China in return for batteries and solar panels. Or does Australia have that market cornered?
My old Farmall M is more than enough tractor to feed the dozen adults living on this property. It runs on Ethanol, which we grow here. Fertilizer is a byproduct of animal husbandry.
"They could sell their coal to China in return for batteries and solar panels."
If I'm being faithful to this crazy hypothetical where Wyoming is basically cut off by everything around it and vice versa, good luck shipping the coal to China without using the train lines that go to other parts of the US first. I don't think flying it there (assuming there's an exception for flights over the rest of the country) will be very efficient. Then again, it's a pretty ridiculous hypothetical, so I'm joining in just for fun.
I didn't see anyone propose a scenario where they were cut off from everybody else ... I assumed they'd move it via train to West Coast ports (today it mostly goes to Vancouver for export to Asia), or perhaps by train to one of the rivers to get it into the Mississippi like every other bulk product in the middle of the country. Regardless, it's a fossil fuel, so it's a viable trade good. And they have lots of it.
The hypothetical appears to include a lot of being cut off, because the other states are not going to provide power or equipment and Wyoming isn't going to provide agricultural or mineral products, which is a bit stronger than sanctions placed on Russia these days. I don't see why the states that are refusing to power or supply the state would still provide transport, but as I say, it's not at all realistic that any of this would happen so maybe establishing the specific rules isn't very important.
I have taken down quite a few trees with (manual) saw and axe (including apple - not that difficult IMHO).
Only got and sometimes use a chainsaw when I got older and the manual methods took longer and longer (some arthritic damage) and old age strength issues ( as you get older, needs a lot more time & effort to keep muscle strength up & though I exercise (not a gym user though as not the spare cash & time for that) it's not enough to keep up the good upper body strength I used to have ) ... though every time I go around to my (substantially younger) neighbour and remove overhanging branches from "our" trees growing on our land that are going onto his property* he's amazed how rapidly & easily I do it with hand tools compared to when he has attempted it.
Chainsaws good when you are very time pressured or a lot of trees to deal with (e.g. when storms make a few old trees unsafe at the same time & so need dealing with ASAP) but still like manual methods when time is not an issue
* I am in UK so technically its his responsibility to deal with them, but its minimal hassle for me & he struggles with it & means I get to bank up "good will" for when I need a favour in return.
My Uncle showed me how to use the old methods when harvesting Coastal Redwoods when I were a nipper. I can go back to a two-man saw if I need to, I even know the nearly lost art of sharpening them and properly setting their teeth. But why would I, when I have perfectly serviceable chainsaws? Besides, I rarely harvest redwoods anymore ... mostly I just eradicate the absolutely useless and dangerous eucalyptus weeds & send 'em through the chipper.
Yes, when pruning trees know-how is far more important than modern equipment.
Have hit&miss dragsaw, will travel.
"if you can get it"?
Meaning you don't actually cut your own?
Apple and nut trees do burn nicely, I'll give you that ... but that's not why I plant apple and nut trees. The first family who cleared portions of this land (pre-California) planted oak trees for the future, and every land owner since has planted a few oaks every year, and we are still planting more. The original trees (now 200 years old) are ready for harvest. We're going to let 'em grow a little longer ... There are still plenty of older, naturally planted trees that are past their sell-by-date that we make firewood from. Several of them have fallen over in this last month's saturating rain and should provide more than enough firewood for next year.
"I've 2 electric chainsaws which work perfectly well."
I have electric chainsaws, too. Nice little hobby/homeowner saws, but I wouldn't expect to do any real work with them. They wouldn't last a calendar quarter in the hands of a professional sawyer. Maybe not even a fortnight. (All Makita, two rear-handle with 16" bars, one top handle 10" bar. One 40V, one 36V, one 18V.)
"With my solar system I don't need any of that fossil fuel crap."
Ethanol isn't a fossil fuel, it's a row crop, and when done properly sequesters more carbon in the ground when growing than it releases when burned (including the necessary 2-stroke oil). My Stihl saws of all sizes thrive on it.
