[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Not sure what argument you are making here. Are you saying we shouldn't be using solar because of those few times that the grid doesn't need power? Doesn't really make sense to me.

That we shouldn't be pluging in 2 million additional EV's per year, year after year into the grid when they grid is already hitting peak capacity and balancing authorities are calling for curtailment and/or declaring demand response events (past 4 days in a row). Especially given most of them won't be charged with renewable energy anyway.

We have a similar voluntary program here. I did not sign up for it.

Wait till the authorities are unable to support their agenda with supply initiatives that lag behind demand.

Remember, you put them in office and expect "somebody will solve the problem" because demand = more supply. Guess what tools they already have in their tool box to load balance when demand outstrips supply...

FYI, they are shutting off power in large areas around me today to mitigate fire risk (wind storm). Public policy has shifted and they will do whatever they feel is best for the big picture. I personally agree with this, but it sure is a new world out there. In all my 49 years here, it's never happened before. And no, nobody that lost power near me today opted in to this, or got a vote.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

That we shouldn't be pluging in 2 million additional EV's per year, year after year into the grid when they grid is already hitting peak capacity and balancing authorities are calling for curtailment and/or declaring demand response events (past 4 days in a row). Especially given most of them won't be charged with renewable energy anyway.

Not to repeat myself, but we kind of already discussed this. This is 13 years away. I understand we can't do it today. That makes total sense. We need to get the ball rolling now though, so we can be ready for it.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Wait till the authorities are unable to support their agenda with supply initiatives that lag behind demand.

Remember, you put them in office

Whom are you talking about? What office?

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

and expect "somebody will solve the problem" because demand = more supply. Guess what tools they already have in their tool box to load balance when demand outstrips supply...

Sorry, I don't buy the conspiracy theories. Being fairly technically savvy, all you would have to do is disconnect the wifi, use a traditional thermostat, or better yet, don't volunteer to sign up for the service.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

FYI, they are shutting off power in large areas around me today to mitigate fire risk (wind storm). Public policy has shifted and they will do whatever they feel is best for the big picture. I personally agree with this, but it sure is a new world out there. In all my 49 years here, it's never happened before. And no, nobody that lost power near me today opted in to this, or got a vote.

Having been around the world several times, experienced extreme weather including large fires, volcano eruption warnings, monsoons and various storms, shutting off the power is SOP and been around as far back as I remember. It has nothing to do with the "new world". Maybe in your area it never happened, but there is a first time for everything. Voluntary energy regulation in this case has very little to do with big brother and more to do with the wind storm you mentioned. Back in my day, involuntary power cuts we didn't vote for were called blackouts.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Not to repeat myself, but we kind of already discussed this. This is 13 years away. I understand we can't do it today. That makes total sense. We need to get the ball rolling now though, so we can be ready for it.

We can't do it in 13 years either, but I guess we'll find out then...

Whom are you talking about? What office?

Read post #1 in this topic. These are the same people that steer policy on retiring other sources (natural gas and nuclear cited earlier)

Sorry, I don't buy the conspiracy theories. Being fairly technically savvy, all you would have to do is disconnect the wifi, use a traditional thermostat, or better yet, don't volunteer to sign up for the service.

You don't know how AMI meters work do you? They don't use wifi.

Having been around the world several times, experienced extreme weather including large fires, volcano eruption warnings, monsoons and various storms, shutting off the power is SOP and been around as far back as I remember. It has nothing to do with the "new world". Maybe in your area it never happened, but there is a first time for everything. Voluntary energy regulation in this case has very little to do with big brother and more to do with the wind storm you mentioned. Back in my day, involuntary power cuts we didn't vote for were called blackouts.

When it becomes routine on very hot and very cold days, there will be some unexpected attitude shifts.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

We can't do it in 13 years either, but I guess we'll find out then...

I wish I could see the future!

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Read post #1 in this topic. These are the same people that steer policy on retiring other sources (natural gas and nuclear cited earlier)

Oh I see. Again, I wish I could see the future. CA is the #1 largest economy in the US. Just because there is an uphill battle ahead doesn't mean they will fail.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

You don't know how AMI meters work do you? They don't use wifi.

The program in question uses a smart thermostat. At least that's what my provider uses. Not only that, I just read the plan details and you can simply override the temp setting. Of course, it forfeits your bill credits, but that's a far cry from the big brother fox news nightmare scenario described.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

When it becomes routine on very hot and very cold days, there will be some unexpected attitude shifts.

Perhaps, but you made this sound like it was Nineteen Eighty-Four totalitarianism. What are they gonna do with all that "control" anyway? Is there going to be a smart thermostat robot uprising?

Gee wonder where these very hot and cold days are coming from?


