Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have your answer, but here is a reality check.
The single biggest user of electricity in the home is air conditioning. This is used all summer, usually 3 to 4 months throughout California.
Air conditioning averages about 10 or 12 kilowatt hours per day.
An electric car uses 15 kilowatt hours to go 50 miles. If you have a 20 mile daily commute and have to drive another 10 miles for errands or to pick up the kids, you have used 50% more power than air conditioning. Tripple that if you have an hour commute.
So having all BEVs in California will add 150% to 300% more electric use than what you currently use for air conditioning. That said, lots of folks only need 3-4 months AC in California. Since driving is year round, then we are talking 6 to 8 times more energy use if everybody owns a car, than the sum total of all electricity used for AC in the home today.
I realize that business use a lot of air conditioning, so it is not as if BEVs would use 6 times all AC, just home AC.
So while I can't do the math, that should give you a solid idea.
Meanwhile, if global warming is really true, at the same time BEVs demand more electricity, we will be using more an more AC as the climate warms up. So we will be increasing all this electric demand for cars at the worst possible time.
Not everyone will drive that much and it will scale up over time but I've seen projections of needing 25% more electrical power within 10 years and even more after that.
The problem is that they get around 20% from hydro (droughts) and nuke (trying now to reverse shutting them down).
So if CA is at 100 right now and needs to get to 125....but drop back to 80 instead...that's going to mean one thing. Buying more fossil fuel powered electricity from neighboring states at outrageous rates.
Where's all the electricity going to come from? There isn't enough electricity to go around now.
With all the people moving out of California maybe the state's needs will reduce. I'm joking. I know there are many illegals landing there.
While I don't live in CA and have no say in the terrible policies of that state, it does impact me.
We're getting so many CA refugees moving into better areas. Those people claim to be conservative. They claim to want smaller government and a simpler lifestyle. But without exception, their nanny-state thinking erupts. Everything from paved roads to no forest management. Both harmful to land and wildlife.
California’s grid can’t handle current demand. It doesn’t matter how much of an increase the demand is, it needs to be rebuilt before adding any demand at all.
That being said, the California Energy Commission estimates that 1.2 million public charging stations will be needed by 2030. They currently have 73,000. Do you think adding more than a million charging stations will put a strain on the already overworked power grid in California?
One of four things needs to happen before EVs become ubiquitous: Massive upgrades of the power grid, massive gains in renewable energy technology to allow the vehicle to charge itself, massive advances in energy transfer so that recharging time is similar to filling up an ICE vehicle, or massive improvement in battery storage capacity. Without one of those four things happening, any effort to force the transition is going to result in problems. An increase in capacity would be the best solution, in my opinion, but really all of them need to be pursued.
Norway, with around 70% electric vehicles, has 300 charging stations per 100k people. The United States currently has 30. We are a long way from being ready for EVs in every driveway.
I'm still hoping that we will go the hydrogen fuel cell route to EVs and obviate the need for all this point electrical demand, but that hope is fading with initiatives like California.
It's like you claiming that the government forced cars over horses.
Does it ? Please explain ?
How can this be interpreted any other way ? CAFE standards were set at such a level that the Detroit 3 had no choice but to make a portion of their sales EV, why do you think hybrids have been kicked to the curb ? Sure, the Detroit 3 dabbled in battery power, like GM's EV-1 but the decision to transition to 50% or more of EV production didn't happen until they had no choice.
And to add to that, other countries are making EV mandates , so if the Detroit 3 want to remain in the global market they've got to develop EV's.
You really make no sense. Why would these companies produce a product that currently is not profitable, over ones that are ? The last three years the most sold vehicles have been full size pickups, and SUV's. Which also happen to make them the most profit.
Elon saw the writing on the wall and was quick to progress in that direction. That is why Tesla is so much further ahead. The Detroit 3 basically had to be forced, and also the challenge of having to develop ICE vehicles that currently make profits, along side EV's that aren't profitable yet.
