Can California's Power Grid Handle a 15x Increase in Electric Cars? (calmatters.org) 428
California state officials "claim that the 12.5 million electric vehicles expected on California's roads in 2035 will not strain the grid," writes the nonpartisan and nonprofit news organization Cal Matters.
"But their confidence that the state can avoid brownouts relies on a best-case — some say unrealistic — scenario: massive and rapid construction of offshore wind and solar farms, and drivers charging their cars in off-peak hours...." Powering the vehicles means the state must triple the amount of electricity produced and deploy new solar and wind energy at almost five times the pace of the past decade.... Adding even more pressure, the state's last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, is slated to shut down in 2030.... To provide enough electricity, California must:
- Convince drivers to charge their cars during off-peak hours: With new discounted rates, utilities are urging residents to avoid charging their cars between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. But many people don't have unrestricted access to chargers at their jobs or homes.
- Build solar and wind at an unprecedented pace: Shifting to all renewables requires at least 6 gigawatts of new resources a year for the next 25 years — a pace that's never been met before.
- Develop a giant new industry: State officials predict that offshore wind farms will provide enough power for about 1.5 million homes by 2030 and 25 million homes by 2045. But no such projects are in the works yet. Planning them, obtaining an array of permits and construction could take at least seven to eight years.
- Build 15 times more public chargers: About 1.2 million chargers will be needed for the 8 million electric cars expected in California by 2030. Currently, about 80,000 public chargers operate statewide, with another estimated 17,000 on the way, according to state data.
- Expand vehicle-to-grid technology: State officials hope electric cars will send energy back to the grid when electricity is in high demand, but the technology is new and has not been tested in electric cars.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for submitting the story.
"But their confidence that the state can avoid brownouts relies on a best-case — some say unrealistic — scenario: massive and rapid construction of offshore wind and solar farms, and drivers charging their cars in off-peak hours...." Powering the vehicles means the state must triple the amount of electricity produced and deploy new solar and wind energy at almost five times the pace of the past decade.... Adding even more pressure, the state's last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, is slated to shut down in 2030.... To provide enough electricity, California must:
- Convince drivers to charge their cars during off-peak hours: With new discounted rates, utilities are urging residents to avoid charging their cars between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. But many people don't have unrestricted access to chargers at their jobs or homes.
- Build solar and wind at an unprecedented pace: Shifting to all renewables requires at least 6 gigawatts of new resources a year for the next 25 years — a pace that's never been met before.
- Develop a giant new industry: State officials predict that offshore wind farms will provide enough power for about 1.5 million homes by 2030 and 25 million homes by 2045. But no such projects are in the works yet. Planning them, obtaining an array of permits and construction could take at least seven to eight years.
- Build 15 times more public chargers: About 1.2 million chargers will be needed for the 8 million electric cars expected in California by 2030. Currently, about 80,000 public chargers operate statewide, with another estimated 17,000 on the way, according to state data.
- Expand vehicle-to-grid technology: State officials hope electric cars will send energy back to the grid when electricity is in high demand, but the technology is new and has not been tested in electric cars.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for submitting the story.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Definitely not. PG&E can't even handle the grid now.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
So... changes need to be made?
Imagine if we judged the gasoline car by the same yardstick 100 years ago: There wouldn't be enough gasoline production, there wouldn't be any filling stations, etc., etc.
We'd all be better off sticking with horses, right? They work. They've been working for thousands of years!
Guess what? Gas production went up, gas stations were built, it all worked out in the end.
(except for the horse breeders)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you felt your ideology attacked over nothing. That the grid needs major overhaul is a main point of EV sceptics since day one, not because they WANT to see EVs fail but because they want to make it clear where the blame needs to go when doodoo inevitably hits the fan.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
That the grid needs major overhaul is a main point of EV sceptics since day one
And since day one, they have been wrong. The existing grid can handle EVs. The future grid will handle them even better.
Even if 100% of ICEs were replaced by EVs tomorrow, the grid could handle it. It is only a 20% additional load, and it is a flexible load that can be shifted to when other demand is lowest, such as in the middle of the night.