I don't think the subsidies are very large for small family farms. Dad had a farm of around 180 acres in Kentucky, and I think the most he ever got was like $5k. If memory serves, that was to PREVENT him from growing tobacco (which he didn't do anyway, but Uncle Sam pays per acre). Nothing to do with crops he actually wanted to plant (which was, mostly, grass for hay, I think).
Wyoming makes 0.41% of the US's agricultural output, according to one site I found. I'm not sure a Wyoming boycott of the rest of the US would be all that notable. I also ran across the statistic that the average Wyoming farm nets $22,000 annually, which...ouch. I guess I don't blame them for being bitter.
Wyoming is 52nd in population... even the District of Columbia (AKA "Washington DC") has more people.
("But the US only has 50 states?" Yes, Puerto Rico is 31st and DC is 50th, and they're both "territories")
They just need to sit back down and shut up.
They have two senators, precisely so that they don't have to sit back down and shut up.
On the other hand, that feels slightly disproportionate for just over half a million people. I guess it's none of my business though, since I'm not a US-ian. Y'all do you.
Tension between densely-populated urban areas and sparsely-populated rural areas has existed ever since America became independent. The census bureau says that rural areas cover 97% of our land area, but include less than 20% of the population. That's exactly why each state gets two senators, no matter the population -- to help balance the dominance of the urban areas in the House of Representatives. Most laws require the approval of both chambers, so neither side can force its will on the other. It gets messy sometimes, but for the most part it has worked as intended.
But at time the difference between rural and city was alot lot less and there were only 13 states to deal with.
But now you have Wyoming having the same power in the Senate as California, despite the fact theres 1/2 a million people in Wyoming and 50 million in Cali.....
"But now you have Wyoming having the same power in the Senate as California, despite the fact theres 1/2 a million people in Wyoming and 50 million in Cali....."
The US Senate was set up with two senators from each state as a way to afford some balance between the states. The US House of Representatives has its membership based on population of the state but is afforded less power. Obviously, a State with a larger proportion of the land used for agriculture isn't going to have the same amount of population as one with less. This doesn't make them any less important. A statement further up called out Wyoming as only contributing .41% of the total agricultural output of the US, but didn't go further into what their contribution is and what percent of that particular thing was. They very well might be a very large percentage of cattle, Bison and oats. Cherry picking data is always a bad idea and using averages often leads one into traps.
Don't forget that smaller states also get a disproportionate say in presidential elections. One presidential vote in Wyoming has about 3.6 times the power of one vote in California. This is why you can have a president who didn't win a plurality of the vote. So really we've overbalanced things the other direction -- instead of big states being able to push the small states around, a minority of people in small states can now dictate how everyone has to live. When those states are places like Wyoming, where not being straight can get you killed, this is cause for concern for some of us.
"This is why you can have a president who didn't win a plurality of the vote. So really we've overbalanced things the other direction"
The Electoral Collage system of voting for the US President is in place to prevent a handful of the largest cities from choosing the candidate that wins. Each state gets a portion of electoral votes based on its population so there is some balance there. A purely popular vote would mean that NY, Atlanta, Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles plus a few more would decide the presidency and everybody else wouldn't have much of an affect on the outcome. It's not perfect, but I haven't seen any other scheme that is simple enough to understand and will do any better.
It's not like LA and Atlanta agree on much. I don't see this as a big problem. The biggest blue cities alone aren't even close to a national majority.
Is it really any better to have a bunch of rural people whose only motive is hating "city folk" and wanting to punish them able to make decisions for the entire country?
"It's not like LA and Atlanta agree on much."
Yes, but large cities, in general, tend to have more people of a liberal slant and rural areas are often much more conservative. The last time Hilary Clinton lost, somebody plotted out a topographic map of where her votes came from and the big peaks were centered on the largest US cities (they didn't show data for Mexico and China). She won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote and a red/blue map by land area showed a big divide between her and Mr Trump. It goes to show that looking at the data for a simple solution would be very tough and even more so when the US Founding Fathers had to come up with the methodology.
Actually, any State can secede.
But the hoops they would have to jump through make it exceedingly difficult.
See the the U.S. Supreme Court's 1868 ruling in "Texas v. White", which concluded that a State (or States) could secede by gaining approval of both houses of Congress and then obtaining ratification by three fourths of the nation's legislatures.
