California and Gas

[radar]

Originally Posted by JMH

California power companies can’t keep up with peak demand year round as it is. Think 2 million cars added to peak load on super chargers. Ok, so the smart ones here will say, load balance. Ok you wait 4 hours to drive home from work because you’ve been load balanced.

I worked for a science lab years ago and just for fun we did a quick analysis (on our own time) of what would be required for infrastructure if every car in California was changed out to a Tesla. Had some great ideas, all requiring some form of nuclear production that would never fly politically in California.

It’s a great idea to go all electric transport. I for one would like to see it happen. But the physics don’t make it likely any time soon. Petroleum is a ready and cheap medium for energy storage. Electricity is not. And no there are not enough batteries so don’t even start on that path. And technology is fine but it can not change the laws of physics. Even with energy efficiencies you need a fission energy economy to make an all electric transport world work. Not until that happens does this scheme work.

Of course except in California where the politicians aren’t bound by reality [emoji6].

Meh. Here’s a cut and paste from my answer elsewhere.

EV’s are not as big of a load as people think. BC Hydro estimates that if overnight all the personal vehicles in the province were to magically become electrical overnight then the grid would see an additional load of 19 percent. But the transition to electric will take 30 years. So maybe a 1/2 percent increase per year....ish. Technology is also helping to decrease load. Most developed nations will have no difficulty in achieving this. It’s just not that big of a deal. The average North American commute uses about 6 to 8 kw per day. Air conditioning is considered a much bigger load. It is happening much faster in Europe and European governments are not anticipating problems they can’t overcome.

[Our05Winneba]

(1) It is unlikely that his order will stand in place all the way to 2035. As with many of CA unrealistic Emissions or mileage orders they get changed, pushed back, etc.. Some of the standards ordered by CA in the past have had to be delayed or changed when it became obvious that some were just not realistically achievable.

(2) The order is to not allow sales of any internal combustion engined vehicle starting 2035. That would include all vehicles (including hybrids) powered by engines running on gasoline, diesel, LP gas, or hydrogen as they all utilize internal combustion, piston driven engines.

(3) Their apparent goal is to force everyone into buying pure EVs only. But as more people are beginning to realize -
(3a) driving an EV means that you are typically driving a vehicle powered by coal, since that is the primary fuel source which powers 65% of all electrical power generation in this country. Even by 2035 coal will still be the fuel for 64% of US power plants. In other words - people are starting to realize that pure electric vehicles are not as clean and emission free as originally thought.
(3b) There is also a growing realization that the emissions and pollution created by the mining of critical elements to build the batteries is very substantial. The total amount of emissions to build an EV far exceeds that of an ICE vehicle.

(4) With 2035 being so far off I am not really concerned about what they demand. By then we will see many changes in vehicle and RV designs. In spite of my reality notes above about EVs, I think that what Tesla has achieved with it’s vehicles has been amazing. It’s just that an EV reality is not yet there for me – their vehicles are way too expensive, their range is still nothing compared to what an ICE vehicle gets, and charging times are ridiculous. I eagerly await their semi-truck models because they are the models which will hold the most promise for potential RV EVs. Especially if they can reduce battery costs and drastically improve re-charging times then the possibility of a realistic EV RV is there.

Meanwhile – there are lots of diesel and gasoline powered RVs for me to chose from, so this CA order really has no effect on me right now.

For more information check out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17xh_VRrnMU

[radar]

Originally Posted by Our05Winneba

(1) It is unlikely that his order will stand in place all the way to 2035. As with many of CA unrealistic Emissions or mileage orders they get changed, pushed back, etc.. Some of the standards ordered by CA in the past have had to be delayed or changed when it became obvious that some were just not realistically achievable.

(2) The order is to not allow sales of any internal combustion engined vehicle starting 2035. That would include all vehicles (including hybrids) powered by engines running on gasoline, diesel, LP gas, or hydrogen as they all utilize internal combustion, piston driven engines.

(3) Their apparent goal is to force everyone into buying pure EVs only. But as more people are beginning to realize -
(3a) driving an EV means that you are typically driving a vehicle powered by coal, since that is the primary fuel source which powers 65% of all electrical power generation in this country. Even by 2035 coal will still be the fuel for 64% of US power plants. In other words - people are starting to realize that pure electric vehicles are not as clean and emission free as originally thought.
(3b) There is also a growing realization that the emissions and pollution created by the mining of critical elements to build the batteries is very substantial. The total amount of emissions to build an EV far exceeds that of an ICE vehicle.

(4) With 2035 being so far off I am not really concerned about what they demand. By then we will see many changes in vehicle and RV designs. In spite of my reality notes above about EVs, I think that what Tesla has achieved with it’s vehicles has been amazing. It’s just that an EV reality is not yet there for me – their vehicles are way too expensive, their range is still nothing compared to what an ICE vehicle gets, and charging times are ridiculous. I eagerly await their semi-truck models because they are the models which will hold the most promise for potential RV EVs. Especially if they can reduce battery costs and drastically improve re-charging times then the possibility of a realistic EV RV is there.

