5 ms·
That's a big scary number to your average California taxpayer. What's frustrating about these articles is there's no talk of what's on the other side of the sc
by floatrock 2y ago
That's a big scary number to your average California taxpayer.
What's frustrating about these articles is there's no talk of what's on the other side of the scale. What's the cost of doing nothing (and presumably stifling the rise of EV's so we can do nothing)?
Continued dependency on fossil fuels (and the associated oil infrastructure, health, and the you know, global existential stuff), and the occasional transmission line hook failing from severe wear, dropping the line, and burning down a good chunk of the state.
On the other hand, presumably if you're upgrading the transmission lines, you're going to replace those 80-year-old worn down hooks at the same time. I don't like using grid update subsidies to bail out corporate malfeasance on negligently-deferred maintenance, but pragmatically, how many Paradise's is 6-20B worth?
- jeffbee 2y agoThere are alternatives beyond "do nothing". For example, reducing vehicle-mile demand through better development patterns, or widespread adoption of the dramatically more efficient electric bicycle.
- oefrha 2y agoSimply spending $20B is like at least two orders of magnitude easier than any of your proposed alternatives in this country.
- Tagbert 2y agowhy don't we just build giant Arcologies and move everyone into them. easy. /s
- rickydroll 2y agoA terrestrial version of Ark B??
- jeffbee 2y agoConverting the state to EVs also costs 100x more than $20 billion because you are ignoring the trillions it will cost to replace the ICE fleet.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThat's money you're spending anyways over a 20 year period. Approximately 0% of daily driven cars are > 20 years old.
- jeffbee 2y agoIf by 0% you meant 23%, then yes. https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2024/02/average-age-of-cars-trucks/#:~:text=About%2023%25%20of%20all%20passenger,19%25%20and%2020%25%20respectively https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2024/02/average-age-of-cars-t.... And you only need to spend that 1-2 trillion dollars if you insist on perpetuating car dependence. You are not "spending it anyway". It is an opportunity cost that you could spend on a better world instead.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoI said "daily drivers". A vintage car parked in a garage and used twice a year isn't relevant.
- jeffbee 2y agoA 2002 Corolla is not a vintage car. The amount of going outside and looking around you are admitting to avoiding is pretty remarkable.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoNobody is putting 50,000 miles a year on a 2002 Corolla.
- 2y ago
- floatrock 2y agoAll for orange-pilling the water supply, but grid modernization isn't just for EVs. Lots of other benefits as well like replacing fossil fuel heating with more heat pump penetration, and making things handle the variable energy flows from putting more storage on the grid, which to be frank, is needed to continue adding solar at CA's stage of solar development. A grid designed for the centralized coal/gas plant era doesn't work as well in the era of distributed resources. EV's are just sexiest way this shows up.
- nostrademons 2y ago$20B is about 10,000 homes at typical CA prices, including infrastructure, or less than one small-sized city. It's significantly cheaper to spend that to upgrade the grid for EVs than to re-do how our cities are laid out. California Forever, the real estate developer that's planning a new city in Solano County, has already dropped $900M on the land plus another $700M or so on incentives for the county to greenlight them, and they're still facing local political opposition and haven't even broken ground. Electric bikes are good options for single commuters in their 20s, but have a lot of practical problems as primary transportation for families. I can't really pick up my kids from daycare on an e-Bike, or schlep a car full of groceries from Costco.
- jeffbee 2y agoMy day care has basically devolved into a contest to see who can carry the most kids on an e-bike. Your town is just behind the curve. As for the costs of development, you have made a common error. 20 billion in public infrastructure can't be compared with 20 billion in private construction activity. 99%+ of construction is privately funded. In my county, which is only the 7th-largest in California, private parties undertook $28 billion in construction in 2023, and this was considered a very slow year for construction.
- andrewmutz 2y agoIs it that scary? California has 40 million people, so it's about $500 per person. And the electric car mandate is 10 years out (2035), which means it's about $50 per year per person, and the median household income in CA is about $90K. It shouldn't be that scary of a number.
- Dalewyn 2y agoFormer Californian; sky high taxes including 10%+ sales taxes and even just paving asphalt properly is a fool's errand. No, we don't speak about high speed rail. So yes, it's a scary number. Scary in the sense that the abyss of fiscal laundering and waste is terrifying.
- toddmorey 2y agoYeah it's terrible optics. Actually $20B over a decade is reasonably cheap for such a massive energy usage transition. (Consider the estimated $88 billion and $128 billion for the SFO <--> LA high speed rail.) And as a costal state, California will feel some the most intense financial impact from climate change. I wish it was easier to put a number on that cost.
- megaman821 2y agoThat seems like a really small number to me. Grid updates by 2045 may cost $20B, so for $2-4/mo/customer, California's grid can be upgraded for EVs.