• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

  • Beginning April 1st, and running through April 30th, there is a new 2024 BMW MOA Election discussion area within The Club section of the forum. Within this forum area is also a sticky post that provides the ground rules for participating in the Election forum area. Also, the candidates statements are provided. Please read before joining the conversation, because the rules are very specific to maintain civility.

    The Election forum is here: Election Forum

What does the looming ICE ban mean for BMW motorcycles?

Anyone care to make a gentleman’s wager (steak dinner) that all ICE will be banned by 2030? Anything less than a total ban will simply be a transfer of power from the people to the elites.

ICE ban would need to include:

Tanks
Aircraft
Spacecraft
Cargo ships
Semi trucks
Police vehicles
Fire trucks
Busses
Political motorcades.
(Basically any and every fossil fuel based engine)

If we’re just talking about banning only the people’s mode of transportation, this whole thread is academic, circular, intellectual masturbation, and not a rational discussion, as it’s environmental impact would be moot.

My position, like the Y2K reference I made earlier, 2030 will come and go and we will still be using Internal Combustion Engines, and those that advocated for their ban will rationalize or “forget” this conversation even happened.

At the current rate a steak dinner in 2030 may cost $500, so it might be worth paying up early if you think you’re going to loose.

Well said, Reece, and logical. We can have that steak dinner together, but I won't take your bet. :rocker
 
At this point I think all are aware of why you think this.

OM

Because it's common in forums having adopted best practices? Because it discourages abuse by those who wield power? Because mods may not apply the rules fairly to themselves? Because it makes perfect sense?
 
Anyone care to make a gentleman’s wager (steak dinner) that all ICE will be banned by 2030? Anything less than a total ban will simply be a transfer of power from the people to the elites.

ICE ban would need to include:

Tanks
Aircraft
Spacecraft
Cargo ships
Semi trucks
Police vehicles
Fire trucks
Busses
Political motorcades.
(Basically any and every fossil fuel based engine)

If we’re just talking about banning only the people’s mode of transportation, this whole thread is academic, circular, intellectual masturbation, and not a rational discussion, as it’s environmental impact would be moot.

My position, like the Y2K reference I made earlier, 2030 will come and go and we will still be using Internal Combustion Engines, and those that advocated for their ban will rationalize or “forget” this conversation even happened.

At the current rate a steak dinner in 2030 may cost $500, so it might be worth paying up early if you think you’re going to loose.

That's not what's been proposed at all, is it?
 
I completely agree, 2030 will just come and go and not much will have changed. No politician in their right mind, that wants to remain in office, will ever address the true cause of global warming that being there is just way too many of us creatures on planet earth. Some how I think ma nature will come up with a solution if we as a specie don't. With luck I won't be around.

The California EV swap is in 2035 and, at that point, it's only affecting light trucks and cars. It doesn't affect any of the stuff Reece put up on his lengthy list.

But, of course, let's keep rolling with all the hysteria, cynicism and misinformation if it gets your amygdala properly fired up for some angertainment.

Here. Read something. Alleviate some of the abject and seemingly intentional ignorance that's living in this thread. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035

Or, you know, we can keep having a conversation based on BS people have brought here that simply isn't true.

Reece's assertion that all those things on his list are going to be banned is ridiculous and completely false.

I still see people thinking that they're going to pay for all this. Unless someone here's making $400k/year, you're not going to see any increase in your taxation. But you all know this, right? Or are you just spouting all the fear being fed to you by Rupert Murdoch?

WRT to too many people, well y'all keep making them and they're gonna have to live somewhere, eh? And they're gonna make some more, so they're gonna have to live somewhere, too. Don't look at me. We didn't have any.
 
Well said, Reece, and logical. We can have that steak dinner together, but I won't take your bet. :rocker

Except that's not what's been proposed at all is it? Reece's statements are categorically false from top to bottom regarding what's affected

  • Incorrect/inaccurate statement 1: The 2030 ban. The California ban is 2035 as is the US ban. 2030 is incorrect.
  • Incorrect/inaccurate statement 2: Vehicles beyond cars and light trucks (GVW<8500 pounds) will be banned in 2030, including aircraft, semis etc. Legislation only affects cars and light trucks. No motorcycles, semi trucks, tractors, airplanes or anything else.

We'll have a better conversation here if people show up with true statements. As I said earlier here, y'all have some major gaps in your knowledge and understanding of what's going on and as a result it feels like there's a lot of fear based statements that just aren't true.
 

That'd be great. All in. Fission leaves a hell of a mess behind.

But I'd rather not pay people for my electricity, so I'm gonna make it on my roof or out in the backyard. PG&E is happy to send me a bill every month for the price of a new bike payment for gas and electricity.

If you can make your own power for way less, why would you buy power at all? In 5 years, it'll be paid for and I've got, at minimum, 15 years of literally free electricity generation.

So, sure. Fission for folks that can't generate their own. But for anyone with a roof, make your own and never pay a gas or electric bill again.
 
No "delivery" charge to support the infrastructure/transmission lines in CA?

This is kind of dizzying - https://www.pge.com/en_US/residenti...inimum-bill-charges/minimum-bill-charges.page
OM

There's still a lot of argument about this. Under Title 24, no grid ties are expressly identified and allowed, but the power companies want to get their money, so they're trying to get NEM 3.0 in place to require a meter. Is it settled? I believe 12/15/22 is when we'll get a decision. To me, PG&E can f off and die. 5000 homes burned to the ground in Santa Rosa. Paradise completely flattened. Other first this year were also precipitated by equipment failure on long distance, high voltage transmission lines. Why are we adhering to this model when we can generate power locally and not have to worry about burning half the state town because of single digit humidity and high winds?

