Jump to content

How California is preparing its grid to handle the transition to electric vehicles


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PS197TT said:

 

There is no such thing.  

Yes there is,

 

California considers hydro electricity to be a zero carbon energy source

you are welcome to disagree but please,  in future, please don’t attribute

a posted article as if I said it directly…..

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PS197TT said:


No.  There isn’t.  Unless concrete is made and moved around on magic carpets.    

Man your mental gymnastics are amazing!

 

let’s see-build a dam and the emissions “stop”from it after construction when it generates electricity. 


but keep just digging a hole here…
 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, PS197TT said:

 
Sure.  You can believe that.  But the fact is, everything done creates emissions.  Imagine the maintenance on that dam.  You think that’s emissions free.  
 

To say something is zero emissions is intellectually dishonest. People think electricity just comes out of the wall with no thought as to how that electricity is made.  They think that, because the exhaust pipe for their EV is miles away at the power plant they can’t see, that they aren’t creating emissions.  

But your also completely disregarding the fact that there would be large reduction in emissions/CO2/fuel usage if millions ICE vehicles are removed from road and BEVs are used instead. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

But your also completely disregarding the fact that there would be large reduction in emissions/CO2/fuel usage if millions ICE vehicles are removed from road and BEVs are used instead. 

 

Fortunately, government agencies, utility companies, and automakers in California and around the world aren't disregarding that fact. They're all taking action to support an all-electric future for passenger and commercial vehicles alike, including infrastructure.

 

Example. PG&E's Vehicle to Everything (V2X) pilot programs for certain BEV are planning to kick off within a couple months. PG&E Vehicle to Everything pilot programs (pge.com)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AGR said:

 

Wait...you mean there's someone that's STILL using this lame argument?

If there's 300K people without power, then their neighborhood gas stations are all out of power, too.

incorrect...theres 20 within a 5 mile radius...plenty of options...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Yes there is,

 

California considers hydro electricity to be a zero carbon energy source

you are welcome to disagree but please,  in future, please don’t attribute

a posted article as if I said it directly…..

irony is givenCalifornias constant "drought" situation, they are literally dismantling Dams...no joke....AND NOW due to a budget deficit, Newsome is "cutting back" on billions that were pencilled in for "climate change" issues, and yes, that blankets areas pertaining to "electrification"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

But your also completely disregarding the fact that there would be large reduction in emissions/CO2/fuel usage if millions ICE vehicles are removed from road and BEVs are used instead. 

with minerals strip mined ( no environmental consequences there ) from foreign countries (dependence on foreign countries )  and transported here in "clean " tankers to be processed with toxic chemicals...not to mention ultimate disposal. I think people need to keep in mind, with every "answer" comes its own set of consequences...something the "green" crowd seenm to ignore somewhat. ICE has its issues but is a proven and through the years has become significantly refined, Electric is in its gestation , still a huge learning curve IMO. Well see, seems the powers thgat be, that ultimately make our decisions for us, are pretty much sold...lets re-visit in 10 years or so...my guess is it wont exactly be as rosy as it is being made out to be. My fingers are crossed for an answer to the 900 pound Gorilla in the room...battery technology, something that doesnt have the downside that current Battery tech requires.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, akirby said:


That’s true, except you only think that applies to the nothing but EVs crowd.  It also applies equally to the anti-EV crowd.  You’re both wrong.

therein youve missed a valid point...Im NOT anti EV...I just think an awful lot of their perceived benefits are exactly that...perceived, and their effect on "cleaning up" the environment subsequently grossly inflated... Im actually not even 100% convinced their time will come...by the time they take to potentiually "clean their act up"...there may be a more viable alternative...Porsche is working on a Petroleum replacement that can be utilized by common everyday ICE engines that produces negligable emissions for instance. We'll see is my mantra...not anti, just not completely convinced for the reasons Ive outlined.

 

 

 

Edited by Deanh
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Deanh said:

irony is givenCalifornias constant "drought" situation, they are literally dismantling Dams

There are a lot of valid reasons to eliminate dams, which were constructed a long time ago on the premise of flood control and irrigation when historical water flows and rainfall were much higher compared to the historical record of the southwest.  Those reasons no longer exist, and the existence of many of those dams is killing the downstream ecosystems because there isn't enough water flow anymore.  Hydro power was a byproduct.

