5 ms·

I guess "13 years before gas car sales ban" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "days after"

by rozab 4y ago

Alupis 4y ago
I think it more highlights the fact that our grid already cannot sustain high-demand usage, and adding a zillion EV's will not make the situation any better. Given how long it takes to build out major things to augment the grid, 13 years doesn't seem like enough time in all honesty. Also.. what's with the year 2035? Seems like everything we talk about today takes place by 2035... far enough away to not worry about it today but close enough to seem like we're doing something? If I was a betting man, I'd bet this "due date" will get punted once we get closer and realize we're still not ready for a full-blown EV fleet in this state.
- jerlam 4y ago
  Cynical take: 2035 is after Gov. Newsom's term limits in California (2 terms, 4 years, 2026) and after being elected President and having the same 2 term limitation (2034). So any issues caused by these laws will come into effect after Newsom is out of office both for state and federal.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  The grid is two things: generation and transmission. We need a lot more generation. But solar and wind have gotten incredibly cheap, and can be added quickly. Transmission is more expensive and difficult to replace. EV's don't need a lot more of it, since transmission is sized for peak demand, and EV's generally don't charge during peak periods. Transmission capacity will be stressed more by air conditioning demand than it will be by EV charging.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    Massive roll-outs of either takes a lot of time and resources. There's also no guarantee that a build-out starting today will even be relevant in 13 years - just look at the warpspeed progress solar panel technology has enjoyed in the past decade. It's a lot easier to hand-wave away these concerns than it is to actually build them out. Just look at warehouse roofspace in this state - nearly all of which are perfectly flat and huge (thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of square footage) - but few are covered in solar panels. These things are incredibly expensive, and need to return the investment. We can't pretend the last 20 years of snail-paced build-outs are just because people don't care...
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      We're adding ~60 GW of renewables per year. That's not snail-paced.
      - Alupis 4y ago
        The US produced 4.12 Trillion kWh in 2021, of which ~20% came from renewables.[1] ~60 Million kWh is a drop in the bucket even if it's true (your claim lacks a citation). [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
        inferiorhuman 4y ago
        We're talking about California not the entire US here.
        bryanlarsen 4y ago
        You've mixed up kWh and kW, which are very different things. multiply the GW by the number of hours of daylight in a year.
  - kkfx 4y ago
    There is a deep issue with p.v. + e.v.: while in many places in the world (i.e. those with a continental climate) a/c+p.v. is a perfect match because at night there is far less needs of A/C or no need at all while the most needed timeframe is during the day e.v. are the exact opposite: we normally live, and so move/drive, during the day while sleeping at night at home. As a result with p.v. you can eliminate much of the A/C consumption in many places. You hardly reduce EV charging consumption though. EVs can be recharged from p.v. almost only for teleworkers and retirees, who tend also to be those who discharge them less, simply because they move less.
  - Fatnino 4y ago
    When all the cars are EV the peak period will be whenever everyone gets home and puts their car on the charger.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      EV's don't start charging when they are plugged in, they start charging when they are programmed to start charging. Which must people have set to when it's cheapest.
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  Given how long it takes to build out major things to augment the grid, 13 years doesn't seem like enough time in all honesty. That presumes no current effort to improve the grid is underway. California's been working to eliminate transmission bottlenecks for a couple decades now. And then you have projects like this: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-23/wyoming-clean-energy-california https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-23/wyoming...
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > California's been working to eliminate transmission bottlenecks for a couple decades now. Well, that's my point. We're still not there and several decades have been spent already. As it stands today, if you want your electricity to come from renewables, it often costs significantly more than "regular" power. That's a step in the wrong direction... > And then you have projects like this Been around long enough to have seen things like this before. I'll believe it when I see it.
- chrismartin 4y ago
  "X by year Y" gives leaders a pass to finish their tenures and retire before anything hard or unpopular has to be done. When you see "X by year Y", ask: what is the transition plan for the intervening years, to ensure achievement of X on schedule?
kcplate 4y ago
It’s the irony and optics of it. Doesn’t matter how far off in the future it is, you’re pressing a direction in one breath and then in the next breath, giving the opponent’s of that direction a nice little “see, I told you so” moment.