Re:No. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, demand might be better suited, especially in a place like California where it's sunny a lot and has a lot of solar, to charge when the sun is out. I believe it's the case there is actually too much solar in California, so instead of wasting the energy, it should be stored, and why not store it in EV batteries? Either it'll get used in V2L (vehicle to load, i.e., power your house) or you'll drive it anyways.
EVs represent a substantial amount of energy storage for the grid. It seems best to actually be able to use that energy storage when you have too much of it.
It'll require a bit of a grid re-think because EVs are really that kind of load where they can charge anytime and as long as it gets you where you need to go, you might be able to devise ways to optimize the energy use of the grid.
For example, let's say out of the entire EV fleet now, most people can anticipate using 50 miles tops a day. Which means if you have a 350 mile range on your EV, you should, on average, get 100 miles of charge every week. What if instead of fully charging every night and using it a bit then charging, we make it true that you will get, on average, 50 miles per day of charge, more if you're running below 50% charge?
Thus, when you plug in, your car charges "economically" - when electricity is cheap and plentiful, it charges. When it isn't, it stops. Add in a little bit of logic that says if it gets dangerously low, like under 30% charge, it will charge to say, 40% always regardless of price. Of course, if you are planning a road trip, and you need it fully charged, it will do so - either optimally if you give it enough notice so it can use cheap power, or just take what it can.
Thus you can take advantage of the time there is excess electricity available on the grid and charge when it's super cheap or free, and stop charging when it's more expensive. And it can be mostly automatic as well.
After all, EV chargers in Europe right now can do "free charging" by monitoring how much your solar panels are putting out, and telling the car to only draw that much power so instead of putting it on the grid (where you're paid very little) you make use of the stored power economically, thus saving even more money.
It's why EVs are "dangerous" - the demand for the "fuel" can range from a lot to nothing. And instead of relying on places that have a limited resource, a lot of places have access to the sun which means they make "make their own gas" and "fuel up for free". Imagine how disruptive that is - instead of paying for gas and the whole economy around it, suddenly you're paying a hefty one time fee to have solar panels installed and then ... you can travel around because the energy you use came from what you made on-site. You've suddenly decoupled the need for transportation from the vast oil-based infrastructure created in the past century to service it.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
The grid won't be just overhauled in advance. China would do it, because they're able to coherently plan things, but nobody's going to invest any money to upgrade the grid before it's needed in our weird hybrid economies.
Once there's demand, it'll just happen.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Once there's demand, it'll just happen.
Yep, and all the ICE cars won't vanish overnight. People will still be driving them for decades while the electric cars are phased in.
Re: No. (Score:2)
Off course, theyâ(TM)ll have to, like the Cubans have to maintain their 1950s Chevy, because the EV will all sit at home trying to get a charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the poor people, but they do that anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
We'd all be better off sticking with horses, right? They work. They've been working for thousands of years!
Drought conditions will make it hard to grow food for those horses.
[ Every solution has its own set of problems... ]
Re: (Score:2)
100 years ago the government did not mandate the end of horses.
They're also not going to come around and take away your ICE car. You'll be free to drive it for as long as it lasts.
Your point was?
Re: (Score:2)
Incandescent lightbulbs are extinct now, because the government mandated them out.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Good Example
I remember all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over that one as well. Something about, "prying incandescent bulbs from cold, dead fingers".
Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)
> Incandescent lightbulbs are extinct now, because the government mandated them out.
The fact that I can walk into any hardware store and buy multiple styles and wattages of incandescent light bulbs kinda undermines this claim...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
The law is acting to protect the environment from CO2 emissions, not select a technology. If you can make an ICE vehicle that doesn't dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (good luck with that) then you can use ICE. The law says zero emission, it doesn't mandate electric or fuel cell or anything. The thing is, you can't rely on the free market to protect the environment, certain acts that harm others have to be illegal. If an industrial process dumped toxic chemicals into the river, you'd want that fixed
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The government caused the end of transport horses for sure.
The government also funded most roads, and the interstate highway system, which would have cost vehicle companies too much to do themselves.