That's the non-violent way. Then there is Revolution ... If enough people are pissed off enough at the Federal Government and civil unrest becomes extreme, the State(s) and the Nation might simply agree to part ways to minimize the damage.
Before you ask, no, I do not want to live to see such a thing come about. Especially not the second option.
And Wyoming functions 4 times better than Taxifornia. Also despite the teachings that the 19th amendment allowed the XX to vote the truth is that by 1900 the low population states of the West had Ma voting in addition to churning the butter from the cow just milked and the eggs just brought for the Youngums to candle as part of the morning chores.
The part they missed was trying to pull away from the plug when the wind is blowing. Speaking of blow as part of full employment schemes the power is transmitted above the ground so there will be sufficient downage to provide alternative employment. Wyoming where you can see all the way to Montana
I suspect it goes back further than that ... probably over 17,000 years. The painters of Lascaux had SOME kind of hold on the local farmers/hunter-gatherers. Art does not support itself. And of course Jericho goes back to 11,000 years or thereabouts. There is plenty of evidence for still older "cities".
SJ4 was never intended as anything more than a symbolic gesture that bill co-sponsor Republican senator Brian Boner described as "tongue-in-cheek.""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," Boner told the Cowboy State Daily.
<minions>"Boner! Heh-heheheh-heh!</minions> Sometimes, the labelling on the tin is accurate.
Aside from the fact that the state is one of the top 10 US crude oil producers, which factors heavily into the resolution's criticisms, SJ4 does make some realistic arguments against the expansion of EVs in Wyoming, like the necessity of importing minerals used in EV batteries.
Or not. According to the Wyoming Mining Association, "Northeast Wyoming is home to one of the highest grade rare earths deposits in North America, currently under development. [emphasis added]". Maybe...just maybe... if Republicons would pull their collective heads out of their collective lower alimentary canals and stop tilting at culture war windmills, they might realize the potential for making some serious monnaay from the way things are headed.
And what Republican doesn't want more money?
Presumably this question is no '...more than a symbolic gesture that [is strictly] "tongue-in-cheek"'.
I mean seriously? Are you seriously trying to equate the disposal/reprocessing of wind turbine blades with the 'disposal' of CO2 and all the industrial paraphernalia used in producing, processing and transporting the stuff that produces said CO2.
Nah, it's just 'tongue in cheek' isn't it—you're havin' a laugh, aren't you? ;-)
And don't forget that the wind turbine probably has been in use for over 20 years...
Producing lots of pollution free leccy for all that time.
Oh, and giving everyone Cancer according to Donald J Trump
whereas.... Coal is clean power (again according to Donald J Trump)
The MAGA/GQP crowd are really plumbing new depths with all this crap.
Oh, and it is all fully documented in great detail on Hunter Biden's Laptop...
"How exactly do you wear out a solar panel?"
The performance of (current) solar panels deteriorates over time, gradually reducing their output for a given level of light input.
That said, the ones on my roof are warranted to perform at over 83% of their nominal capacity after 25 years, so as long as you slightly over-provision at install time this is not likely to be a significant issue for most people. At that point in their life, it would also be possible to replace the original panels and de-rate them to a lower output for a new life in a less demanding situation eg., an ex-400W panel de-rated to 300W would still be fine for many purposes, at a suitably reduced price.
"so as long as you slightly over-provision at install time this is not likely to be a significant issue for most people."
I wouldn't over-provision but look for ways to increase efficiency. I've gone from tungsten lamps to CFL to LED in my lifetime and every time I save more and more energy. The extra money spent on putting in a too large solar array might be money better spent on a heat-pump or insulation. I'm always looking for the next lowest hanging fruit.
"I wouldn't over-provision but look for ways to increase efficiency."
I over-provisioned on purpose. That way I'll never need to make changes, other than battery replacement. I expect to see 45-50 years of useful life out of the PV panels and attendant electronics (with two battery changes) ... but then they are name-brand, and not chinesium bought of the back of a truck in an ally. It didn't really cost a lot more than "just enough", especially when you consider the costs over 50 years. My kid has already thanked me.
Heat pumps (especially GSHPs!) are worth their weight in gold. Modern technology just works. Look into this first.
