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

[Rick73]

30 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

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

 

Agree; though I think we should prioritize cutting back (eliminating) coal over BEVs.  That first step accomplishes more with less (less cost, less effort, less time).

 

The main issue remains that we in US can not directly control other sovereign countries.  How long will our population support spending on CO2 reduction when other countries can offset our gains much easier and faster, and while strengthening their economies at our expense?  It’s truly admirable that California wants to save the planet, but as an example, could they end up running their state’s economy into the ground while China builds more coal plants to support a growing industry?  And it’s not just China.  What about Russia or India?  Are they investing heavily in green energy?   I know it’s not simple because we also use the most, so should cut back more than others.  Just hope we proceed carefully.

[rmc523]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Agree; though I think we should prioritize cutting back (eliminating) coal over BEVs.  That first step accomplishes more with less (less cost, less effort, less time).

 

The main issue remains that we in US can not directly control other sovereign countries.  How long will our population support spending on CO2 reduction when other countries can offset our gains much easier and faster, and while strengthening their economies at our expense?  It’s truly admirable that California wants to save the planet, but as an example, could they end up running their state’s economy into the ground while China builds more coal plants to support a growing industry?  And it’s not just China.  What about Russia or India?  Are they investing heavily in green energy?   I know it’s not simple because we also use the most, so should cut back more than others.  Just hope we proceed carefully.

I’ve said this for some time now - have better environmental restrictions, but not at the expense of our economy vs “theirs”.

we could reduce our emissions 100%.  Doesn’t do much good if China or India increase theirs 200%.

im all for a better environment, renewable energy etc.   just don’t shoot yourself in the foot and chop your arm off to get there.

[bzcat]

Synthetic gasoline is just like hydrogen... it doesn't stand up to any serious intellectual and scientific scrutiny. No matter how you make it, you are always starting with more energy content than you end up with at the end. It is not a serious answer to our transportation infrastructure needs. 

 

It will be around for some limited use in the future of course... someone will have to provide fuel for what remains of ICE vintage cars 100 years from now but just like hydrogen, it's not a solution to reducing our transportation CO2 emission to avert climate disaster. 

[bzcat]

On 1/13/2023 at 10:07 AM, Rick73 said:

 

Agree; though I think we should prioritize cutting back (eliminating) coal over BEVs.  That first step accomplishes more with less (less cost, less effort, less time).

 

The main issue remains that we in US can not directly control other sovereign countries.  How long will our population support spending on CO2 reduction when other countries can offset our gains much easier and faster, and while strengthening their economies at our expense?  It’s truly admirable that California wants to save the planet, but as an example, could they end up running their state’s economy into the ground while China builds more coal plants to support a growing industry?  And it’s not just China.  What about Russia or India?  Are they investing heavily in green energy?   I know it’s not simple because we also use the most, so should cut back more than others.  Just hope we proceed carefully.

 

We are doing both. I don't know what you would choose to do one and not another. The point of switching to BEV is so that the transportation sector gets greener as coal and oil are phased out of the electric grid an replaced with renewable or lower carbon sources.

 

Also why would you assume switching to renewable energy will result in running the economy into the ground? I would suggest it is actually the opposite. How is a country like Russia with economy that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuel extraction going to survive? 

 

Since CO2 is a global problem, CO2 reduction is good no matter where it comes from. CO2 reduction is matter of survival. If China or Russia is not going to hold up their end of the bargain then the more reason for the US to do it to ensure the planet survives the next 100 years. The country that transforms its economy to based on renewable energy first will win. 

Edited January 14, 2023 by bzcat

[jpd80]

On 1/14/2023 at 11:10 AM, rmc523 said:

I’ve said this for some time now - have better environmental restrictions, but not at the expense of our economy vs “theirs”.

we could reduce our emissions 100%.  Doesn’t do much good if China or India increase theirs 200%.

im all for a better environment, renewable energy etc.   just don’t shoot yourself in the foot and chop your arm off to get there.

That’s not really happening either,

China increased by about 1% last year, the good work on vehicle electrification is supported by expanding of renewables to cover most of that growth in electric power. China now realises that imports like diesel and petrol are money flowing away from its market. The next big step is probably replacing coal power plants with either a standard nuclear power design or more solar wind battery. 