Typical libertarian, unable to see beyond the surface, and look at the true foundations of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. It's funny how the same people who say "tax is theft" see no problem in driving along roads.
Re: (Score:2)
And interestingly enough in the very beginning of horseless carriages, electric vehicles were quite popular, often marketed at wealthy women drivers. https://archive.curbed.com/201... [curbed.com] . However as ICE became more reliable (with electric start), quieter, and less smelly, these early electric vehicles were soon displaced.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need it to. Just get solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Up vote or comment. Decisions, decisions.
Hopefully, folks are smart enough to figure this out. Would be a shame if they had to pass a law to REQUIRE solar charging for cars.
One issue is the fact that you can't take the panels with you on a long trip or night trips, forcing you to rely on infrastructure.
I wouldn't mind if they would incorporate the panels in the cars skin though.
Baby steps I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind if they would incorporate the panels in the cars skin though.
The cost/benefit doesn't add up on that one. Solar panels on your roof and and in car parks though? Great idea.
You can even use your car to power your house during peak hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, folks are smart enough to figure this out.
The smart ones know it's not economically competitive with better alternatives. Solar panels on cars? What good would that do, do you think? You need some perspective...Per day, you're getting maybe 2 kilometers of range with 2 square metres of panels (way more than the exposed skin of a car). Some dudes on youtube were talking about how they wanted solar power option to fold out on the back of their cybertruck. I did the math, which you should do; it would take about 140 days to charge the truck with full
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely not. PG&E can't even handle the grid now.
The best path for California is to at least build more transmission lines to bring power from Arizona. When the SMRs start coming out of the factories, it is we who will install them first while California continues to dither.
Re: No. (Score:2)
PG&E isn't going to miss more inspections and maintenance because they're charging EVs. In fact, the extra demand over the night should improve their margins and give them more resources to properly maintain the lines.
Re:Also: Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost as if you think we have all the the time in the world to think about getting around to doing it.
Reality check: Electric cars aren't optional in the long term* and the sooner we get started, the better.
(*) Or even in the medium term
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The one thing that is non-optional is to stop taking CO2 from deep underground and throw it in the air.
So you agree we can't keep on driving ICE vehicles?
I'm open to your alternatives ... battery power is the most practical so far. The biggest problem at the moment is charging times, but they're gradually getting shorter.
After that comes infrastructure, but that's mostly just a question of money. We let Trump spend a trillion a year to not achieve very much, we've bailed out thieving bankers a few times, we spend unholy amounts on "defense", what's the problem in actually building something useful for the fu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
His administration fixes nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yep, that's what you're supposed to think.
"Two Santas" is working as planned.
Re: (Score:3)
Could've been better but seems like there are no Americans in Afghanistan left so it worked.
Re: Also: Wrong question (Score:2)
You should really put in your sarcasm tag, some people are so blind they would actually believe it is true.
Re: (Score:2)
No sarcasm. Like what the fuck did you expect would happen after Trump negotiated the withdrawal with the Taliban without the actual Afghan government involvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Caused by the Trump administration, and was at least partially "mitigated" by delays implemented by the Biden administration. If it were Trump, it would have been more like Syria, a true "unmitigated disaster".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the biggest issue is for city people like me. There are 12 spaces on my street and I don't see anyone installing any chargers there anytime soon.
Yep, that one's going to be a big problem.
I'm a city dweller, too, but I don't actually own a car at the moment. We have decent public transport here and I own an electric scooter.
If I need more? I can rent a car in about 15 minutes. It's like owning a new-ish car that never needs washing/maintenance, but much cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What if you need to haul your two kids to music class with guitars
Around here? I'd find a music class that's close enough and make them walk there. Or make them go a couple of stops on the bus.
Supermarkets? I've got four within a five minute walk plus a real "farmers market" selling home-grown stuff right across the street (literally across the street, I can see it from here...)
Re:Also: Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's pretty common for kids to take the bus in cities. In a lot of places kids don't get a dedicated school bus - they get a transit pass and use the infrastructure that is already running. 7 is probably a little young to take a city bus by yourself, but if it were a few blocks I would let them walk it, otherwise, I'd probably ride with them. And if you live within walking distance to the grocery store, you don't buy a week's worth of groceries at a time. You buy a couple days' worth. If you have something heavy, you bring a handcart so you can wheel it home.