I think the two laws are in conflict with each other. I have a friend with a solar array in Placerville and while he's grid tied, he's still generating more electricity than he's using and his bills are negative numbers. PG&E owes him money and they owe him a little more every month.

I think his total spend to install all his capacity, including enough capacity to heat his pool, run the house and install a new roof, storage and inverter, was right about $30K. He's got enough power on board to run his house for two days on the batteries, even if the sun somehow didn't come up both days. He got federal financing on it, which is super cheap and he got ridiculous credits on his equipment purchases.

He's a few miles outside of town, so instead of driving his F250 down there to buy groceries, he's going to get a cheap used EV and get rid of most of his gasoline expenditures. He's already ditched all his gas powered lawn and yard equipment, with the exception of one of his big chain saws.

Why not? Stop paying for gas.
 
If only that were true. IMHO you just did what you accused others of doing.

How so? My neighbors - 25% of the houses on my street - are all making their own juice and not paying PG&E. 3 out of those 4 houses are juicing up their Teslas, Bolt, Hyundai EV, PHEV Rav4 and VW id.4 off their roof.

What am I missing?
 
There's still a lot of argument about this. Under Title 24, no grid ties are expressly identified and allowed, but the power companies want to get their money, so they're trying to get NEM 3.0 in place to require a meter. Is it settled? I believe 12/15/22 is when we'll get a decision. To me, PG&E can f off and die. 5000 homes burned to the ground in Santa Rosa. Paradise completely flattened. Other first this year were also precipitated by equipment failure on long distance, high voltage transmission lines. Why are we adhering to this model when we can generate power locally and not have to worry about burning half the state town because of single digit humidity and high winds?

I don't think most can go without the available back up provided by gas at the street and public electricity at the meter. I'm pretty sure a metering system is necessary if there are connections to the grid.

I think the two laws are in conflict with each other. I have a friend with a solar array in Placerville and while he's grid tied, he's still generating more electricity than he's using and his bills are negative numbers. PG&E owes him money and they owe him a little more every month.

I think his total spend to install all his capacity, including enough capacity to heat his pool, run the house and install a new roof, storage and inverter, was right about $30K. He's got enough power on board to run his house for two days on the batteries, even if the sun somehow didn't come up both days. He got federal financing on it, which is super cheap and he got ridiculous credits on his equipment purchases.

Federal funding? Tax credits? If this is the only way this deal is cost effective, the government supporting homeowners projects, I would like to see the actual cost analysis numbers.

Hopefully he gets squared away with PG&E.

As for the 30K investment, that figure is about 23 years of my utility bill. ;)


He's a few miles outside of town, so instead of driving his F250 down there to buy groceries, he's going to get a cheap used EV and get rid of most of his gasoline expenditures. He's already ditched all his gas powered lawn and yard equipment, with the exception of one of his big chain saws.

Why not? Stop paying for gas.

Hope it works out- long term.

OM
 
Dave: So not taking the bet? I’m good for it, trust me. But it sounds like the bet is moot because the “title” of this thread is inaccurate, an ICE ban means all ICE, not partial ICE. (English language).

Based on your clarification of the actual proposal, I can see it’s simply a transfer of power and capability to those in charge… elitism. And yes… I’ve seen what happens to nations when those in power have all the power (up close and personal). Clearly, you’re in one camp and I’m in the other on this issue, but please don’t call me and others ignorant, because our actual experience is different from yours. Let’s be as tolerant as we claim we are.
 
What free electricity looks like in a one party state.

38A92E03-0A35-484F-9FC4-0EDD60128C34.jpeg

Ever fly over a city and watch every light in the entire city go out because someone in power flipped a switch?

Yeah… that could never happen here.
 
Sophistry.

The title of the thread clearly does NOT apply to all vehicles nor is it inaccurate. It asks the question about the impact of the ICE ban (whether full or partial) on BMW motorcycles.

Also the OP clearly posed the question:
"Do the new laws allow for exemptions like trucks, trains, construction, farming, or recreational vehicles?"
Which establishes beyond all doubt that the intent of the thread title is not to include all vehicles but rather to seek clarification on that very point.
 
c'mon man

Reading about all the ICE hopes for 2035 in USA and Europe appear to be hopeful, but all it is , is that. Great comments and stats from all points, just as good as watching football and just as accurate. The major problem as I see it , comes down to one word, " LOGISTICS ". To meet that goal the US and Europe couldn't mine and refine the materials needed to do it , let alone to manufacture it, and the major manufacturers already know this. The only reason Europe has a shot at this, is that they have at least 10 times the infrastructure in place , than the US to doit.Anyone can stand in their neighbor hood and say "hey joe and Bill can do it why can't I. But when you walk to the end of the street and go over another block you have to wonder. If you look at ICE as a chain and you start to add the links and how you are going to attach to the global ship, it becomes a different reality. I've worked in commercial and residential construction for 30 years. Have seen great strides in energy saving and production, been involved in the latest and greatest, but IMO they still haven't jumped that hurdle of logistics. What works in Disney Land, almost always doesn't work in all the other lands. I was going to go in length about logistics in further detail, but I believe that most of you already know what I mean, and understand it.

Great pic Reese, thought at first it was Chinatown in the Bronx.
 
Back
Top