Proper insulation is a must, even if you are staying on-grid. Get this done before even thinking about heat pumps.
Yeah, PV isn't in our budget right now for Mountain Fastness 2.0 due to the sky-high construction costs in these parts, but it's in the plan for the future. The local electrical co-op is 100% daytime solar anyway, but generating our own wouldn't hurt.
We didn't bother with a GSHP because our heating load is very small, between passive solar the huge thermal mass of the building, and good insulation. Much of the heat will be supplied by the wood stove, which is one of those new high-efficiency catalyzing ones.
And we don't use air conditioning in the summer (no call for it around here), so the heat pump would just sit unused half the year.
"And we don't use air conditioning in the summer (no call for it around here), so the heat pump would just sit unused half the year."
Where I am is very good for an evaporative cooler in the summer except for a very few humid days which I just suffer though. I use passive solar heating in the winter from panels on the south side of the house that are shaded from the eves in the summer. My longer term plans are to add solar PV and a zero-export management system that takes unused power and heats/cools the house and will lastly dump power into a thermal battery (Building this myself). I'll have to calculate later if a battery pack for nighttime use is financially viable. Right now, there are more places to spend money with a higher rate of return. Grid power as a backup and for night use won't be that expensive that a battery would make sense.
Jake, I obviously don't know your exact age, but judging from my memory of your posts you are not that young - are you sure _you_ will see 50 years of useful life?
But I totally agree, the deterioration is well known and slow, there is no reason PV panels should not give useful production over many decades.
- Live long and prosper
My panels have an expected lifetime of 30 years. They will degrade over time but should still work even after then. Solar panels can already be recycled. I would imagine that the state of the art will move on over the decades.
https://www.solarrun.com.au/can-my-solar-panels-be-recycled/
Your panels should last much longer than that. But unless you bought name-brand electronics, and top-of-the-line wiring, that's where you will have trouble first. Spend the money today so you don't have to replace parts that are no longer in production ten years from now.l
Not that I agree with Wyoming's idea in any form, but the whole "we must go electric" waffle is selecting a solution instead of addressing the whole picture.
If the diktat was "go carbon neutral or carbon negative", yes, THAT would work because that also incorporates other developments such as e-fuel, CO2 recovery and power generation but no, let's first convert the bongs we get from all the mining outfits who see their profits almost double by selectively promoting one future.
Wrong. Just wrong.
LOL. There are, however, a couple of CO2 capture projects underway, some at source, some more generic (although I think they would work better if they were closer to dense populations).
I personally don't believe that focusing one one single solution will help. I think we need a decent spread of options to make even a dent in the problem we have created for ourselves so I disagree with chapioning one option at the cost of others, it's simply too early to make that choice.
I run mine on ethanol made from corn (maize) grown here. The corn leaves far more carbon in the ground than I pull out for alcohol. Thus my "petrol" cars are better than carbon neutral, running them actually sequesters carbon. (The diesel tractors run on used cooking oil.)
I always heard that the process of fertilizing, cultivating, and distilling ethanol created more carbon emissions than it saved, but it's possible the equation has changed. I know the ethanol plant they built where I grew up used massive amounts of natural gas.
I'm a small operation, and quite selfish. The ethanol is for my farm's internal use only.
My fertilizer is produced with cows, sheep, hogs, horses and chickens.
I pull the seed-drill with an ethanol converted Farmall Model M. Cultivating is minimal, using the same Model M. At the moment, harvest is done with a smallish ethanol converted combine, but this is still very much a work in progress.
Distillation heat is provided by a GSHP.
1 acre here produces 175 bushels of corn (average, I have 50 acres split between corn and soy, alternating yearly. I sell my beans to an artisan tofu maker). One bushel of corn can produce about 2.75 gallons of ethanol. Doing the maths for you, I can currently make about 12,000 gallons of ethanol per year for fuel. I leave all the trash in the field, shallow till, and plant winter cover crops (which get tilled under in in the spring[0]), all of which help to sequester more carbon. The spent corn, sometimes called DDGS ("dried distillers grains with solubles") is a high protein supplement for animal feed, thus re-starting the entire process.