Re:Also: Wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)
I joined this conversation to debate your claims that cars are essential for urban living. I'm not interested in your personal scenario as your community (like most suburbs in the US) was likely designed with cars as essential which is why grocery stores are so far from you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Also: Wrong question (Score:2)
Uber has vans. I don't know what their policy is on messes, but I've never heard of a drunk passenger billed for vomiting in an Uber.
What if? [Re:Also: Wrong question] (Score:3)
What if you need to haul your two kids to music class with guitars and you want to do a shopping trip to Costco.
"If proposed transportation X won't solve every possible usage case that I can contrive, then they don't have any possible benefit and nobody would ever want to use them!!!!!"
If you live in the city are hauling two kids and guitars to music class twice a week and filling your car with Costco at the same time, so you need a mini van (or something larger) to haul them around, and also your kids spill supersized sodas every time you drive so the rental agencies refuse to rent to you... yes, go buy your own va
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative to ICE is no cars at all unless there are viable solutions that don't halt destruction of the planet. Deniers will cease to exist one way or another, the only question is how much damage they will do to everyone else in the process.
Built into the discussion that no one acknowledges is the entitlement to have personal transportation in the first place. Other societies do not feel such an entitlement to the extent the US does. That's not a criticism of that point of view either, it's merely
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Hyndai/Kia cars charge 10-80% if about 15 minutes.
The last time I went to a gas station, I was able to fill from 10-100% in 10 minutes. That's way, way better than 10-80% in 15 minutes. Well, if a battery had an 800 mile range then getting 70% of your range back in a 15 minute charge may be workable. But sadly,
but we're getting there, a Bolt is under $30k already (but has super slow charging)
It seems any vehicle that is affordable still charges very slowly.
I have to do a trip half way across Canada this spring. Temperatures will still be cold. We are traveling with pets, and so we have to board the pets every night, meaning we need
Re:Also: Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
The last time I went to a gas station, I was able to fill from 10-100% in 10 minutes. That's way, way better than 10-80% in 15 minutes.
You're just repeating what I said. Like I literally acknowledged that a gas pump is still faster.
But like so what? In 99% of all trips this doesn't matter. This like buying a pickup truck because you might need to buy a fridge at some point. Oh wait that's another thing some people do.
Re: (Score:2)
And, yes, 99% of the time I make shor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many problems to be solved by the EV industry before these can me considered ready for general purpose use.
Re: (Score:2)
Contrived scenarios [Re:Also: Wrong question] (Score:5, Insightful)
The Hyndai/Kia cars charge 10-80% if about 15 minutes.
The last time I went to a gas station, I was able to fill from 10-100% in 10 minutes. That's way, way better than 10-80% in 15 minutes.
It is? Five minutes on days when you take long trips is a deal breaker???
97 percent of the time when I charge my car, I just plug it in when I get home. The amount of my time spent is about fifteen seconds.
In my experience, charging a car has resulted in a tremendous saving of my time.
Yes, every now and then I take long trips. But, you know what? I stop and eat lunch on trips, and charge then. I suppose there are people who drive thousands of miles and just eat sandwiches on the road and piss in bottles so they don't waste time on bathroom stops, but those are such a small fraction of drivers that I don't care if they are inconvenienced by having to take stops to stretch their legs every now and them.
[weirdly contrived situation where you can't use an electric car because]
How will this ever be workable without knowing how long a fill will take? Maybe it would be ok if you knew you would always be first in line at a charger, but we all know that's often not the case.
Wow, you really really stretched for that scenario. But no: you know how long it will take to charge. If you're really seriously in a crunch for time and worried that a particular charge stop being overbooked, look at the app and see how many space are open, and if it's less than one or two, aim for a different charger.
