3 ms·

If we're seriously going there , then legislate mandatory carpool or motorcycles for single occupants. The thing is, California isn't making great policy decis

If we're seriously going there , then legislate mandatory carpool or motorcycles for single occupants. The thing is, California isn't making great policy decisions or even efficient power decisions. They are making virtue decisions. Moving 1.5 tons of battery or 1.25 tons of battery isn't where the hairsplitting should take place

Schroedingersat 4y ago
If only there were a way to encourage upwards of 50% of trips to be done via methods that take a tiny fraction of the energy with no or negligible battery without invasive freedom limiting legislation just by spending roughly as much as EV manufacturers have received in subsidy on infrastructure. Oh well. Guess we'll have to give another billion to elon.
NickM 4y ago
My point isn't that we should actually shrink EV batteries and use the excess for stationary storage, my point is that car batteries as a demand-leveling mechanism is not likely to be an optimal solution. That said, it's not something that's really happening right now anyway, so the "power your home with your car at night" idea seems unlikely to take off unless there is a (possibly misguided) legislative push for it.
- qqqwerty 4y ago
  Batteries are a bit too expensive to make sense as stationary storage outside of some specialty cases right now. But EVs have been economical for a while. So while we wait for battery prices to drop, two way EV charging absolutely make sense as a transition technology. Most of those EV batteries are sitting unused for large chunks of the day, and the entire capacity of the battery is often only needed by the driver a few times per year. Adding two way charging is not a prohibitive cost, and that installation can be reused if/when an onsite battery is added in the future. The rest of the program can be managed with software.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    > Most of those EV batteries are sitting unused for large chunks of the day Yes, that is the point of having a battery, or any fuel storage of any kind. Especially one that degrades with use and that doesn't even change its weight based on being full (which could potentially offset some of the costs).
qqqwerty 4y ago
They are making politically expedient decisions that move the state towards its clean energy commitments. Yes, there may be some hiccups down the road, but that is the price to pay for putting off the transition for so long. And as one of the faster movers in this space CA will almost undoubtedly move the market in a way that will make it cheaper and easier for everyone else. Look at the "California Solar Initiative" (CSI) for example. It incentivized solar installations across the state, well before small scale installations were economically viable. And across the lifetime of the program, solar prices came down and adoption grew.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  Have you seen BART? The freeways in every major metro of CA? You are defending politics and not engaging the reality of failed infrastructure in the state. Now they are going to lead the country in developing a new paradigm in power infrastructure? The same that has PG&E blowing up neighborhoods because the company got so much tax incentive to continue building they failed to record where they placed capital assets and can't complete maintenance. California isn't putting anything off, they just can't get anything done. Giving tax incentives to get more people to buy e-cars won't fix that problem
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - qqqwerty 4y ago
    Turn off fox news for a bit and try getting your information from reliable, nonpartisan sources. Currently, over 60% of Californias electricity comes from clean sources (hydro, renewables, and nuclear). And we are well on target to hit 100% before our goal of 2045. These are facts. PG&E has nothing to do with this. Most power plants in the state are owned by third party investors, not by the utilities. Perhaps you should read up on CA power markets before commenting.
    - upsidesinclude 4y ago
      You are in a politics bubble. Don't try to couch my comment in your political view. PG&E is an example of how the policies used in CALIFORNIA fail the people of CALIFORNIA. That is relevant. These are facts. If you DIED because of infrastructure failures, maybe you'd feel differently! You know? Because you'd be dead and all...

Schroedingersat 4y ago

If only there were a way to encourage upwards of 50% of trips to be done via methods that take a tiny fraction of the energy with no or negligible battery without invasive freedom limiting legislation just by spending roughly as much as EV manufacturers have received in subsidy on infrastructure. Oh well. Guess we'll have to give another billion to elon.

NickM 4y ago

My point isn't that we should actually shrink EV batteries and use the excess for stationary storage, my point is that car batteries as a demand-leveling mechanism is not likely to be an optimal solution. That said, it's not something that's really happening right now anyway, so the "power your home with your car at night" idea seems unlikely to take off unless there is a (possibly misguided) legislative push for it.

qqqwerty 4y ago
Batteries are a bit too expensive to make sense as stationary storage outside of some specialty cases right now. But EVs have been economical for a while. So while we wait for battery prices to drop, two way EV charging absolutely make sense as a transition technology. Most of those EV batteries are sitting unused for large chunks of the day, and the entire capacity of the battery is often only needed by the driver a few times per year. Adding two way charging is not a prohibitive cost, and that installation can be reused if/when an onsite battery is added in the future. The rest of the program can be managed with software.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > Most of those EV batteries are sitting unused for large chunks of the day Yes, that is the point of having a battery, or any fuel storage of any kind. Especially one that degrades with use and that doesn't even change its weight based on being full (which could potentially offset some of the costs).

qqqwerty 4y ago

They are making politically expedient decisions that move the state towards its clean energy commitments. Yes, there may be some hiccups down the road, but that is the price to pay for putting off the transition for so long. And as one of the faster movers in this space CA will almost undoubtedly move the market in a way that will make it cheaper and easier for everyone else. Look at the "California Solar Initiative" (CSI) for example. It incentivized solar installations across the state, well before small scale installations were economically viable. And across the lifetime of the program, solar prices came down and adoption grew.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
Have you seen BART? The freeways in every major metro of CA? You are defending politics and not engaging the reality of failed infrastructure in the state. Now they are going to lead the country in developing a new paradigm in power infrastructure? The same that has PG&E blowing up neighborhoods because the company got so much tax incentive to continue building they failed to record where they placed capital assets and can't complete maintenance. California isn't putting anything off, they just can't get anything done. Giving tax incentives to get more people to buy e-cars won't fix that problem
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- qqqwerty 4y ago
  Turn off fox news for a bit and try getting your information from reliable, nonpartisan sources. Currently, over 60% of Californias electricity comes from clean sources (hydro, renewables, and nuclear). And we are well on target to hit 100% before our goal of 2045. These are facts. PG&E has nothing to do with this. Most power plants in the state are owned by third party investors, not by the utilities. Perhaps you should read up on CA power markets before commenting.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    You are in a politics bubble. Don't try to couch my comment in your political view. PG&E is an example of how the policies used in CALIFORNIA fail the people of CALIFORNIA. That is relevant. These are facts. If you DIED because of infrastructure failures, maybe you'd feel differently! You know? Because you'd be dead and all...