Meanwhile – there are lots of diesel and gasoline powered RVs for me to chose from, so this CA order really has no effect on me right now.

For more information check out:

This is just a curiosity question. Which country do you live in that 65 percent of your countries power comes from coal.

In the US in 2019 it was 23.5 percent. Expected to be around 19 percent this year.

In Canada it is under 9 percent and dropping fast.

Britain is under 5 percent.

Cheers.

[Our05Winneba]

The particular problem is California's electrical grid. As has been demonstrated this summer alone the current grid cannot support even normal household demands on hot days. They have had to implement rolling blackouts to help prevent the entire grid from failing. Yes - particularly in the NW there is a ton of hydro-electric power available. Trouble is that it does not really help southern California at all, where the entire LA basin relies on 2 Natural gas powered plants in Huntington Beach which are already more than maxed out.

So from that standpoint the governor's order comes across as really short-sighted and silly. Having lived there since 2002 I have seen electricity costs skyrocket while service is cut during high demand periods. So what is my incentive to drive an EV right now?

What the CA state government should be doing instead is looking to make the state electrical grid more efficient and reliable if they really expect people to make the switch to EVs. And those individual decisions should be market based decisions - not based on a dictator-like mandate. In other words - there have to be compelling product reasons for people to want to drive an EV. So future EVs will have to be cost competitive to ICE vehicles, as well as competitive in terms of fuel costs, recharging/re-filling times, and full "tank" driving range.

[Our05Winneba]

Very sorry - you are correct. In 2019 62.7% of US electrical production was powered by fossil fuels (not coal). 23.5% was coal, 38.4% was natural gas.

[radar]

Originally Posted by Our05Winneba

The particular problem is California's electrical grid. As has been demonstrated this summer alone the current grid cannot support even normal household demands on hot days. They have had to implement rolling blackouts to help prevent the entire grid from failing. Yes - particularly in the NW there is a ton of hydro-electric power available. Trouble is that it does not really help southern California at all, where the entire LA basin relies on 2 Natural gas powered plants in Huntington Beach which are already more than maxed out.

So from that standpoint the governor's order comes across as really short-sighted and silly. Having lived there since 2002 I have seen electricity costs skyrocket while service is cut during high demand periods. So what is my incentive to drive an EV right now?

What the CA state government should be doing instead is looking to make the state electrical grid more efficient and reliable if they really expect people to make the switch to EVs. And those individual decisions should be market based decisions - not based on a dictator-like mandate. In other words - there have to be compelling product reasons for people to want to drive an EV. So future EVs will have to be cost competitive to ICE vehicles, as well as competitive in terms of fuel costs, recharging/re-filling times, and full "tank" driving range.

I won't comment on any political aspect as it is against the board rules.
The video you submitted kind of stops making sense after it insuates that most power comes from coal.


What is your incentive to buy an EV? None that I can see as your focus is only on range. Nothing wrong with that as that is obviously important for your transportation needs. We all have different needs and long range is yours. Careful though. There is a lot of misinformation floating around about EV's

But for many, performance, convenience, low operating cost etc can be important to them. For those EV's can be a very good choice. As far as comparable costs, depends on what you like for a car. The model 3 all wheel drive long range is a premium high performance sports sedan. Its around 48000 bucks. (USD) To get an equivalent BMW or Mercedes you'll be at least that much or more and more than likely it will be slower. Operating costs of the Tesla will be a fraction of the BMW. and it will not be near as convenient as you will have to fuel it at gas stations instead of home. Some people also like new generation tech and stark interiors which none of the fossil manufacturers have really adopted yet in ICE cars. It was one of the big attractions to my wife when she bought her car. Pics below. Our personal experience has been it takes no longer to go 600 or 700 km in her car than it did in her previous Grand Cherokee. We still take 20 minutes to scarf down a sandwich and an apple at lunch and usually stop for a quick morning and afternoon pee and coffee refill break. We just charge when we are stopped. Its not that hard.

However, if none of those things are important to you buy what you like. Everybody has different tastes. Personally I don't think the government has to mandate anything. Nobody is going to want to drive a fossil car within 10 years.

JMHO

[Big-Foot]

Originally Posted by Ann n Gene

Passes a wind farm on I-40 in Texas today and there was a huge pile of used windmill blades chopped up in 4 pieces each and stacked high in a pile. Awaiting transport to a land fill because they are not able to recycle them with today’s technology. Very few landfills are equipped to take them, most that I am aware of go to a specialized station in Wisconsin. JMHO

I’m not a pro-wind Power only advocate. But have to help set the record straight.
Fiberglass and Carbon Fiber is recycleable - it’s just that it costs more than it does to just bury them. Don’t believe the CNN Narrative...

[RossWilliams]

1) Clearly the governor is just setting a target. But that is useful for auto companies. It tells them if they are ready to deliver emission free vehicles in 2035 and some or all of their competition isn't, they are going to have a big market share available.