(...and, you do know that there exist hotels that take pets [akc.org], right?)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Charging speed is also solved now. The Hyndai/Kia cars charge 10-80% if about 15 minutes. Which is slower than a turbo-fast gas pitstop but realistic
And while we wait for fast-charge infrastructure to proliferate into rural areas there is still a large market for EV "city cars."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Charging speed is also solved now. The Hyndai/Kia cars charge 10-80% if about 15 minutes. Which is slower than a turbo-fast gas pitstop but realistically pretty close to what you'd take to pump, go pay for it, buy some snacks and take a dump. It just needs to spread to all cars."
No, it's not because:
- 10-80% doeso' provide the range to prevent frequent need (2-3 hours) to do that same recharging, twice as often as gas
- you don't typically "go pay for it" when pumping
- you don't need to go "buy some snacks"
Re: Also: Wrong question (Score:2)
It won't be a return to ICE, it would be worse - if the grid cannot handle demand and the typical alternate sources of energy (gasoline engines, natural gas) have been outlawed, the people will be so desperate for energy they will elect politicians who promise to stabilize the grid by building a fleet of coal power plants within a year (by suspending environmental regulations).
Re:Also: Wrong question (Score:5, Informative)
I'm in Europe, never even been in California, and I know the grid there is a ratfuck.
I live in California. My power is rock solid. I've never experienced a brownout.
California has 40 million people spread across an area larger than Germany. When you see a headline about a brownout, it just means it happened somewhere in the state, not to everyone.
I have an EV. I charge it from 2 to 4 AM when plenty of power is available. During that time, I pay 7 cents/kwh vs 12 cents/kwh during the day.
People tend to way overestimate how much power EVs consume. Even if everyone uses EVs for 100% of their driving, it will only be an increase of about 20% over current electricity consumption. If that is done in the wee hours of the morning, when there is little other demand, we can handle it.
Of course, the transition will take 20 years, and there will be plenty of time to install more wind and solar. I've installed solar on my roof, and many others in my neighborhood are doing the same.
Re:Also: Wrong question (Score:5, Informative)
I lived in California and Germany. We had power outages all the time in California. This was not caused by too much demand, but by local problems caused by rotten infrastructure (transformer blown up, accidents damaging power lines, etc.). PG&E reports a SAIDI image for 2021 (average power outage per customer over 5 minutes) of 218 minutes. Germany has a SAIDI of 13 minutes.
https://www.pge.com/en_US/resi... [pge.com]
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.... [bundesnetzagentur.de]
Re:Also: Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there have been extensive studies. Obviously. But nah, let's trust some random journo rather than them.
This article is a jumbled mess. Powering the EVs is supposed to "triple" the state's electricity consumption by 2035, but power consumption is only supposed to grow by 96% by 2045, except a different link from the article says 68% by 2045... okay, for starters, at least try to have consistent numbers?
And no, switching to EVs doesn't even remotely triple energy consumption; transportation just doesn't use that much energy. If you were to switch every single vehicle in the US to electric overnight, it would increase demand by 32% [just-auto.com]. EVs just don't use that much power. Take 13500 miles per year on average and 250Wh/mi (meh, call it 300 for less efficient models and various added losses). That's 4000kWh/yr. But the average US home uses 10600 kWh/yr. And residential electricity consumption is only about a third of the total, alongside commercial and industrial (though there's also commercial vehicles electrifying to account for).
But that's for if you switched everyone OVERNIGHT. I don't know how to tell people this, but there's no magic fairy going to come along and do that. California is planning to convert 100% of EV SALES to electric by 2035, not 100% of the fleet. The average car is driven for about 20 years before it goes to the scrapheap. They might at some point adopt policies to accelerate that, but as things stand, that's another two decades. The article itself notes that the California Energy Commission expects - with the EV mandate for EVs to only represent 10% of peak power demand by 2035 (the article attempts to cast aspersions on this without actually quoting anyone challenging that number - instead quoting people talking about the challenges of grid expansions, not the EV figure).
Sorry, but this article is just garbage. California does have grid issues, but EVs are, and will continue to be, a tiny fraction of that, and indeed, are a net stabilizer to grids. EVs are dream loads for grid operators: for most of their charging, they're steady, predictable power consumers, most of whom you can easily incentivize to charge when you want them to charge. And when you make grid operators' jobs easier, you do some combination of three things: A) make them more profitable, B) make them more reliable, and/or C) make them cheaper.
