6 ms·

This kind of thing is what, to me, puts into doubt the idea of a full migration to electric ground transportation in anything less than a scale that could range

This kind of thing is what, to me, puts into doubt the idea of a full migration to electric ground transportation in anything less than a scale that could range between fifty and one hundred years. We need to double our power generation and transportation infrastructure before full electric transportation is possible. We can't build anything at scale any more. The CA high speed train started as a ten billion dollar promise. It quickly became $33 billion. Now it is at over $110 billion and no idea of when or if it will be completed. I would not be surprised if it ends-up somewhere between $250 to $500 billion dollars. People will work on this thing their entire lives, retire and die before it is finished. Cost overruns and what is indistinguishable from systemic incompetence means we cannot possibly afford both the time and cost of doubling our entire power infrastructure in support of electric transportation. In other words, before we can dream of such things and approach large projects, we have to fix the cultural, bureaucratic and structural problems this nation has. BTW, for all his faults, Trump was the first US President to seriously engaged in some of this work. I don't remember all the details. I do remember reading about such things as the permits and process to build a road or bridge being reduced from decades to perhaps a few years. We are in desperate need of more work on this front. Today electric vehicles exist in this gray area where they don't demand enough electricity to create serious problem most of the time. Here in CA we've already have the government ask electric car owners to alter charging behavior due to power grid problems. At some point we will start to approach various thresholds that will make electric vehicles very problematic without matching infrastructure enhancement at local, city, regional, state and national levels. Not sure we can make that happen. We can't have every project cost ten times more than planned and take ten times longer to complete. That's not a formula for success at all.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The CA high speed train started as a ten billion dollar promise. No, it didn’t. System cost estimate referenced in the ballot booklet for Prop 1A was $45 billion. $9.95 billion was the Prop 1A bond issue, which was explicitly never intended to represent full funding.
- robomartin 4y ago
  It was sold as a ten billion dollar project. That what politicians drove into people's minds with their ads. Find me one mainstream media political add, just one, that discloses anything other than ten billion and I'll retract my statement. Voters don't read ballots in detail at all. They vote based and what got pounded into their heads during the election cycle. Politicians know this well.
- Gunax 4y ago
  I am reading prop1A, and it seems to propose that 9.95 billion is enough for a 800-mile railway. http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-re...
  - robomartin 4y ago
    Exactly. It's amazing how uninformed people are. And then they go and vote. People are lied to by politicians with agendas, they vote out of ignorance and then we all end-up paying for it. No state in the US is immune to this, but CA seems particularly good at it. This is why moving out of CA (personal and business) is a high priority for me. It just isn't as easy as one would wish it to be. When the time is right, we are gone and I'll take all the jobs we created with us.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > Matching private and federal funding to be identified BEFORE state bond funds are spent I think that line suggests it's at least 3x the Bond value.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I am reading prop1A, and it seems to propose that 9.95 billion is enough for a 800-mile railway. What you linked to is the “argument and rebuttal”, which has…very little information, one way or another (though even there, both the argument for and the argument against clearly indicate that the bond issue is not the whole cost, the former noting “Matching private and federal funding to be identified BEFORE state bond funds are spent”, the latter indicating a potential $90 billion system cost.) The “analysis” has, as one might expect, the actual analysis, including this: “The authority estimated in 2006 that the total cost to develop and construct the entire high-speed train system would be about $45 billion. While the authority plans to fund the construction of the proposed system with a combination of federal, private, local, and state monies, no funding has yet been provided.”
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> Here in CA we've already have the government ask electric car owners to alter charging behavior due to power grid problems. This bit of propaganda has been surprisingly successful, especially since it doesn't really make any sense. Someone referencing it while being skeptical about high speed rail reinforces my supposition that the high speed rail is just a boringly average big project and that most of the negative coverage is barely coherent lies.
- colin_mccabe 4y ago
  > > Here in CA we've already have the government ask electric car owners to alter charging behavior due to power grid problems. > This bit of propaganda has been surprisingly successful, especially since it doesn't really make any sense. What doesn't make sense to you? California did ask electric car owners to charge off peak hours to avoid overloading the grid. See https://www.newsweek.com/california-facing-power-crisis-frets-over-electric-car-charging-routines-1602755 https://www.newsweek.com/california-facing-power-crisis-fret... It was not a legally binding request, so electric car owners could ignore it if they wanted to.
  - peter422 4y ago
    Very few people charge their cars at the most expensive time of day anyways. For about a 3-day period during a historical heat wave throughout California we all did have to reduce our electricity usage for about 3 hours each day, which was mainly AC but also charging electric cars. To conclude based on this that the grid is broken or that electrical cars (which mostly charge at night) are going to result in the grid deteriorating further makes no sense through.
    - robomartin 4y ago
      > To conclude based on this that the grid is broken or that electrical cars (which mostly charge at night) are going to result in the grid deteriorating further makes no sense through. No, that is not what leads to the conclusion. The conclusion is based on two things: Physics and mathematics. What is happening now is merely a preview of things to come if we don't have the right conversations or people, as you are doing, dismiss the warnings some of us are issuing without making any real effort to understand. About five years ago I designed and built (as in, I did it myself) a 13 kW solar array at home. Far more than we needed to supply the house. The plan was to use some of that for electric vehicles once they became viable. Note I didn't just say "affordable". The term "viable" is meant to include the entire ecosystem. As a comparison, a gasoline-powered vehicle is viable because you can easily refuel it without even thinking about it and it can be maintained and repaired anywhere and almost by anyone. Anyhow. This led to me devoting a lot of time for about a year to try to understand energy, climate change and electric transportation realities. What I mean by that is that I invested time and effort seeing just how well the math and physics of what we were (and are) being told, actually align. What I discovered was a surprise to me: They do not. I wrote some code to simulate power requirements for a varying scale of EV adoption, all the way up to 300 million vehicles --our current fleet. The simulation predicted a need of between 900 GW and 1400 GW in addition to existing capacity. The current US capacity is 1200 GW. In other words, we need to double our power generation capacity and double (or more) our ability to transport power. As it turns out, this prediction was reasonably accurate. One of the often hand-wavy things people talk about or write in articles is energy, rather than power. This is a huge mistake. Energy is power delivered over time. One can make outlandish claims about energy while ignoring the time element. When, in a state like California, you have 31 million [0] EV's plug in to charge at, say, 6:00 PM every night, what you need is power, instantaneously, not energy. The fact that you generated <pick a number> of energy in the prior n days means nothing in that moment unless the energy was stored for delivery as power to each car in that instant. What I discovered is that, at the end of the day, the hand-wavy stories just don't hold up. As a hypothetical, if you consume ten days worth of stored energy in one to nine nights, you are still short. The truth turns out to be that the EV problem, ultimately, is about power, not energy. One way I think of this is that all 13 million+ households in CA [1] suddenly get TWO 5-ton air conditioning systems that are turned on every night at 6 PM for several hours. That's what we are talking about. And, no, we don't have the power and, if we had it, we could not deliver it. So, yes, very much so: The grid is broken (in that it just can't cope with these loads) and a large installed base of electric cars will cause severe grid deterioration in multiple ways. We can stick our heads in the sand an pretend this isn't so today because EV owners live in a privileged environment where they can take as much power as they need from the system and people, for the most part, don't notice any issues. I am going to guess that if we double the installed base of EV's in CA --which is mostly concentrated in large urban areas-- people will start to notice and this will lead to very interesting outcomes. I could get ugly for EV owners in so many ways. I don't know how else to say it. I have written a lot about this. People prefer to be dismissive and continue to exist in ignorance of our future reality. We can't even build a high speed train and now we are talking about a transition to EV's that will require a doubling our our power generation and delivery capacity (this is absolutely indisputable). Why aren't we talking about mass adoption of nuclear power? It's because the easy political gains are not there, that's why. [0] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/mv1.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/m... [1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/RHI725221 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/RHI725221