I like how a discussion on the EV devolves into "they are going to take over your thermostat... then your freedom!". No wonder people think we Americans are crazy.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Oh I see. Again, I wish I could see the future. CA is the #1 largest economy in the US. Just because there is an uphill battle ahead doesn't mean they will fail.

It's not a money problem (though this is currently a non-funded mandate), it's a logistics and physics problem.

The program in question uses a smart thermostat. At least that's what my provider uses. Not only that, I just read the plan details and you can simply override the temp setting. Of course, it forfeits your bill credits, but that's a far cry from the big brother fox news nightmare scenario described.



Perhaps, but you made this sound like it was Nineteen Eighty-Four totalitarianism. What are they gonna do with all that "control" anyway? Is there going to be a smart thermostat robot uprising?

Gee wonder where these very hot and cold days are coming from?


I like how a discussion on the EV devolves into "they are going to take over your thermostat... then your freedom!". No wonder people think we Americans are crazy.

I was talking about curtailing power, not running your thermostat. The thermostat is an example of letting someone else decide what you need. You mentioned smart grid and smart meters are already in your area, and that's what they can do with those too. An AMI meter can shut you off at any time with a click of a key. That feature was built in on day one, so you already have it enabled. This is how we do non-pay disconnects and reconnects. They can also log in to it and determine exactly how much load you are pulling in real time and what kind of load it is to some degree. AMI is not on any public network to hack, disconnect, or block. You didn't sigh up for AMI but you have it anyway, and there are no terms.

They can also remotely cut neighborhoods, cities, or states with means that have existed for decades, any time they want, with or without internet. They call those rolling blackouts, something you seem to know about, and have been around a long time. The intentional blacks outs in my area are due to a risk/crisis, and no one can opt out of it. I've been trying to warn that this EV load will create more risk to the stability of the grid, and this is one tool they will manage it. I mean, what else can they do if demand outstrips supply? It's called load shedding. With AMI they could target individuals with high load, rather than whole cities.

It's what crisis management looks like. We are steering the system into a supply and demand crisis where there is too much power supply in the day, and not enough at night when people need it. I mean, if you only want reliable power 12 hours a day, I guess we'll get used to it eventually. There are lots of places in Africa that live like this every day.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

It's not a money problem (though this is currently a non-funded mandate), it's a logistics and physics problem.

Problems didn't get in the way of our country before, they won't this time either. We're survivors.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I was talking about curtailing power, not running your thermostat. The thermostat is an example of letting someone else decide what you need. You mentioned smart grid and smart meters are already in your area, and that's what they can do with those too. An AMI meter can shut you off at any time with a click of a key. That feature was built in on day one, so you already have it enabled. This is how we do non-pay disconnects and reconnects. They can also log in to it and determine exactly how much load you are pulling in real time and what kind of load it is to some degree. AMI is not on any public network to hack, disconnect, or block. You didn't sigh up for AMI but you have it anyway, and there are no terms.

The link you posted a few posts back was referring to power cuts done through a voluntary program where they have access to your smart thermometer. I didn't mention "smart grids" I honestly know nothing about that.

I know what an AMI is, and the ability to shut you off isn't big government 1984ing us. All you have to do is not pay your bill, and they'll shut you off. Nothing new, definitely not "new world". This is old world.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

They can also remotely cut neighborhoods, cities, or states with means that have existed for decades, any time they want, with or without internet. They call those rolling blackouts, something you seem to know about, and have been around a long time. The intentional blacks outs in my area are due to a risk/crisis, and no one can opt out of it. I've been trying to warn that this EV load will create more risk to the stability of the grid, and this is one tool they will manage it. I mean, what else can they do if demand outstrips supply? It's called load shedding. With AMI they could target individuals with high load, rather than whole cities.

I'm failing to see how this is an argument against the widespread use of solar panels to help offset increased demands on the grid by the EV. If anything, solar panels and batteries will be a deterrent against mandatory shutdowns. You could power your own home and charge your car without the grid with proper management.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

too much power supply in the day,

I don't think that is a legitimate problem.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

and not enough at night when people need it.

Agreed, and solar power with batteries are a good way to battle this.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I mean, if you only want reliable power 12 hours a day, I guess we'll get used to it eventually. There are lots of places in Africa that live like this every day.

This is a false dichotomy as I explained multiple times with the use of battery cells and increased grid capacity over the next decade.

[Torgus]

All I hear is: BUILD MORE NUKE PLANTS!!!

[Quadruple VANOS]

Originally Posted by Torgus

All I hear is: BUILD MORE NUKE PLANTS!!!

All I hear is: we don't care; we're doing it anyway.
Assholes.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

Problems didn't get in the way of our country before, they won't this time either. We're survivors.

Good luck

I didn't mention "smart grids" I honestly know nothing about that.