Electricity generation in California is 50.2% natural-gas. And that percentage will increase as the powergrid runs at near full power for longer time periods of the day. Then as more and more electric-vehicles charge from the powergrid, the powegrid will run at near full power for longer time periods of the day
.
The plan in California is to reduce all fossil fuel use, including Natural Gas. They don’t really have a viable plan to increase Electric output. What they do have are a lot of competing special interest groups that can’t agree on anything AND have no common sense.
Hundreds of people lined up today to voice concerns about California’s sweeping new climate strategy at a public hearing. Without massive investments in clean energy, air board officials warned that more fossil fuels will be needed to power electric cars and ensure a reliable power grid.
California’s sweeping climate plan would increase electricity consumption by as much as 68% by 2045 — which would put an immense strain on the power grid unless hefty private and public investments are made in clean energy, state air quality officials said Thursday.
The far-reaching strategy would transform the state, scaling back the use of fossil fuels by 91% by 2045 and scaling up electric cars and use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar. The plan aims to fulfill state mandates to reduce planet-warming emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
Secretary for Environmental Protection Jared Blumenfeld said the permitting and approval process of renewable energy projects needs to be accelerated to meet the state’s climate targets.
“We have to be able to get projects on the ground quicker,†he said. “Offshore wind will take 15 years to permit and deploy. We don’t have 15 years. So part of our effort needs to be, not only to understand the power of our ambition, but how the hell do we get this done? We need reforms in those areas.â€
And in other news —- California, Oregon & Washington State are fighting against 2 pipeline proposals to increase the Natural Gas and Gasoline they need to keep the lights on and vehicles running.
In a protest comment, the attorneys general from Washington, Oregon and California say that FERC should deny the project because it does not serve a public need in a region transitioning away from fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy. A separate comment from the three states decries “critical flaws†in FERC’s environmental analysis and argues that the project should not proceed without consideration of the associated greenhouse gas emissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired
CA has huge billboards saying "Don't move to Texas"......
Maybe CA needs to "build a wall" so taxpayers can't move out.
The rumor is that Texans paid for those Billboards
As to a Wall on California Border (or Texas Border for that matter) - sounds like just removing all charging stations near the Borders would do the trick.
I personally don’t care what those crazy West Coast Leftists do — just keep that nonsense away from my State.
California’s permitting policies take decades to do anything — they propose All EV in 12 years, no way they can even build charging stations in that time period, much less Solar Farms & Wind Farms.
Does that means they'll finally shut down all of their 18 oil refineries there?
That's going to be a result, for at least some of them, I think. California refineries produce gasoline and other products mostly for California. If there's no demand, will the products be exported? Or, will California mandate refinery closure to reduce the GHGs the plants produce. I can also see California banning oil production across the state, since much of it requires heat to make steam to make the oil flow, and the steam generators produce a lot of GHGs as well.
I'm still hoping that we will go the hydrogen fuel cell route to EVs and obviate the need for all this point electrical demand, but that hope is fading with initiatives like California.
I already gave up hope on hydrogen fuel cell technology, unfortunately. Too many people hear "hydrogen" and think "Hindenberg" for it to gain traction with public support, I think. I do believe that HFC would have been a better way to go across the board, though, than creating a new way to use energy that is already difficult to produce and distribute.
I already gave up hope on hydrogen fuel cell technology, unfortunately. Too many people hear "hydrogen" and think "Hindenberg" for it to gain traction with public support, I think. I do believe that HFC would have been a better way to go across the board, though, than creating a new way to use energy that is already difficult to produce and distribute.
Hydrogen production has its own issues, as do storage and transportation. The ideal situation would be natural gas reformers small enough to be in a vehicle that would break the methane down to hydrogen and carbon, with the hydrogen used in the fuel cell and the carbon stored for future disposal. Compressed natural gas storage is well known, widely used, and safe.
I see the liberal states trying something like this in the near future. I know the useless Governor and co of New Jersey was talking about banning gas and oil heating and gas stoves in the near future. During the summer the electric grid can't handle all the air conditioners running.
Imagine a senior citizen or someone on a fixed income trying to afford A electric car. Most people is holding on to their old cars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
