Aren't all those laws focused on new cars? I can't imagine the backlash a government would receive by zeroing out the value of most people's most expensive possession.
When new car sales move to electric from gasoline, you'll start to see gas stations go out of business...slowly at first but accelerating as the percentage of gas powered vehicles declines. You'll still have your car and be allowed to drive it, but the days of just finding a gas station wherever you need them will be over. Much like early days of electric cars, people will need a concrete refueling plan for every trip, which is going to make those cars a lot less attractive to own and a lot less valuable on the resale market.
Or we'll see "gas" stations incrementally change to "gas-n-charge" stations. As society moves from liquid hydrocarbons to electrons for personal transportation I can see no reason why these locations won't adapt.
After all, people will still ingest their liquid fuel and expel their waste. ;-)
Maybe that is true in rural and suburban environments, but I doubt it in dense urban environments. Adding a charger to every spot in residential parking garages and on every residential street is a bigger infrastructure project than converting over gas stations to chargers. You also have to consider the time it takes to recharge an electric car is much higher than the time to refuel an ICE car.
Interesetingly in the Nordics this is already done. Practically all the parking spots (excluding street side) have 230VAC outlets for engine block warming.
Meh, how much does a regular old 15-20A 120V outlet cost to install? $200 per plug, maybe? Just need a relay inside that talks over Bluetooth to a cloud-connected app on the user's phone (or just city wifi), and you've got a smart outlet that can handle payment. Another $20 (based on costs I've seen online for similar products), total $220. People can use their own chargers as all electric cars come with level 1 chargers. Cost is low, so could use residential electricity rates (slightly more expensive than commercial) and still make profit.
We already have lighted parking, don't see why adding outlets is that hard. We're talking slow overnight charging here for the most part.
> You also have to consider the time it takes to recharge an electric car is much higher than the time to refuel an ICE car.
True, but for most drivers on most days they will be able to charge up at home overnight. Charge time won't matter as much then. Drivers in dense urban environments will likely move towards a car sharing model since, as you noted, the costs and practicality of infrastructure retrofitting will be exorbitant.
Disagree. Just need an outlet, like the engine block heaters on light poles in Minnesota. Infrastructures costs are low of people use their own chargers.
Considerable amount of parking here in the UK is on-street. None of the homes built in the post WW2 rebuilding have dedicated room for cars, or any of the 10s of 1000s of homes built before that.
By "post WW2 rebuilding" do you mean a specific limited time period?
Because otherwise, "None" is a bit strong - there's hundreds of new homes and apartments within 5 miles of me that have dedicated parking spaces.
Even my block (seems to be 1960s) has dedicated off-street parking for 8 cars (admittedly there are 12 flats but I suspect 8 cars for 12 flats in the 60s was an outlandish estimate.)
Gas stations don't make much money on actually selling gas - consumers are irrationally price sensitive when it comes to the price of gasoline, so the stations are generally selling it at or near cost.
As long as people still pop into the convenience store to get a soda and a candy bar, it doesn't matter if they're filling your tank with gasoline or charging your battery.
I'm thinking gas stations will stop selling garbage and start selling actual food, since charging takes longer and people will be hanging around for a little while.
There are likely other factors at play. For example, if the more expensive fuel station has brand associations it triggers (e.g. Shell [1]), the higher pricing likely benefits them more so than it hurts, as their target market discerning customer is likely to interpret the price as a proxy for quality.
Can you provide a concrete example? I can't recall ever seeing such a disparity in the US having lived in the midwest, northwest, and east coast. Perhaps you're in a different location?
The Burlingame A&A is notorious for being the one of the cheapest -- if not the cheapest -- places to fill up between SF and SV. In this case, it's likely that the Chevron literally across the street just decided it's not worth playing that game, hoping instead to appeal to the crowd who wonders if the cheap competitor is actually up to par.
The fact that the Chevron gets any business at all seems to validate this strategy at first blush.
Also the Chevron at grant and el Camino is $3 when the shell a block away on grant is $3.60 or so. The Chevron is one of the highest trafficked gas stations in SV and operates on volume. The shell can't play that game so charges a pronoun to grocery shoppers.
Costco is 20% cheaper than all other stations in Toronto. So either Costco is selling at a loss (unlikely) or there's plenty of profit in gas for gas stations.
Given that you have to pay an annual membership fee to get access to that gas, it's likely subsidized by the fee and used as a loss-leader to bring people to shop at Costco.
It's an older link, but they still do much the same. There have been court cases brought against them by consortiums of other gas stations here and there, but AFAIK Costco has emerged victorious so far.
It's similar to when Color TVs were invented. What happened to the re-sale value of all the B&W TVs that were already out there? They plummeted, because they had been superseded.
This scenario will be even more aggressive, because laws will ban the sale of the "old tech".
That's not really comparable at all. A color tv is a fundamentally more distinct product as compared to a b&w tv than a ICE cars is compared to an electric. Especially for the foreseeable future.
Because a colour TV is fundamentally and objectively better at its primary use case (watching TV). A petrol powered car will get you from A to B just like an electric one.
Range lower, maintenance costs higher. The argument goes both ways but whichever side you are on, we are on the same side that EV are fundamentally different than gas cars, at least as much as color TV vs b&w.
In my mind, just as getting 3x more colors gives you exponentially richer storytelling, 3x more range (way more than that actually, since a gas car can be in almost continuous use with brief stops for fuel) gives you the freedom to go exponentially many more places, do things etc
Oh don't get me wrong - there are advantages of course. But people are underinformed / bad at calculating whole of life costs / don't have the extra cash available so a cheap petrol vehicle will look appealing. There isn't the "wow" factor of comparing colour vs B&W TV - especially at the low end. The Nissan Leaf was a nice car to drive but it wasn't impressing anyone because of how cool it looked.
Because the primary function of a TV is displaying moving pictures while the primary function of a car is not related to its fuel type. The general public has not yet shown a dramatic interest in electric over ICE, but improvements to TV picture have been shown to be major drivers of adoption from color, HD, 4k, and so on. That is the whole reason why these laws are being considered, to help move people off ICE cars quicker than they would in a normal market.
I mean laws will ban the sale of new ICE cars, which by then will be the "old tech".
So when you can't even buy one new, why would someone want a used one? (unless, like I said, it's a pleasure driver or some exotic, which is a tiny fraction of all cars sold)
Think of all the things that have been replaced and superseded in history - once the new thing exists, the old one drops in price dramatically.
I think you underestimate the financial burden of buying a car. As long as a gas vehicle runs, they'll be a market for it. If they depreciate even faster, they'll still be a market. People don't care about resale at the bottom of the market. They care about reliable transportation which I assume gas cars will continue to provide.
There are plenty of 20 year old vehicles out there with plenty of life left in them.
> So when you can't even buy one new, why would someone want a used one?
If people would want to buy them before considering availability of new ones, banning new one increases market clearing price of used ones by eliminating an obvious alternative.
Now, as the number on the road dwindles, you'll start to see reduced support infrastructure (gas stations, parts availability, etc.) which will make ownership less attractive, but that's likely to be a slow and lagging process. So, if there are still utility advantages to gas cars, I'd expect used ones to become more expensive initially with a ban on new ones, but drop sometime later.
> So when you can't even buy one new, why would someone want a used one?
Because the prices of non-collectable ICE cars is bound to plummet unless we haven't solved the battery charge speed issue (as in, in practice, supposedly it was recently solved in theory).