 

The belief is that green power will ultimately be cheaper than being held to random with coal, gas, diesel and gasoline. Oil companies continue to prove that they can’t be trusted, jacking up prices to maximise profits when they know its inflationary…..

[rperez817]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Oil companies continue to prove that they can’t be trusted

 

That's an understatement. ? Though there are signs that some of those companies are finally taking the electric car revolution seriously. Chevron for example started working with EVgo a few years ago to install DC Fast Charging stations at certain Chevron filling stations in California. EVgo & Chevron Bring EV Fast Charging to California Gas Stations

 

[Rick73]

On 1/14/2023 at 4:37 PM, bzcat said:

 

We are doing both. I don't know what you would choose to do one and not another. The point of switching to BEV is so that the transportation sector gets greener as coal and oil are phased out of the electric grid an replaced with renewable or lower carbon sources.

 

Also why would you assume switching to renewable energy will result in running the economy into the ground? I would suggest it is actually the opposite. How is a country like Russia with economy that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuel extraction going to survive? 

 

Since CO2 is a global problem, CO2 reduction is good no matter where it comes from. CO2 reduction is matter of survival. If China or Russia is not going to hold up their end of the bargain then the more reason for the US to do it to ensure the planet survives the next 100 years. The country that transforms its economy to based on renewable energy first will win. 

 

To discuss a topic like this one, I believe it helps to have a common point of reference.  Before I reply to above questions, can you please review the following and comment whether information seems accurate enough for discussion purposes?  If not, can you post similar information you find more accurate?  If the data I am seeing is wrong, perhaps it is misleading me to incorrect conclusions.

 

 

[Captainp4]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

To discuss a topic like this one, I believe it helps to have a common point of reference.  Before I reply to above questions, can you please review the following and comment whether information seems accurate enough for discussion purposes?  If not, can you post similar information you find more accurate?  If the data I am seeing is wrong, perhaps it is misleading me to incorrect conclusions.

 

 

It is my understanding that even IF BEV were 100% powered by coal electric generation, it would STILL be cleaner than ICE.
Nowhere is 100% coal and renewables are expanding at a fairly substantial rate.
I might be misinformed, but it is really hard to find any non biased source on either "side"
Also curious if someone can provide some insight.

Makes sense to me that the first step is making the cars BEV as the power generation transitions and catches up. But I'm far from an expert, just what I've gathered reading various articles that don't seem too click baity and extreme over the years.

[tarheels23]

8 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

To discuss a topic like this one, I believe it helps to have a common point of reference.  Before I reply to above questions, can you please review the following and comment whether information seems accurate enough for discussion purposes?  If not, can you post similar information you find more accurate?  If the data I am seeing is wrong, perhaps it is misleading me to incorrect conclusions.

 

 

not saying it would make a difference but how would these charts look if they were comparing increases in percentage, not just raw data; would there be a significant difference?

[bzcat]

On 1/16/2023 at 4:28 AM, Rick73 said:

 

To discuss a topic like this one, I believe it helps to have a common point of reference.  Before I reply to above questions, can you please review the following and comment whether information seems accurate enough for discussion purposes?  If not, can you post similar information you find more accurate?  If the data I am seeing is wrong, perhaps it is misleading me to incorrect conclusions.

 

 

 

Let's add a couple more 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by bzcat

[akirby]

So a 4” linear rise in sea level in the last 42 years.  

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

So a 4” linear rise in sea level in the last 42 years.  

 

By 2050, California coast (San Diego in the example below) is projected to experience up to a 2 ft. rise in SL depending on the degree of climate change impacts. 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by rperez817

[Gurgeh]

8 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

 

 