[0 I'm playing with both cereal rye and rye grass, and clover on a few acres as harvestable animal feed, instead of just plowing the cover-crop under. I'm not no-till (yet?), the soil here is volcanic and alluvial river bottom ... very fertile, but not very high in organic mater. Once I get a good 18" of topsoil built up I might look into no-till again. Maybe. Seems to be a lot of religion involved in that, though.
Winter in Wyoming can be a death sentence for the best of those who live there. With temperatures -30 below zero Fahrenheit -34.44 Celsius and winds that can easily reach Hurricane force winds. Causing snow to blow so heavily that you can not see the road. Couple that with two lane roads and big semi rigs much larger that you have in Europe.
This is no environment for an electrical Vehicle. To venture out in this weather is as deadly to a responder in and emergency as it is for the people in an Electrical vehicle broken down or unable to start due to the batteries unable to hold a charge.
Even Gas and Diesel powered vehicles require block heaters in the Winter. Batterries require warmers as well. Diesel is lighter in winter to help reduce the chance of gelling.
You can enter a highway between Rawlins and Rock Springs only to have the road close behind you due to bad weather. you could be stuck out there with no one around you for a day or two. Enough for everyone in an EV to freeze to death,
So if you wish to make a political issue of this and insist on a EV in Wyoming. Make sure your life insurance is caught up.
Not an EV problem, but ENTIRELY a planning and preparedness problem. It barely even gets cold there, what are you whining about? Plus, the typical altitude of Wyoming is over a mile above sea level making the cold more tolerable than it would be at or near sea level.
Did you know that european semi trucks often have more powerful engines than north american models? They're not narrower either, so what do you mean by "bigger semi rigs" ? You think they don't have B trains in EU?
If it's REALLY cold, then it doesn't matter if you have a combustion engine, because the exhaust moisture will condense and freeze in the exhaust system, plug up the exhaust and stall the engine. Been there, done that.
What you really want are plenty of waterproof matches, and some tea candles. When it's -46C and the wind is 110+KPH then you will feel the cold.
Diesels are more likely to not start in very cold weather than gas engines. (I own both, I am well aware of the grief of a cold diesel) So should you ban diesels so that no one can possibly get stranded because their fuel filter gelled up in the middle of nowhere?
"Light diesel"? I doubt there is a significant difference in weight between winter and summer diesel. In the US, summer diesel is #2 kerosene and winter diesel is a mix of #1 and #2 kerosene. #1 has no paraffins in it. Paraffins 'cloud' at a higher temperate, so reducing them reduces the risk of your fuel system getting blocked in cold weather. But the paraffins add BTUs to the fuel, so they are important for fuel economy.
People need to take some personal responsibility. If the weather isn't suitable for the vehicle that you own, maybe you should stay home. Doesn't matter whether you're driving a gas F150 or an electric F150.
And note, highway closures due to bad weather aren't unique to Wyoming.
There are real concerns here but freezing to death because the road closed is not really one. Tests have shown a stranded EV can keep its heater going a long time. Pretty close to as long as a gasoline/diesel vehicle can keep idling to heat its interior. And it won't asphyxiate you in the process, as unfortunately happened to some stranded motorists this winter.
This legislation whether serious or not was clearly never going to get anywhere, after all eventually all major car manufacturers will switch to making EVs. And let be honest Wyoming's entire population is less than a medium sized city so there is hardly enough of a market for major manufactures to keep producing ICE vehicles just for that state alone.
Although there will probably continue to be smaller manufacturers making ICE vehicles for niche uses for some time to come, you can bet that eventually these will get pretty expensive since the market to sell them in will be getting smaller year on year as more people switch to EVs.
I also agree that Wyoming's population is too small to pressure automakers to keep producing ICEVs. If it was just them, they'd likely become a dumping ground for used ICEVs from other states as automakers make the switch to EV platforms.
Problem is, these sorts of Republican protest laws rarely stay isolated to one state once they pass. I'd expect other red states to join in. If Florida or Texas did so, I'd imagine that automakers would cave in and keep some ICEV production going.
That said, what do they consider an "electric vehicle"? Do hybrid or plug-in hybrid EVs also count or is it limited to battery EVs, too? If PHEVs were allowed, I could see automakers still moving to EV platforms while offering range extender series hybrids like the BMW i3.
