Kyle Mcallister wrote:
1. Applying emissions restrictions to new vehicles is not that big of a deal, as far as I am concerned . . .
I have never heard of retrofitting older vehicles with emission controls. In any case, the main concern is for CO2 and this cannot be reduced in an older car by any means.
B. Does not significantly impact the price of the vehicle, read, burden on the buyer.
Reducing fuel consumption reduces the overall cost of the vehicle, although it may raise the purchase price. By the same token, adding safety features may raise the purchase price somewhat but it really reduces the cost of insurance and the overall cost of owning the vehicle because most of the money paid in insurance claims go for bodily injury rather than automobile repair.
2. If these restrictions are to be gran'daddied onto older cars . . .
That is physically impossible, as I said.
4. You want a cheap electric car. Fine. You want it to plug in and shift the carbon upchuck somewhere else . . .
This is incorrect. You cannot move carbon emissions. Carbon goes everywhere instantaneously. Electric cars do not move carbon emissions; they reduce them by half or more. Electric cars are cheaper than gasoline cars because they save money on fuel. (Bear in mind that the cost of gasoline is far greater than the purchase price at the pump. You have to add several dollars to pay for wars, terrorism, global warming and so on.)
But we don't have the electric infrastructure to handle the load in many places, like L.A., as mentioned.
Again You misunderstand. Los Angeles could easily accommodate vast numbers of electric cars. I do not know the exact numbers but I expect half of the cars there could be electrically powered with no change to the infrastructure. By the time all of the cars there are electrically powered, the infrastructure could easily be upgraded.
- Jed