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The CA high speed train started as a ten billion dollar promise. No, it didn’t. System cost estimate referenced in the ballot booklet for Prop 1A was $45 billion. $9.95 billion was the Prop 1A bond issue, which was explicitly never intended to represent full funding.

robomartin 4y ago
It was sold as a ten billion dollar project. That what politicians drove into people's minds with their ads. Find me one mainstream media political add, just one, that discloses anything other than ten billion and I'll retract my statement. Voters don't read ballots in detail at all. They vote based and what got pounded into their heads during the election cycle. Politicians know this well.
Gunax 4y ago
I am reading prop1A, and it seems to propose that 9.95 billion is enough for a 800-mile railway. http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-re...
- robomartin 4y ago
  Exactly. It's amazing how uninformed people are. And then they go and vote. People are lied to by politicians with agendas, they vote out of ignorance and then we all end-up paying for it. No state in the US is immune to this, but CA seems particularly good at it. This is why moving out of CA (personal and business) is a high priority for me. It just isn't as easy as one would wish it to be. When the time is right, we are gone and I'll take all the jobs we created with us.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > Matching private and federal funding to be identified BEFORE state bond funds are spent I think that line suggests it's at least 3x the Bond value.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I am reading prop1A, and it seems to propose that 9.95 billion is enough for a 800-mile railway. What you linked to is the “argument and rebuttal”, which has…very little information, one way or another (though even there, both the argument for and the argument against clearly indicate that the bond issue is not the whole cost, the former noting “Matching private and federal funding to be identified BEFORE state bond funds are spent”, the latter indicating a potential $90 billion system cost.) The “analysis” has, as one might expect, the actual analysis, including this: “The authority estimated in 2006 that the total cost to develop and construct the entire high-speed train system would be about $45 billion. While the authority plans to fund the construction of the proposed system with a combination of federal, private, local, and state monies, no funding has yet been provided.”