If PHEVs were prohibited, then I could see things get ugly. Automakers are not going to throw much money into updating dead-end ICEV platforms. And when those legacy ICEVs start bumping into federal fuel efficiency rules, they'll have effectively painted themselves into a corner.
Because of the commenter above with a quip about horse and carriage in Wyoming, I immediately thought Amish. As I'd also been mucking about with ChatGPT, I thought, let's have some fun!
Q: how many amish are there?
A: As of 2021, it is estimated that there are around 300,000 Amish people living in the United States and Canada. This number may vary slightly due to changes in population and migration patterns.
Q: what is the population of wyoming?
As of 2021, the population of Wyoming is approximately 578,759 according to the United States Census Bureau.
Q: if all amish moved to wyoming, how would it shift the political landscape?
A: If all Amish people were to move to Wyoming, it would likely have a significant impact on the state's political landscape. The Amish tend to have conservative values and do not participate in the political process, so it would likely shift the political balance towards more conservative candidates and policies. Additionally, the influx of such a large population would likely put strain on the state's infrastructure and resources, potentially leading to changes in state budget priorities. However, it's important to note that it's a highly unlikely scenario and the Amish people have a strong sense of community and are known to not move frequently.
...
[MORE conservative? MORE?! What would that even look like?]
Q: how could wyoming become even more conservative than it already is?
A: Wyoming is already considered one of the most conservative states in the United States, with a strong Republican presence in state politics. However, if all Amish people were to move there, it could become even more conservative in the following ways:
Voter turnout: The Amish do not participate in the political process, so this could further decrease voter turnout, which would likely benefit more conservative candidates and policies.
Political representation: The influx of a large population with conservative values could lead to more conservative candidates running for office and potentially winning elections.
Policy changes: With a more conservative majority in the state legislature and in Congress, there could be a push for more conservative policies such as lower taxes, fewer regulations, and stronger support for traditional values.
Demographic changes: The sudden increase in population could lead to demographic changes and could affect the state's culture, which would be reflected in policies and regulations.
It's important to note that this is a highly unlikely scenario, and that the Amish people have a strong sense of community and are known to not move frequently.
...
There's your ChatGPT non-answer. Who knows what it "thinks" that would like. The Amish Socialist Worker's Party?
Apologies for turning this into almost more of a "how useless ChatGPT still is in many/most ways" detour.
If the Amish do not participate in the political process, candidates won't spend any time pandering to them. The outcome sounds more like no effect at all. Amish tend to have a stronger sense of community and often pull together to take care of their own so there isn't likely to be a greater burden on the state. The culture of the state in terms of outward appearance also wouldn't change as the Amish keep to themselves so aren't going to skew the culture outside of the areas they settle.
Admittedly, in the very hypothetical situation described, where all the Amish move to Wyoming, there would be changes. I'm not sure what they would be, but if you take 300k people and put them in a place that only has 500k people in it, there are going to be changes. Whether that's 500k people who decide they don't like the newcomers who take up plenty of space, the existing population deciding they really do like them and will start adopting more of their culture, or someone in the community who realizes that they now make up 37% of the state population and probably majorities in many places and can therefore wield a lot more political power than they could when they were more spread out, there would be some knock-on effects. With any realistic movement pattern, where smaller numbers take a long time to decide on a new location for a community, you're likely to be right about the level of change.
It would still skew the political system though since Wyoming would get however many new congressional districts to cover that population. If Amish don't vote then more likely that they will all end up Republican.
Although this would also remove some congressional districts in other states since the maximum number is fixed at 435.
I believe this has happened recently, CA lost a couple, TX gained a couple or similar.
For Wyoming to ban EV's would mean absolutely nothing. While the sales of EV's in the state from licensed dealers would be curtailed, people could still purchase new or used EV's from outside of the state or in-state individuals and Wyoming would still have to register and license those vehicles due to interstate commerce laws.