2) The order requires vehicles to be emission free, so current hybrid's could not be sold. But it would likely allow hydrogen vehicles or some other technology that met that standard.



3) The grid mix in a region is the wrong way of evaluating the impact of shifting to electric vehicles. The question is what source will provide the extra power. If a utility extends the life of a coal plant to meet that need then those vehicles are being powered by coal. It doesn't matter what the rest of the grid includes.



And, at least in the United States, national figures are irrelevant. Electricity is largely produced to meet local demand. The Columbia River dams are not going to help meet demand created by electric cars in Florida.


4) Nuclear power has certainly proven itself. It has proven to be expensive and unreliable. A number of utilities that built them went bankrupt and others avoided it only by dumping a huge bill for the cost on ratepayers. Which is why there have been almost no new plants built for years. I think there is one under construction in Georgia now. It so far behind schedule and over budget that its questionable whether its cost effective to spend the money needed to finish it.


5) My guess is that, like most new technologies, electric cars will not just replace the old one. Instead people will change their behavior along with adopting the new technology. We may even see the end of personal car ownership. That won't happen by 2035, but we may be obviously moving in that direction.

[Dutchstar53]

Originally Posted by JeffAZ

WOW, that is a very, very broad and far-reaching change to be implemented on a huge state by merely the flick of the wrist signing of an executive order by a governor. With no voter input or discussion? This will get interesting.

Live in CA. Years ago voters (not us) voted to have top 2 candidates in primary, even if same party, go to the general election. Needless to say CA now has a super majority of one party. So, they can do whatever they want. Pretty much the voters gave them carte blanche!

[GypsyCoder]

If you own a house and can install a level 2 charger I am sure an electric car is quite convenient. How about the people who rent, especially lower income people where the landlord is not likely to install a charging station, what do these people do when gasoline cars start going away?

Yes, there will be public charging stations, but now you have just placed a time tax on the lower income people.

I am so glad I don’t live anywhere near CA.

[Dutchstar53]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

1) Clearly the governor is just setting a target. But that is useful for auto companies. It tells them if they are ready to deliver emission free vehicles in 2035 and some or all of their competition isn't, they are going to have a big market share available.



2) The order requires vehicles to be emission free, so current hybrid's could not be sold. But it would likely allow hydrogen vehicles or some other technology that met that standard.



3) The grid mix in a region is the wrong way of evaluating the impact of shifting to electric vehicles. The question is what source will provide the extra power. If a utility extends the life of a coal plant to meet that need then those vehicles are being powered by coal. It doesn't matter what the rest of the grid includes.



And, at least in the United States, national figures are irrelevant. Electricity is largely produced to meet local demand. The Columbia River dams are not going to help meet demand created by electric cars in Florida.


4) Nuclear power has certainly proven itself. It has proven to be expensive and unreliable. A number of utilities that built them went bankrupt and others avoided it only by dumping a huge bill for the cost on ratepayers. Which is why there have been almost no new plants built for years. I think there is one under construction in Georgia now. It so far behind schedule and over budget that its questionable whether its cost effective to spend the money needed to finish it.


5) My guess is that, like most new technologies, electric cars will not just replace the old one. Instead people will change their behavior along with adopting the new technology. We may even see the end of personal car ownership. That won't happen by 2035, but we may be obviously moving in that direction.

Not true regarding nuclear power. Whole new technology with mini reactors almost totally recyclable. Larger reactors also clean & safe. See France. 90% of their power is nuclear. But no worries, we will ruin the landscape & wildlife with solar panels and wind mills from sea to shining sea. As someone in thread said, CA...where I live...can’t keep the lights on as it is. Have scheduled rolling black & brown outs. My mother is 92 and lives alone w/part time care giver during the day. What is she suppose to do when power is cut for a day or more. Gas/diesel prices already $1.00 more per gallon than the US average.

[NewmarNewbee]

Originally Posted by 450Donn

How stupid is he? They cant even keep the power on for all their people in the summer. Black outs and brown outs have been the norm in CA for 20 years. How do they think their going to get more electricity to charge all those cars? Or right, more 1000 acre solar farms. A thousand more wind turbines so we can kill more birds! Makes perfect sence

I am from California - please don't judge! I actually saw a really good explanation recently of why wind and solar are terrible for the environment. If you're interested, it's on YouTube "What's Wrong with Wind and Solar?".

[tikibird1]

Just one question, Newsom will not be the governor in 2035, or do you people not know that an EO only last as long as the next governor wants it to remain.

[BruceDeville]

Originally Posted by Earl II

https://fox8.com/news/california-to-...-cars-by-2035/

California Governor Newsome just signed an executive order that starting in 2035 gas powered vehicles can no longer be sold in the state. 14 years away. Not too long and no real details how this will really affect people and business. The governor says he is concerned about climate change.... oh, I'm sorry, I should have said internal combustion engines..... got to include diesels...

This is going to sound retro and sarcastic. But it is not. I lived in California in the early 70s, but not from California. Move out of that state.