I really don't think that BOF wants to turn this into a climate science forum, though there is some relevance since government's hard push for EVs comes from climate change concerns, many of them legitimate. I only point out this chart because it is highly misleading. Yes, sea levels are rising. Yes they have been rising in the last 150 years since the industrial revolution really got going. But if you see the longer time-period chart below, sea levels have been rising in the 20,000 years since the peak low temperatures of the last glaciation period and especially in the last 12,000 years when we formally entered the current interglacial warm period.  Note I didn't say last ice age, because the world is still in an ice age, which for the last million or two years has seen us moving between long glaciation deep freeze periods (when, for instance, Washington DC is under a mile thick ice cap -- see, it's not all bad) of 100,000 or more years and relatively brief interglacial warm periods of 10,000-20,000 or so years. Yes, a warming Earth (whether natural or human influenced -- and there is some human influence) presents the possibility of significant sea level rises, but only if we see a catastrophic collapse of the Greenland or Antarctica ice sheets. For the last 150 years shown we've see sea level rises, but at the same steady relatively slow pace we've seen in the last 8,000 years (and unlike the truly dramatic rises we saw in the 8,000 years before that). I don't mean to say we have nothing to worry about in continued global warming or that human's aren't influencing that warming, only that a sea level rise chart of the last 150 years seems to say something but it really doesn't.

 

Here's the longer-term, more relavent chart:

Edited January 19, 2023 by Gurgeh

[Rick73]

On 1/16/2023 at 11:15 AM, Captainp4 said:

It is my understanding that even IF BEV were 100% powered by coal electric generation, it would STILL be cleaner than ICE.

 

According to every study and or data I have seen, provided similar vehicles are compared, coal-fueled BEVs do not reduce global warming.  There are variations of course depending on coal power plant efficiencies, but on average many coal plants are older and less thermally efficient.  Coal also yields more CO2 than other common fuels in producing same amount of heat.

 

The much tougher question in my opinion is what to do with that information. 

[jpd80]

[Rick73]

On 1/18/2023 at 10:40 AM, bzcat said:

 

Let's add a couple more 

 

 

 

 

You do not need to convince me that we have a serious problem — that I know and accept.  What I don’t understand is how so many people can emphasize automotive electrification over conservation and reducing load on grid so we can decommission coal (and other fossil fuel) plants at a much faster rate.  Many say we can do both at same time, and while that might be possible in “theory”, in the real world it will not happen for a very long time.  Population gains and higher energy use per capita will ensure electricity requirements will likely exceed renewable gains as has happened in China (charts above).

[jpd80]

32 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

 

You do not need to convince me that we have a serious problem — that I know and accept.  What I don’t understand is how so many people can emphasize automotive electrification over conservation and reducing load on grid so we can decommission coal (and other fossil fuel) plants at a much faster rate.  Many say we can do both at same time, and while that might be possible in “theory”, in the real world it will not happen for a very long time.  Population gains and higher energy use per capita will ensure electricity requirements will likely exceed renewable gains as has happened in China (charts above).

I understand your pessimism but perhaps you need to research what happened in 2022 with us power generation versus what was happening pre-pandemic. BEV sales in the USA last year were around 6% and while that may take years to grow, it means that point sources of vehicle emissions are being reduced which for the government means that it can focus regulations on major carbon and greenhouse emitters. So yeah, it’s possible to walk and chew gum, you mightn’t like the strategy being adopted but it’s what we have.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

I understand your pessimism but perhaps you need to research what happened in 2022 with us power generation versus what was happening pre-pandemic.

 

It is not pessimism, just reality.  I am interested only in achieving overall GHG results.

 

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

So yeah, it’s possible to walk and chew gum, you mightn’t like the strategy being adopted but it’s what we have.

 

No one will be able to “walk and chew gum” at same time for at least 10 years and likely much longer.  Building millions of BEVs every year will not move the GHG needle when electricity is produced with fossil fuels.  Until coal is eliminated completely, I believe we are making matters worse by adding loads on grid.  After that, natural-gas-fueled electricity will be much better than coal on marginal loads, but won’t achieve enough either.

[akirby]

It’s simple.  You never see power plants but you see vehicles every day.  And a certain group of people think they can change things just by passing a law whether that’s logical or not.  They do this for two reasons.  It requires absolutely no work on their part and even if it doesn’t work they pat themselves on the back and say at least we tried.

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

It is not pessimism, just reality.  I am interested only in achieving overall GHG results.

Respectfully, you’re looking but not seeing….

 

 

 

Quote

No one will be able to “walk and chew gum” at same time for at least 10 years and likely much longer.  Building millions of BEVs every year will not move the GHG needle when electricity is produced with fossil fuels.  Until coal is eliminated completely, I believe we are making matters worse by adding loads on grid.  After that, natural-gas-fueled electricity will be much better than coal on marginal loads, but won’t achieve enough either.