In many rural parts of the US, it can be many miles to get to a gas station. This is why diesel is often the fuel of choice as its less flammable and easier to store than petrol so people will buy in bulk and refuel their vehicles from their own stores. Having an EV can be just as easy to keep 'fueled' as even in out of the way rural areas, there is still electricity. An electric F-150 might not be able to drag a heavy trailer great distances between charges, it can still haul a whole bunch of feed or fencing supplies around a large property on one charge. In the colder months, the truck can be warmed up while still plugged in via an app or the quick press of a button on the dash. That's going to be more efficient than keeping the whole block of a diesel engine warm enough all night long.
Thing is though, with a large tank of diesel and a hand pump, you'll always be able to get your truck fueled up when you've been using it during the ongoing emergency for whatever reasons you need.
When there's been a snowstorm and everyone gets snowed in, it's very likely there won't be power for a few days (lines get downed by icing and high winds, poles snapped because a truck skidded off the road on the ice, etc). Then how are you going to keep your EV going? Diesel generator? Better buy a big one.
AFAIK, storms and windmills don't really go together, and as for cleaning solar cells, the same storms (a) hold back the sunlight so you won't get much out of them and (b) make going up there to clean them a tad challenging, and that's without taking into consideration that it could all have frozen solid.
I think a petrol powered ICE will work. A hybrid could possibly work too, though, but full EVs? There are plenty of tests visible online where people try to recharge Teslas and all they get is "computer says no", even after a while heating. That makes all recharging stations the EV equivalent of Hotel California - you can connect up any time, but you can never leave (as long as it's properly cold)..
"There are plenty of tests visible online where people try to recharge Teslas and all they get is "computer says no", even after a while heating."
Teslas have a large overhead so charging on 120V/15amp circuit in the US is next to useless. If somebody is trying to charge a Tesla that way, they aren't going to have much luck. Many other EV's can do just fine. Some early Leaf owners slow charge at home exclusively and those models don't have the same amount of parasitic usage as a Tesla.
"Roof top Solar cells and Windmills, gotta clean the sniow off butt you should do that anyway..."
I was watching some videos on how solar panels deal with snow and they tend to shed it very quickly when the sun comes out. To give it a bit of a hand only means uncovering a small portion of a panel before it will heat up enough to get the snow to slide off the rest of the way. Look out below!
"An electric F-150 might not be able to drag a heavy trailer great distances between charges"
If it's anything like this, then it will
https://www.terbergspecialvehicles.com/en/vehicles/terminal-tractors/#YT203-EV
Handles up to a 100 tonnes, suitable for use in Scandinavia
So far I've only driven the diesel model. Looking forward to trying the EV out as it is much quieter.
There is absolutely no way in hell that I would trust that tinker-toy with a set of joints full of hay coming down Hwy 80 from our Nevada property (where we grow it) to the Sonoma property (where it is eaten). Much less hauling manure the other direction ... Not enough wheels on the ground, for one thing. Stopping to charge it at least twice on the way is another.
Electric trucks aren't working trucks. They are haberdashery for urban cowboys.
The working trucks on this ranch almost all have a PTO hydraulic pump, with lines run fore and aft. The hydraulics are used for water pumps, splitters, chipper/shredders, augers (ground), augers (feed), blades of various descriptions, winches, conveyors, sweepers, bale shredders, feed mixers, one pickup has a 3-point on the back, etc. etc. And yes, they are also used to go into town for groceries, to the feed-store, and pulling trailers of all descriptions between our various properties. There is absolutely no way that a battery powered vehicle could physically, reliably and financially handle the duty of a diesel pickup. Not today, not ever. Battery chemistry and physics say no.
And yes, I've looked into it, and done the sums. It just ain't going to happen. It's a pipe-dream.
I am very curious on the reason for the down vote. This person has done an analysis on his ranching operation and found that neither the economics (buy lots of low use specialized equipment) nor the physical plant (yet) mounting are not in the plans so the logic is for the continuance of present equipment. Just cause one wishes it to be it aint necessarily so
TANSTAFL
as a paying member of the FIRST Church of Cynics World Wide I can expect the following of the house of MSoft, Lawyers and those that turned this fun little exercise into ideological content to fire away.I put a clean white shirt so the blood will show
9yet
"buy lots of low use specialized equipment"
Used more than you might think. At least weekly, in most cases, some daily. All save hours of manual labo(u)r per use. Very cost effective in the long run. And there are absolutely no electric equivalents available to replace them.... and never will be. Battery chemistry and physics say no.
