cecsb
Source: Community Environmental Council
Electrify America awarded Ecology Action and its partners (Community Environmental Council (CEC), GreenPower, and Regenerción) funding to help residents secure electric vehicle (EV) rebates to get more clean driving, low-maintenance vehicles on the road over the next 16 months.
This equity-focused EV initiative highlights the very affordable ($100/month) – even FREE for some – used and leased EV options available here on the Central Coast and across California. The Central Coast EV Equity team will guide income-qualified residents through the rebate process with direct personal assistance, easy to follow website instructions, and other digital support.
“Drivers making under $78,600 (family of four) may be able to lease an electric vehicle for free by stacking three rebates toward ultra-low-cost end-of-year leases. Higher income drivers can also get extremely low-cost leases,” said Michael Chiacos, CEC’s Director of Energy and Climate Programs. “Driving a 100 mpge+ electric vehicle is fun and available to all — not just the wealthy. It’s an amazing opportunity to slash gas expenses in half while significantly reducing air pollution.”
He also noted that the devastating and pervasive wildfires, extreme extended heat waves, and COVID-19 constraints on public transit and shared mobility options make the need for climate action and greater sustainable transportation options more urgent than ever before. This initiative provides such a solution. Current record-low lease pricing combined with EV rebates and this funding creates low-cost, clean transportation opportunities.
Low-income communities contain the lowest fraction of EV owners. From June 2018 to May 2020, the state issued 522 low- and moderate-income “standard” zero emission vehicle (ZEV) rebates in our region compared to 11,863 moderate- and high-income ZEV rebates. When compared to the hundreds of thousands of eligible families in our area — and the state targets for conversion — it is clear that inclusive assistance is needed quickly and authentically to prevent the access gap widening as the clean transportation transition gains momentum and grows.
Used EVs also present an easy path to affordable clean driving as previously owned plug-ins range in cost from $4,000 to $10,000 and are eligible for some rebates. Here is one consumer’s experience:
“I wanted an EV for years but didn’t think that I could afford one. But, not true… I found my 2012 Nissan Leaf for $4,800. The car has all the bells and whistles. It’s the best car I’ve ever had, and I love driving it!” said Patricia Damron, an EV owner who qualified for $800 in rebates.
The initiative brings transportation equity to the Counties of San Benito, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. Ecology Action and its partners were one of only six grants funded in California by Electrify America. Electrify America is investing $3 million to provide education and awareness programs for low-income and disadvantaged communities throughout California on the benefits of driving ZEVs and available cash incentives. Today’s announcement brings Electrify America’s total investment in California community-based programs to $5.7 million over the past two years, as part of the company’s ongoing efforts to promote ZEV adoption throughout the state.
To find out about the numerous EV rebates available to Central Coast residents that make driving an EV very affordable — and some leases or used EVs free — visit www.electricdrive805.org/free-ev-ve-gratuito/.
Need clean coal power plants and/or nuclear power to generate what’s needed for these millions of electric cars of the future. LNG is a good start.
Transportation justice?
Lots of good technology coming along to support a shift to electronic vehicles. Consider hydrogen fuel technologies (change the cell or fill-er-up pump). Exhaust is pure water. Or, you can get a current EV models and plug your car in overnight for a recharge. Which would you choose?
Clean coal is a complete oxymoron, promoted by morons.
Kohn–do you not understand the idea that access to environmentally good stuff should not be limited to only the wealthy? Would you prefer “transportation equity” or just “fairness”? Such snide commentary should be passe’ now that the Trumpists are on their way out. Money is not the measure of all values.
We need more nuclear and yes, LNG is a step in the right direction.
I am (unironically) thrilled to see support for nuclear here! I wish we could save Diablo. 9% of CA’s energy on 12 acres! If people are serious about climate change, they need to get on the nuclear bus… and fast. Let’s stop wasting more time!
The word “rebate” appears 9 times in this article. A rebate is just money that the government takes from one person and gives to another.
Transportation justice… that is good humor!!! It’s legitimately hard to tell sometimes wether articles like this are satire or not…
Not the same as gasoline. First of all, you’re talking about a gas pressurized to 350 bar (5,000+ psi). That’s a bomb. Gasoline burns bright orange and is easy to see. H2 burns in the ultraviolet range, making it virtually invisible to the human eye, so you could walk right into a flame and not even know until it’s too late. That would suck for anyone who is attempting to help out in crash situation. The energy (enthalpy of combustion) produced in the reaction H2 + O2 —> H2O yields only -286 kJ/mol, where octane combustion yields -5,075 kJ/mol (the more negative the number the more energy yield. Hydrogen gas is therefore a very inefficient fuel. Additionally, H2 is produced though electrolysis of water and that takes a lot of energy. Where are you going to get that electricity from? Might as well just use that to run a car. Lastly, the product of H2 combustion is H20, which is a greenhouse gas, so there. My vote is for nuclear.