Edited by Flying68
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deanh said:

therein youve missed a valid point...Im NOT anti EV...I just think an awful lot of their perceived benefits are exactly that...perceived, and their effect on "cleaning up" the environment subsequently grossly inflated... Im actually not even 100% convinced their time will come...by the time they take to potentiually "clean their act up"...there may be a more viable alternative...Porsche is working on a Petroleum replacement that can be utilized by common everyday ICE engines that produces negligable emissions for instance. We'll see is my mantra...not anti, just not completely convinced for the reasons Ive outlined.


That is the issue-some people are overselling them on somethings and other people are pushing back just because they don’t like/want change and media keeps publishing BS articles about BEVs because it’s such a lightning rod issue. 
 

I’m going to make the assumption that the fuel that Porsche is working on isn’t going to be viable for commercial use and be 2-3-4x more expensive then gas from oil drilling. It might make good alternative for limited use 25 years down the road when you can’t find a gas station to top off your 2022 GT500 to go to the local car show. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

I’m going to make the assumption that the fuel that Porsche is working on isn’t going to be viable for commercial use and be 2-3-4x more expensive then gas from oil drilling. It might make good alternative for limited use 25 years down the road when you can’t find a gas station to top off your 2022 GT500 to go to the local car show. 

From articles I’ve read, I believe it would be viable for commercial use.  I believe you are correct regarding the cost, so that may kill any realistic potential for commercial use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CurtisH said:

From articles I’ve read, I believe it would be viable for commercial use.  I believe you are correct regarding the cost, so that may kill any realistic potential for commercial use. 

 

A future E-Fuel has advantage of more practical storage if cost is ever viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2023 at 5:51 AM, silvrsvt said:


That is the issue-some people are overselling them on somethings and other people are pushing back just because they don’t like/want change and media keeps publishing BS articles about BEVs because it’s such a lightning rod issue. 

It’s hard to get a clear picture because of polarisation, people’s perceptions are deeply rooted in what they “think”

which may or may not be true. Just my opinion but the greatest reductions in emissions come from closing down

coal fired plants, run as much solar, wind and battery storage as possible and have gas turbines as peak load support.

 

On 1/12/2023 at 5:51 AM, silvrsvt said:

I’m going to make the assumption that the fuel that Porsche is working on isn’t going to be viable for commercial use and be 2-3-4x more expensive then gas from oil drilling. It might make good alternative for limited use 25 years down the road when you can’t find a gas station to top off your 2022 GT500 to go to the local car show. 

The Germans will do whatever is needed to keep things as they are because they bet on hydrogen with zero infrastructure. Now Germany Inc and Japan Inc are so far behind on BEV that they will never catch up in time to save themselves…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If e-gasoline can eventually be sold under $10/gallon ($7.57 estimated below to produce in a few years), fuel cost to drive a car like a Prius that gets 50 MPG or higher starts to look like a possibility.  At $0.20 per mile, it’s not much different than I spend today, and less than I paid last year when over $4.00 per gallon while only averaging 15 MPG in one vehicle.

 

https://www.motortrend.com/features/porsche-supercup-efuel-direct-air-carbon-capture/

 

Don’t know if E-Fuel is just another pie-in-the-sky dream.  It would be helpful to know if these e-Fuel processes can operate intermittently or if they have to run steady.  If they have to run as a continuous process, then renewable energy like solar would have to be stored anyway in order to power e-Fuel process through most of the day.  Maybe that’s why they are using wind where it is abundant to power initial plant.

 

Regardless, it takes so much energy to power the grid (with or without automotive contribution) that I have a difficult time seeing how it can be accomplished primarily with renewables and battery backup.  Unless nuclear plays a major role, we will need fossil-fueled backup power to keep society going through a “rainy day” that exceeds 1 or 2 days of stored energy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Regardless, it takes so much energy to power the grid (with or without automotive contribution) that I have a difficult time seeing how it can be accomplished primarily with renewables and battery backup.  Unless nuclear plays a major role, we will need fossil-fueled backup power to keep society going through a “rainy day” that exceeds 1 or 2 days of stored energy.  

 

I don't think completely cutting out fossil fuels is an option-but cutting back on them drastically is viable option..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...