4 ms·

> We are simply putting fantasy before reality. Reality means that power generation expansion must come first and cars follow based on quotas established to mai

> We are simply putting fantasy before reality. Reality means that power generation expansion must come first and cars follow based on quotas established to maintain generation/grid integrity. None of the players are willing to expand power generation for some future possibility, we have to scale up demand before they're willing to invest in that. It also ignores that the biggest problem currently isn't generation but is scheduling, if more utilities had the capability to help homeowners schedule charging based on system demand we'd barely need any increase in generation to begin with as we don't have much trouble generating the needed power over the scale of a night, but if everyone tries to pull an 11kwh charge at the same time (similar to California having issues in the evening as everyone turns up the AC when people arive home) we do have a problem. Even california with all it's problem has enough capacity if there was better scheduling available to help flatten the curve.

robomartin 4y ago
> Even california with all it's problem has enough capacity if there was better scheduling available to help flatten the curve. I don't think so. Not enough power. I am in CA. Power problems are already serious enough. Scheduling is one of those things that sounds great on paper. What do you think are the chances of people who do not own EV's having any interest in being regulated to help people buying $50K to $120K cars? Less than zero. Also, power problems are guaranteed. This isn't theoretical and one can't wave it away with concepts such as scheduling. Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 explains that we have to go from 1,200 GW of power generation today to 5,338 GW for full electrification. That, again, cannot be waved-off with scheduling. Even half of that cannot be solved by shuffling cards. The problem is real and power generation has to come ahead of electrification. I am not saying we need to double power generation five years before adding electric cars. No. What I am pointing out is that we are putting the cart before the horse. CA says no more ICE vehicles after 2030 (I forget the year, I think that's right). That's 7 years from today. And yet, we did not simultaneously announce immediate projects to add power generation and delivery in support of the new vehicles to be sold starting in 2030. How long does it take to add non-trivial power generation? Decades? Somewhere around TWO MILLION new cars are sold in CA per year. The grid and power generation isn't ready for two million electric cars added every year starting in 2030. Those projects had to be launched three years ago, not five years from now.
- ender341341 4y ago
  > Scheduling is one of those things that sounds great on paper. What do you think are the chances of people who do not own EV's having any interest in being regulated to help people buying $50K to $120K cars? Less than zero. With proper incentives a lot. The grid has more than enough capacity for the needed watt hours needed in any given day, so if we can get people to cool their homes down more during lulls in usage, and charge their cars during those periods too it would take a lot of slack, ACs are likely a much bigger hit to most grids in the southwest over the next several decades than EVs will be. With well regulated (see not Texas) demand pricing it shouldn't be hard to convince people to do a couple times a year changes to their thermostats & enable settings on their EVSEs or EV to lower usage during peak. Your argument mostly boils down to "what if everyone stopped to fill up gas at the same time, there's not enough pumps, we can't support ICE vehicles". Also sorry if I came off as dick-ish, I don't disagree that we should be expanding energy production as fast & cleanly as we can, but I think we as a society are much to unwilling to take the slightest inconvenience, and it feels like with scheduling too many people are at the position of "we've tried the absolute minimum and it didn't solve it, it's doing more isn't going to work."
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > The grid has more than enough capacity for the needed watt hours needed in any given day Just want to make sure I am clear on what you are saying: Are you saying that's the case for the cars and loads we have today? Or, are you saying we have enough for a full transition to EV's? > Also sorry if I came off as dick-ish, I don't disagree that we should be expanding energy production No worries. Thanks for the gesture. It indicates a desire to have a conversation, rather than wanting to throw fecal matter at each other, which, sadly, can happen even on HN with some people. I am simply trying to understand the reality of this energy transition, rather than the many fantasies out there. When politicians make claims nobody asks the hard questions. Well, OK, I understand that most reporters don't have a clue. Most politicians don't have a clue. Which means we end-up with uncontested statements that, if repeated enough time, tend to become reality in the minds of people who will ultimately vote for this stuff in one way or another. We have to be careful that we don't make massive bets on flawed "religious" assumptions.

robomartin 4y ago

> Even california with all it's problem has enough capacity if there was better scheduling available to help flatten the curve. I don't think so. Not enough power. I am in CA. Power problems are already serious enough. Scheduling is one of those things that sounds great on paper. What do you think are the chances of people who do not own EV's having any interest in being regulated to help people buying $50K to $120K cars? Less than zero. Also, power problems are guaranteed. This isn't theoretical and one can't wave it away with concepts such as scheduling. Tesla's Master Plan Part 3 explains that we have to go from 1,200 GW of power generation today to 5,338 GW for full electrification. That, again, cannot be waved-off with scheduling. Even half of that cannot be solved by shuffling cards. The problem is real and power generation has to come ahead of electrification. I am not saying we need to double power generation five years before adding electric cars. No. What I am pointing out is that we are putting the cart before the horse. CA says no more ICE vehicles after 2030 (I forget the year, I think that's right). That's 7 years from today. And yet, we did not simultaneously announce immediate projects to add power generation and delivery in support of the new vehicles to be sold starting in 2030. How long does it take to add non-trivial power generation? Decades? Somewhere around TWO MILLION new cars are sold in CA per year. The grid and power generation isn't ready for two million electric cars added every year starting in 2030. Those projects had to be launched three years ago, not five years from now.

ender341341 4y ago
> Scheduling is one of those things that sounds great on paper. What do you think are the chances of people who do not own EV's having any interest in being regulated to help people buying $50K to $120K cars? Less than zero. With proper incentives a lot. The grid has more than enough capacity for the needed watt hours needed in any given day, so if we can get people to cool their homes down more during lulls in usage, and charge their cars during those periods too it would take a lot of slack, ACs are likely a much bigger hit to most grids in the southwest over the next several decades than EVs will be. With well regulated (see not Texas) demand pricing it shouldn't be hard to convince people to do a couple times a year changes to their thermostats & enable settings on their EVSEs or EV to lower usage during peak. Your argument mostly boils down to "what if everyone stopped to fill up gas at the same time, there's not enough pumps, we can't support ICE vehicles". Also sorry if I came off as dick-ish, I don't disagree that we should be expanding energy production as fast & cleanly as we can, but I think we as a society are much to unwilling to take the slightest inconvenience, and it feels like with scheduling too many people are at the position of "we've tried the absolute minimum and it didn't solve it, it's doing more isn't going to work."
- robomartin 4y ago
  > The grid has more than enough capacity for the needed watt hours needed in any given day Just want to make sure I am clear on what you are saying: Are you saying that's the case for the cars and loads we have today? Or, are you saying we have enough for a full transition to EV's? > Also sorry if I came off as dick-ish, I don't disagree that we should be expanding energy production No worries. Thanks for the gesture. It indicates a desire to have a conversation, rather than wanting to throw fecal matter at each other, which, sadly, can happen even on HN with some people. I am simply trying to understand the reality of this energy transition, rather than the many fantasies out there. When politicians make claims nobody asks the hard questions. Well, OK, I understand that most reporters don't have a clue. Most politicians don't have a clue. Which means we end-up with uncontested statements that, if repeated enough time, tend to become reality in the minds of people who will ultimately vote for this stuff in one way or another. We have to be careful that we don't make massive bets on flawed "religious" assumptions.