I guess "13 years before gas car sales ban" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "days after"

by rozab 4y ago

I guess "13 years before gas car sales ban" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "days after"

I think it more highlights the fact that our grid already cannot sustain high-demand usage, and adding a zillion EV's will not make the situation any better. Given how long it takes to build out major things to augment the grid, 13 years doesn't seem like enough time in all honesty. Also.. what's with the year 2035? Seems like everything we talk about today takes place by 2035... far enough away to not worry about it today but close enough to seem like we're doing something? If I was a betting man, I'd bet this "due date" will get punted once we get closer and realize we're still not ready for a full-blown EV fleet in this state.

jerlam 4y ago
Cynical take: 2035 is after Gov. Newsom's term limits in California (2 terms, 4 years, 2026) and after being elected President and having the same 2 term limitation (2034). So any issues caused by these laws will come into effect after Newsom is out of office both for state and federal.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
The grid is two things: generation and transmission. We need a lot more generation. But solar and wind have gotten incredibly cheap, and can be added quickly. Transmission is more expensive and difficult to replace. EV's don't need a lot more of it, since transmission is sized for peak demand, and EV's generally don't charge during peak periods. Transmission capacity will be stressed more by air conditioning demand than it will be by EV charging.
- Alupis 4y ago
  Massive roll-outs of either takes a lot of time and resources. There's also no guarantee that a build-out starting today will even be relevant in 13 years - just look at the warpspeed progress solar panel technology has enjoyed in the past decade. It's a lot easier to hand-wave away these concerns than it is to actually build them out. Just look at warehouse roofspace in this state - nearly all of which are perfectly flat and huge (thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of square footage) - but few are covered in solar panels. These things are incredibly expensive, and need to return the investment. We can't pretend the last 20 years of snail-paced build-outs are just because people don't care...
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    We're adding ~60 GW of renewables per year. That's not snail-paced.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      The US produced 4.12 Trillion kWh in 2021, of which ~20% came from renewables.[1] ~60 Million kWh is a drop in the bucket even if it's true (your claim lacks a citation). [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
      - inferiorhuman 4y ago
        We're talking about California not the entire US here.
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        You've mixed up kWh and kW, which are very different things. multiply the GW by the number of hours of daylight in a year.
- kkfx 4y ago
  There is a deep issue with p.v. + e.v.: while in many places in the world (i.e. those with a continental climate) a/c+p.v. is a perfect match because at night there is far less needs of A/C or no need at all while the most needed timeframe is during the day e.v. are the exact opposite: we normally live, and so move/drive, during the day while sleeping at night at home. As a result with p.v. you can eliminate much of the A/C consumption in many places. You hardly reduce EV charging consumption though. EVs can be recharged from p.v. almost only for teleworkers and retirees, who tend also to be those who discharge them less, simply because they move less.
- Fatnino 4y ago
  When all the cars are EV the peak period will be whenever everyone gets home and puts their car on the charger.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    EV's don't start charging when they are plugged in, they start charging when they are programmed to start charging. Which must people have set to when it's cheapest.
inferiorhuman 4y ago
Given how long it takes to build out major things to augment the grid, 13 years doesn't seem like enough time in all honesty. That presumes no current effort to improve the grid is underway. California's been working to eliminate transmission bottlenecks for a couple decades now. And then you have projects like this: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-23/wyoming-clean-energy-california https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-23/wyoming...
- Alupis 4y ago
  > California's been working to eliminate transmission bottlenecks for a couple decades now. Well, that's my point. We're still not there and several decades have been spent already. As it stands today, if you want your electricity to come from renewables, it often costs significantly more than "regular" power. That's a step in the wrong direction... > And then you have projects like this Been around long enough to have seen things like this before. I'll believe it when I see it.
chrismartin 4y ago
"X by year Y" gives leaders a pass to finish their tenures and retire before anything hard or unpopular has to be done. When you see "X by year Y", ask: what is the transition plan for the intervening years, to ensure achievement of X on schedule?

kcplate 4y ago

It’s the irony and optics of it. Doesn’t matter how far off in the future it is, you’re pressing a direction in one breath and then in the next breath, giving the opponent’s of that direction a nice little “see, I told you so” moment.