"But aren't most trucks (pickups?) in the US sold to haberdashery cowboys?"
Of course. Many people buy the wrong tool for the job. It's a free country, I have no issue with that.
That doesn't alter the fact that an electric pickup truck can not do the job that I (and many others) need a pickup to do.
No matter how much the greenaholics wish it were true, one size does not fit all.
Note: If someone were to give me a button to push that would feed the exhaust of all the "rolling coal" pickups back into the cabs of those trucks, and then lock the doors, I'd happily push it. Those fucking fuel wasting idiots are giving the rest of us a bad name.
The NEVI program is supposed to give under $24 million to Wyoming for EV charging points over 5 years. Fast chargers (Level 3 - 480v DC - 1 hour to full charge for a car) cost around $40,000 per port so the budget would only pay for 600 ports (ie 600 vehicles being charged at once). Even though Wyoming has a low population it would need far more chargers than 600. Slower chargers (Level 2 - 240v AC - 32 miles range per hour of charge) are much cheaper at an average installed cost of $5,500 per port but each vehicle occupies a charging port for much longer (several hours for a full charge). Even only using Level 2 chargers the NEVI budget would only fund 4400 charging ports which is still insufficient for Wyoming (1 charging port per 130 people!!!) .
(Costs are for public charging ports according to Future Energy - https://futureenergy.com/how-much-do-ev-charging-stations-cost/ )
I don't know about the economics of delivering electricity in Wyoming or even the US in general, but I'd imagine that most people will pay less to charge at home than on a public charger. So, although 600 chargers does sound low, is it really as low as you imply for the population? If/when I get an EV, I'll most definitely be making sure it gets as much charge as possible from my home/domestic rate power than commercial public chargers.
It also sound like a pretty rural state (look at the population density, it is even lower than that of Saskatchewan (I think...) ). Most of the US is also pretty far South (for a European, that is...), the northernmost parts (excluding Alaska) are on the same latitude as Switzerland. This means that solar power should be a viable option. Put a bunch of big panels on your barn roof and tell the leccy company to fork off, tell big oil the same and charge your EV at home. You need to plug it in in winter anyway (or is that only a Canadian thing?) to heat the engine block, so just put the charging point there (yeah, need a new cable put in, and with the copper prices...).
For us city dwellers this is unfortunately more difficult: you (maybe) cannot park the car close enough to the house and If you live in a flat the roof belongs to either the landlord or all owners combined. So you need to use public charging points (which is possible, just less convenient).
"The NEVI program is supposed to give under $24 million to Wyoming for EV charging points over 5 years."
That's the problem, they're being given money. It's much better to leave it to private companies which will install chargers based on demand rather than political dealing.
If you aren't charging at home, charging to 100% isn't a good use of time. Yes, it takes hours on a Level 2 connection, but those connections are fine for many shops, cinemas, amusement parks, train stations, etc. The beauty of an EV is you don't need to visit a specialized shop to refuel if you have the ability to charge at home/work. My car will go between 400 and 500 miles on a full tank of gas. My bladder won't go that far and I very rarely spend more than a 1/2 tank on a trip out and back. Since I can charge at home, nearly 95% or more of my usage can be done every day without having to stop somewhere if I plug in overnight. There is a fallacy that every gas pump needs to have several charging stands to replace it. The reality is that the first EV adopters are going to be the ones that can charge at home or work so they only need charging on long trips.
Well done. Propose the stupid idea to show the stupidity of the same idea from the other side. Setting a date to move to EV's or even assuming EV's are the solution is insanity. Not to say it might not work but there is the legal system and there is reality, and reality will always win. Banning EV's by 2035 is as stupid as banning ICE vehicles by 2023. Unfortunately some people wont be able to see the equivalence.
EV proponents who fancy the EV as a "one solution to rule them all" should make a test drive across Wyoming's Elk Mountain on I-80 in a January blizzard, or across the Red Desert region in July-August. Be sure to take lots of survival supplies and a good pair of hiking boots.
Those living on the compact & smallish UK turf have little conception of a Western US region where rural roads often have signs warning gasoline-fueled vehicle drivers that the "next station" is XX miles ahead. Fuel up now.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