RHS – Environmentally good stuff? Transportation justice? What’s next? Information inequality? Free computers and WiFi for everyone Environmentally friendly transportation is easy, it’s called a bike.( No I’m not a Trump supporter) .
10:36 pm is nonsense cloaked in science jargon.
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_basics.html
How many times do we have to listen to the claims that there is a new nuclear process that is not dangerous? Every time there is nuclear screw up the paid propagandists for the industry come out with an argument that the problem was old tech! But that old tech itself was said to be bullet proof. The damage that nuclear waste and nuclear contamination pose is so great that no one should accept it. There a so many better ways to get energy, mainly from the eternal power source, the sun and its associated sons and daughter such as tides and winds. It is really so easy were it not by the lies being produced by those who have a profit motive in nuclear and the dupes who spread those lies.
Sorry RHS but you’re completely wrong on this and I can see you are coming from a place of misinformation and fear. You should watch Pandora’s Promise. It’s a great starting point for understanding contemporary nuclear, perceptions of the threat of nuclear waste, the actual (massive) volume of renewables that would be needed to power the country, and so on. And now at over 7 years old, there have been even more developments. Fusion power will happen in my lifetime – we’re getting close – and we need fission to bridge the gap until we get there.
@1:05 PM: I read the information in the link you provided, and talking about nonsense. This is the problem when people who don’t understand chemistry are hired by shills in the DOE to write stuff, post it on a .gov website to influence other people who also don’t understand chemistry. I’ll give you an example of how the info on that webpage is wrong. The 8th paragraph states that 1 kilogram of hydrogen gas produces about the same energy as 2.8 kilograms of gasoline. You can’t make comparisons like that in chemistry because hydrogen gas (2.016 g/mol) and octane (114.23 g/mol) have different molecular weights (given in parentheses). When you do that math (see below) you’ll find that 1 kg of H2 is 496 mol, while 2.8 kg is only 24.5 mol. You can see clearly that these amounts are not comparable, since there are over 20 times as much hydrogen as octane. To a layman, 1 kg and 2.8 kg makes it sound like you’re getting a better deal with hydrogen, but you are not. They should never have written this. Here are my calculations demonstrating how kg to mol to kJ of energy are calculated.
1 kg H2 (g): 1,000 g (mol/2.016 g) = 496.0 mol H2 (g)*(-286 kJ/mol) = 141,865 kJ
2.8 kg octane (l): 2,800 g (mol/114.23g) = 24.5 mol octane (l)*(-5,075 kJ/mol) = 124,398 kJ
Kilogram to kilogram comparison is fine. It’s carbon fuel shills like you who misrepresent the efficiency, given that you have to feed the gasoline into an internal combustion engine that is hugely inefficient. All you show is that gasoline makes a better bomb.
@9:14 PM: Carbon shill? You appear to have a serious reading comprehension problem, in addition to zero knowledge of chemistry. I’ve already stated above that I’m a fan of nuclear energy.
Riiight. Nuclear automobiles are all the rage. So you just spread hydrogen FUD in favor of gasoline on the side. Same diff. I know I’d much rather carry less mass around to produce my motive energy, and only produce water as exhaust. Your mileage definitely varies.
Nuclear automobiles? What are you talking about? You still never addressed energetically wasteful process of electrolysis required to generate H2. Converting energy is thermodynamically wasteful and pointless. You seem to have an issue with the efficiency of a combustion engine, yet you have no concept of thermodynamics. If you have the electricity, just use it to charge a car battery. Why use it to generate a gas? You also never addressed the water vapor issue, as H2O is IR-active and is the biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, by concentration and contribution. I guess you don’t care about climate change.
The phrase (and idea) of transportation justice is absurd…. to the point of parody.
Hello fellow whites. Your privilege is astounding. I, too, admit that it can be hard for me to think outside of my narrow white box, but some things aren’t that hard to understand. “Transportation Justice,” meaning not everyone can afford the costly ticket of a hybrid or electric vehicle, although this is a direction we should all be moving towards to reduce our carbon footprint. These companies are offering rebates and tax credits to make purchasing these vehicles easier and more economical for people who can’t shell out $40k for a Tesla. Take a deep breath whites, this is a good thing, and you might even benefit.