California's real challenge - when you look at the primary sources - relate to their attempt to transition rapidly to a fully clean power grid. Let's take that entirely out of the picture. Let's say they don't clean up at all. How would EVs compare to oil? Well, the answer is, damned well, actually [ucsusa.org]. Cleaning up the grid is of course desirable on top of that, but if you're using those challenges to attack EVs, well sorry, you've gone off the rails.
Re: (Score:2)
While it varies by the difficulty of creating the end product, most don't realize the tremendous amount of electricity used simply by the processing and transportation of crude oil and it's consumables. Musk once claimed it was about even with the electric needed to power his EVs over a similar distance in an ICE car, but most calculate it about 4 Kwh/gallon, which is about 2/3 of his claims. I've seen articles discount this further by claiming refineries produce some/much of their own electricity, but that
Re: (Score:2)
"Musk once claimed..."
Bad way to make any point.
"Just because I tweet something does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly." - Elon Musk
nor should they.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to switch every single vehicle in the US to electric overnight, it would increase demand by 32%
This is the whole story, right here; not a real problem.
And perhaps the reason for assuming there will be a big increase in California offshore electrical production is because such projects are being planned?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"If you were to switch every single vehicle in the US to electric overnight, it would increase demand by 32% [just-auto.com]. EVs just don't use that much power. Take 13500 miles per year on average and 250Wh/mi (meh, call it 300 for less efficient models and various added losses). That's 4000kWh/yr. But the average US home uses 10600 kWh/yr. "
Why choose such bad numbers and useless approach when the article you linked to is so much better? If "every single vehicle" were switched, then we should look at th
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, was the entire point of your post to argue that if ALL VEHICLES, EVERYWHERE were switched to electric, it'd be 400Wh/mi, while I used 300Wh/mi for RESIDENTIAL VEHICLES, in TEMPERATE CALIFORNIA? Or are you complaining that I included a quick sample calculation on the assumption that the average Slashdotter won't follow a link but might be familiar with either normal home energy consumption levels, normal annual driving distances, and/or normal EV energy consumption levels, but probably have no co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Also: Wrong question (Score:3, Informative)
There is one thing you donâ(TM)t have during the night though: solar power. And diminished sunlight also means diminished wind (the sun drives a lot of the wind). Just ask Germany. So charging your car will not happen at night, you will deal with brownouts and complete blackouts once the sun goes down when all of California is converted to wind and solar.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one thing you donâ(TM)t have during the night though: solar power. And diminished sunlight also means diminished wind (the sun drives a lot of the wind). Just ask Germany.\
But if instead you ramped up baseload generation, you would then have an excess of power exactly at the time of day when most of the EVs would be sitting at home charging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm in Europe, never even been in California, and I know the grid there is a ratfuck. So this isn't even a question, certainly not the right one to ask."
Well I'm not un Europe, and I know that the roads there are a ratfuck. EV there isn't even a question, certainly not the right one to ask.
"Did anyone think to ask before pushing for adopting EVs and banning ICEs? Were they planning on doing anything about it? If not, why not? This is criminal negligence on the part of the lawmakers."
Well, yes they did, be
Re: (Score:2)
It makes a flat-earth seem plausible.
Yes, California has spare electrical capacity (Score:3)
Definitely not. PG&E can't even handle the grid now.
I'm in Europe, never even been in California, and I know the grid there is a ratfuck. So this isn't even a question, certainly not the right one to ask.
The answer to the headline is yes with no problem, if it's handled right. No, if it's handled wrong.
Here is California's electrical consumption by time of day (*): https://www.nxtmine.com/wp-con... [nxtmine.com]
Note that there is almost a factor of two decrease in power usage between the peak at 6pm and the minimum at 7AM. The clear conclusion is that actually California has an abundance of electrical capacity to spare... as long as you don't charge near peak hours between 2 PM and 10PM.
Since electric car chargers all h
Re:Also: Wrong question (Score:4, Informative)
It's almost like certain politicians and their agenda-driven backers want people forced into selling their cars and using public transit.