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> Here in CA we've already have the government ask electric car owners to alter charging behavior due to power grid problems. This bit of propaganda has been surprisingly successful, especially since it doesn't really make any sense. Someone referencing it while being skeptical about high speed rail reinforces my supposition that the high speed rail is just a boringly average big project and that most of the negative coverage is barely coherent lies.

colin_mccabe 4y ago
> > Here in CA we've already have the government ask electric car owners to alter charging behavior due to power grid problems. > This bit of propaganda has been surprisingly successful, especially since it doesn't really make any sense. What doesn't make sense to you? California did ask electric car owners to charge off peak hours to avoid overloading the grid. See https://www.newsweek.com/california-facing-power-crisis-frets-over-electric-car-charging-routines-1602755 https://www.newsweek.com/california-facing-power-crisis-fret... It was not a legally binding request, so electric car owners could ignore it if they wanted to.
- peter422 4y ago
  Very few people charge their cars at the most expensive time of day anyways. For about a 3-day period during a historical heat wave throughout California we all did have to reduce our electricity usage for about 3 hours each day, which was mainly AC but also charging electric cars. To conclude based on this that the grid is broken or that electrical cars (which mostly charge at night) are going to result in the grid deteriorating further makes no sense through.
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > To conclude based on this that the grid is broken or that electrical cars (which mostly charge at night) are going to result in the grid deteriorating further makes no sense through. No, that is not what leads to the conclusion. The conclusion is based on two things: Physics and mathematics. What is happening now is merely a preview of things to come if we don't have the right conversations or people, as you are doing, dismiss the warnings some of us are issuing without making any real effort to understand. About five years ago I designed and built (as in, I did it myself) a 13 kW solar array at home. Far more than we needed to supply the house. The plan was to use some of that for electric vehicles once they became viable. Note I didn't just say "affordable". The term "viable" is meant to include the entire ecosystem. As a comparison, a gasoline-powered vehicle is viable because you can easily refuel it without even thinking about it and it can be maintained and repaired anywhere and almost by anyone. Anyhow. This led to me devoting a lot of time for about a year to try to understand energy, climate change and electric transportation realities. What I mean by that is that I invested time and effort seeing just how well the math and physics of what we were (and are) being told, actually align. What I discovered was a surprise to me: They do not. I wrote some code to simulate power requirements for a varying scale of EV adoption, all the way up to 300 million vehicles --our current fleet. The simulation predicted a need of between 900 GW and 1400 GW in addition to existing capacity. The current US capacity is 1200 GW. In other words, we need to double our power generation capacity and double (or more) our ability to transport power. As it turns out, this prediction was reasonably accurate. One of the often hand-wavy things people talk about or write in articles is energy, rather than power. This is a huge mistake. Energy is power delivered over time. One can make outlandish claims about energy while ignoring the time element. When, in a state like California, you have 31 million [0] EV's plug in to charge at, say, 6:00 PM every night, what you need is power, instantaneously, not energy. The fact that you generated <pick a number> of energy in the prior n days means nothing in that moment unless the energy was stored for delivery as power to each car in that instant. What I discovered is that, at the end of the day, the hand-wavy stories just don't hold up. As a hypothetical, if you consume ten days worth of stored energy in one to nine nights, you are still short. The truth turns out to be that the EV problem, ultimately, is about power, not energy. One way I think of this is that all 13 million+ households in CA [1] suddenly get TWO 5-ton air conditioning systems that are turned on every night at 6 PM for several hours. That's what we are talking about. And, no, we don't have the power and, if we had it, we could not deliver it. So, yes, very much so: The grid is broken (in that it just can't cope with these loads) and a large installed base of electric cars will cause severe grid deterioration in multiple ways. We can stick our heads in the sand an pretend this isn't so today because EV owners live in a privileged environment where they can take as much power as they need from the system and people, for the most part, don't notice any issues. I am going to guess that if we double the installed base of EV's in CA --which is mostly concentrated in large urban areas-- people will start to notice and this will lead to very interesting outcomes. I could get ugly for EV owners in so many ways. I don't know how else to say it. I have written a lot about this. People prefer to be dismissive and continue to exist in ignorance of our future reality. We can't even build a high speed train and now we are talking about a transition to EV's that will require a doubling our our power generation and delivery capacity (this is absolutely indisputable). Why aren't we talking about mass adoption of nuclear power? It's because the easy political gains are not there, that's why. [0] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/mv1.cfm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/m... [1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/RHI725221 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/RHI725221