No… transportation justice is ridiculous. I’m all for the amazing green technological advances, but phrasing it as “transportation justice” is dumb. Let’s expand rebates and target them towards lower priced electric cars to encourage car manufacturers to put more effort into cars of that market… but it’s intellectually offensive to call it transportation justice.
Duke, you getting so worked up over a phrase even though you agree with the program is equally ridiculous.
I don’t agree with the program! As per the release, they are spending over 3 million on “educating” people about the benefits of EV. And what’s the point of internet message boards if not to get slightly and irrationally worked up?
But seriously… common… “transportation justice” … ? That’s silly and worth derision…
Dear 12:38 AM: When did I yammer about gasoline, when I always maintained that I was in favor of nuclear. Again, you seem to be so drunk on Kool-Aid that you cannot sober yourself up enough to recognize that I’ve always been a proponent of nuclear energy, and NOT carbon. Truly, you are lacking in education, or you would have clearly disputed my calculations, which you have not thus far.. ” water ->fuel->water” still requires energy, and again you still have no clue about chemistry and thermodynamics.
VOR, reading your comments has done it to me. Do not trust your judgment at all.
So you think the Deep Water Horizon disaster, Exxon, not to mention numerous oil related Super Fund sites, gas tank leaks, plastic pollution (petroleum product), and exhaust from millions of cars has been less pollutive to our planet than the few nuclear waste accidents, outside the US (from plants built 50+ years ago)? Do not trust your judgement at all, nor your knowledge of nuclear technology. ChemicalSuperfreak can weigh it but I think it is Thorium reactors (or liquid salt reactors?) that are melt down proof. The reason these weren’t previously built is partly because they weren’t able to produce weapons grade plutonium, which the government wanted back in the 50’s and 60’s. (disclaimer: I’m not a nuclear engineer).
VOICE: I’m a biochemist and I have some experience with using radioactive isotopes, but admittedly I’m not an expert in nuclear engineering either. From the little I’ve read about thorium-based reactors, they are indeed safer and cleaner than those that run on U238, thorium is more plentiful, and it’s difficult but not impossible to make weapons from them.
Not everyone can afford to live next door to Oprah or Ellen either. That’s the way it is. In the low income housing, I see all sorts of high end autos with giant rims that cost as much or more than a Tesla. Not sure a little EV car is a big draw.
Besides there not ZERO emissions by a long ways. Research how electricity’s made and distributed. Battery manufacturing and disposal is another environmental disaster in the making.
As a side note, I have solar panels and a plug in Hybrid.
Pit, Fukushima was built in the 70’s.
It’s funded via tax breaks to VW…which, OK, but that seems like a round about and dumb way to go about getting more electric cars on the road. But yeah, they are a private company and yes they can spend their money (and get their tax breaks) as they want. Things like this help though to bring their effective tax rate wildly down so we all end up subsidizing a program that instead of helping get electric cars on the road, hires people to “educate people” on why electric cars are better. So nothing is actually accomplished…money is just transferred to help someone buy a nicer used car. Yeah I’d rather have VW pay more in taxes…but that’s just me…
And people have changed so much since then, so there is no longer human error. Max 737 for example. And 49% of us voted for Trump and won’t wear a mask. Going to be hard to convince a lot of people that we are responsible enough to handle nuclear power. Too many examples to the contrary.
You have poor faith in your fellow human Pit, to much cable news I think. Actually very few examples of nuclear accidents, especially compared to the damage done by oil it should be replacing, both in it’s day to day use as well as the numerous accidents.
You brought up nuclear, although your first reference was to a nonexistent previous reference. Also your hypothesis that hydrogen would primarily be produced by electrolysis is not necessarily valid, as there are numerous catalytic processes that real chemists have developed. Also, there would be no net gain in water vapor as you postulated, since the process would be water ->fuel->water. Your erroneous beliefs about the relative effects on climate change of water vapor vs carbon dioxide on the rate of global warming have been debunked in previous discussions, but to refresh your memory, see https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Hooray! You recognize that battery electric is the way to go. Why, then, did you start yammering about gasoline?
What’s funny Pitmix is that one of us is a liberal who wants corporations to pay higher taxes and the other one of us celebrates “transportation justice” because, well “justice” is in the name and as such it has to be great! So, to recap: nothing is accomplished, millions of dollars is wasted and millions of dollars is not directed to the government via taxes. Somehow that’s a win to you, because, well…justice!!!!