California is already down to just one coal fired power plant - that is what this thread was originally about and

as I showed in the USA power chart, there’s been a sharp move away from coal fired power generation.

So the things you say can’t won’t happen are already well underway.
 

I actually believe that the Ukraine-Russia war will speed things up in Europe by compelling commitment away from things like coal and gas, it may take some time but people are already seeing how coal and gas companies try to take advantage of situations that actually make green energy look like the cheap alternative - that’s what ultimately forces change, not legislation.

 

As for the whatabout China, just remember that the west neatly offshored most of it noxious heavy industry

to China and India. It will take them time to grow their electric grids, first with coal fired plants but those will

most likely be replaced with a mix of renewables, green energy and nuclear power. The growth in chinas power

grid  due to wholesale switch to electric vehicles is mostly being covered by solar, wind , batteries so China’s 

importation of gasoline and diesel begins the long ramp down.

Edited January 22, 2023 by jpd80

[bzcat]

The US has basically outlawed  coal power plant so we will be free of coal in the power grid largely by 2050. There may be a few exceptions but that is the rule. Also, we already have excess of renewable power generation capacity in North America... meaning we are able to produce more solar, wind, and hydro power at peak generation than we can distribute and consume. So the idea that we cannot replace coal power with renewable is false. The grid needs more storage capacity to enable time shift to consumption but generating capacity is not the bottleneck. The US has huge untapped potential for more solar and wind power. 

 

GHG reduction is good no matter where it come from. And all things equal, it is much better to have a few dozen large thermal power plants that several million tiny thermal power plants (i.e. ICE cars). The thermal efficiency of power plant is simple concept and I don't think it needs further explaining. We will see significant GHG reduction by gradual replacement of ICE with EV even if we don't retire coal or gas power plants. But since we are, the GHG reduction from phasing out of ICE cars is going to snowball once the grid becomes less carbon intensive. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by bzcat

[rperez817]

California Energy Commission is pursuing initiatives to improve accountability for service providers of public DC Fast Charging stations. California Looks to Make EV Charging Suppliers More Accountable (caranddriver.com)

 

 

[Rick73]

On 1/21/2023 at 6:06 PM, jpd80 said:

 

Over the last 20 years, the biggest difference I see is that significant coal generation has been replaced mostly with natural gas (a good thing); plus some wind also.  Solar still plays a minor role.  For years we have been hearing that renewables are cheaper than conventional power plants, so why are we still seeing so much additional natural-gas electric capacity being installed?

 

What I do not see in chart above is evidence of US grid rapidly moving towards 100% renewable energy.  At least grid is cleaner though we could do more by reducing overall demand and eliminating coal plants that much faster.  And then start eliminating natural gas plants after that.

 

Respectfully, I see fine, though I’m probably looking at a bigger picture.

[CurtisH]

28 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

Over the last 20 years, the biggest difference I see is that significant coal generation has been replaced mostly with natural gas (a good thing); plus some wind also.  Solar still plays a minor role.  For years we have been hearing that renewables are cheaper than conventional power plants, so why are we still seeing so much additional natural-gas electric capacity being installed?

 

What I do not see in chart above is evidence of US grid rapidly moving towards 100% renewable energy.  At least grid is cleaner though we could do more by reducing overall demand and eliminating coal plants that much faster.  And then start eliminating natural gas plants after that.

 

Respectfully, I see fine, though I’m probably looking at a bigger picture.

I saw a report indicating that natural gas was the largest contributor to decreased GHG in the United States.  Sorry, but I don’t remember where I saw it.  However, the charts shown earlier appear to support that point. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, CurtisH said:

I saw a report indicating that natural gas was the largest contributor to decreased GHG in the United States.  Sorry, but I don’t remember where I saw it.  However, the charts shown earlier appear to support that point. 

 

I’ve seen various estimates because it depends on plant efficiencies, but one that looked at much of Europe estimated coal at 820 g/kWh, and gas at 490 g/kWh.  So, yes, it makes a big difference.  For reference, wind and nuclear were 11 and 12 g/kWh respectively.