It's more like that's what the anti-EV brigade wants people to believe.
Not just increased generating capacity (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, grid infrastructure to distribute it. Which will likely cost more than the generating capacity, and be far more disruptive, as streets get torn up by the mile (in cities that can't patch potholes now).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We don't need much more generation capacity for this, because most of the charging will occur at night for the foreseeable future. We don't need any grid improvements for that either. We do need grid improvements in general, but we need them whether we get EVs or not because PG&E has been neglecting their contractually obligated maintenance for over one hundred years. Remember how they burned down Paradise by not replacing a hook for 99 years, and it wore through and a line fell down? Now consider that
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy the combination of arguments here, in particular (1) the government's inability to solve any problems as evidenced by an inadequate electric grid, and (2) that any problem not solved by the free market is doomed to failure, not recognizing that the failure to regulate the "free market" is literally the cause of the electric grid problems. It's the classic "two Santas".
Re: (Score:3)
Also, grid infrastructure to distribute it.
If we do it right the cars could help by using their batteries for load-balancing of the grid.
It will help massively during peaks in demand.
I know that's a very big "if" though.
RAPID growth of renewables roll out (Score:3)
In practice Europe is doing amazingly well in getting wind power erected, especially in the North Sea. It's currently deploying 17GW a year and is expecting this to rise to 23GW a year. https://windeurope.org/intelli... [windeurope.org]
In that context California's need for 6GW a year seems achievable. However the issue of distribution networks may be more tricky, given the messed up nature of the present incumbent!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What has the size of the deficit in the state budget got to do with the private sector investing money to get wind farms and solar panels built?
Re: RAPID growth of renewables roll out (Score:2)
The private sector doesnâ(TM)t invest in boondoggles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RAPID growth of renewables roll out (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RAPID growth of renewables roll out (Score:5, Informative)
Form Energy has an issue with your $400/kWh figure. They are breaking ground on a battery factor set to sell product in 2024, and their *intention*, if not yet their claim, is that they can produce long-term storage farms at $20/kWh.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/2... [cnbc.com]
The article, by the way, uses $100-$200/kWh for the existing battery estimate. Most would call your $400 a conservative figure.
If Form can even get down to double their target, down to $40/kWh, then your $210B becomes just $21B, which, some would argue, is the price of a single GW-scale nuke plant, these days, what with 2.3GW costing Georgia over $30B.
I've been a nuke champ for 40 years, but...money is money.
PG&E are the cheapest mofos (Score:2)
Case in point: 100 y old bare wires fatigued their way through mounting hardware because PG&E was too cheap and negligent to maintain their gear. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives uprooted later, CAL-ISO (the Enron rolling blackouts colluders) want to hate on the tiny demand EVs would generate compared to the savings in carbon and excess deaths from using the sky as a "limitless" dump. Neither of them did their job then, so don't expect them to do anything right now.
Re: PG&E are the cheapest mofos (Score:2)
How about with the $37 B in cash the state has. California has been running a budget surplus for years. One year of deficit isn't going to have such a big impact.
Re: (Score:2)
FUD already?! (Score:2)
Doesn't need to (Score:2)
Just get solar. 100% off-grid energy is the way to go if you have a single family home. I believe it's current california law that all new houses must have solar.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"...if you have a single family home."
what about the other third of the population? Are home owners the only ones who matter?
"nonpartisan"? lol (Score:2)
Well (Score:2)
Asked and answered in 2008 (Score:4, Informative)
Lets actually run the numbers (Score:2)
EVs Made Up 10% of All New Cars Sold Last Year (Score:4, Informative)
It will be interesting to see how things evolve.
According to this article one out of every ten new cars is already an EV:
Electric-vehicle sales crossed a global milestone last year, achieving around 10% market share for the first time [wsj.com]
Re: This will not reduce emissions (Score:2)
California has a train line. I can get on a train here in San Diego at the southern border and take a train to every major California city or to Vancouver, Canada.
What California can't do is justify a train line meant to pick up and move farmers from field to field.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)