You mentioned it in post #310 when we were discussing coordinating load and supply on a micro level, which is accomplished with a "smart grid".

I'm failing to see how this is an argument against the widespread use of solar panels to help offset increased demands on the grid by the EV. If anything, solar panels and batteries will be a deterrent against mandatory shutdowns. You could power your own home and charge your car without the grid with proper management.

No one is arguing we shouldn't have wide spread use of solar panels.

The argument is adding massive loads at night is bad for a grid that has or will become highly dependent on solar. In many use-cases, a car charger is the single the largest load in a home.

I don't think that is a legitimate problem.

You might when they stop paying you for it because they don't have anywhere to put it. At the rate of adoption you have suggested, that will come before the EV mandate. You wont be buying your power back and night, you will just be buying power at night, and it will likely cost more. and you will have little or now solar credits to offset that cost. Peak power pricing will shift to where ever the peak is, With that many EV's charging at night, the peak will move.

Agreed, and solar power with batteries are a good way to battle this.

and the mandate makes no accommodations for this truth. Most will expect this is somebody else's problem to solve.

This is a false dichotomy as I explained multiple times with the use of battery cells and increased grid capacity over the next decade.

"Don't worry, somebody will built it for me".

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Torgus

All I hear is: BUILD MORE NUKE PLANTS!!!

Natrium plants specifically :

https://natriumpower.com/

They can store power for peak demand and attach to retired coal plants, repurposing power transmission infrastructure that is already in place.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Good luck

Adversity isn't an excuse, and luck has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

You mentioned it in post #310 when we were discussing coordinating load and supply on a micro level, which is accomplished with a "smart grid".

I didn't mention "smart grid" in that post.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

No one is arguing we shouldn't have wide spread use of solar panels.

The argument is adding massive loads at night is bad for a grid that has or will become highly dependent on solar. In many use-cases, a car charger is the single the largest load in a home.

We've already discussed how battery cells will mitigate a lot of that load, and the vast majority of cars won't need complete charges everyday because most people don't commute 300 miles a day.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

You might when they stop paying you for it because they don't have anywhere to put it. At the rate of adoption you have suggested, that will come before the EV mandate. You wont be buying your power back and night, you will just be buying power at night, and it will likely cost more. and you will have little or now solar credits to offset that cost. Peak power pricing will shift to where ever the peak is, With that many EV's charging at night, the peak will move.

Yes, I understand you aren't buying your power back at night. But as we have discussed previously, battery cells are around 10-14 kwh and are likely to increase. The average commute is 30 miles. Even if we assume 50 miles, it's only 12 kwh. With two cells, that's enough to charge your car AND run your house at night. Average is 30 kwh per day, and only a fraction of that from 10pm to 7am the next day, which is the best time to charge an EV.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

and the mandate makes no accommodations for this truth. Most will expect this is somebody else's problem to solve.

That's a big assumption. I think most reasonable people know that the ICE ban will incentivize the private sector by helping to create a guaranteed demand. The problem is ours collectively as a society. By being educated, voting, and making informed decisions this will get done because it has to get done. We don't avoid solutions because it will be difficult.

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

― John F. Kennedy

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

"Don't worry, somebody will built it for me".

I don't think anyone supports this attitude.

If energy prices increase, that's a price I'm willing to pay. If I have to get solar and battery cells, that's an investment I am willing to make. If other people don't want to do their part, that's on them. Plenty of us are willing to do it. Everyone has to look in the mirror and see if they have the fortitude to do their part, or just throw their hands up and give up.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

I didn't mention "smart grid" in that post.

Originally Posted by jmg

The coordination is already there. These systems are literally already in place in thousands of homes in my area.

Call it whatever you want, what you have described above is called smart grid in the industry, and you already have it is seems.

We've already discussed how battery cells will mitigate a lot of that load, and the vast majority of cars won't need complete charges everyday because most people don't commute 300 miles a day.

Who's battery cells?

Yes, I understand you aren't buying your power back at night. But as we have discussed previously, battery cells are around 10-14 kwh and are likely to increase. The average commute is 30 miles. Even if we assume 50 miles, it's only 12 kwh. With two cells, that's enough to charge your car AND run your house at night. Average is 30 kwh per day, and only a fraction of that from 10pm to 7am the next day, which is the best time to charge an EV.

Best for whom?

It's also the dirtiest time to charge one. Trading lower cost for dirty air, and calling it a green move?

That's a big assumption. I think most reasonable people know that the ICE ban will incentivize the private sector by helping to create a guaranteed demand. The problem is ours collectively as a society. By being educated, voting, and making informed decisions this will get done because it has to get done. We don't avoid solutions because it will be difficult.

Guaranteed demand with no provisions to guarantee increase supply? Inventing a crisis so the crisis can be solved.

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

― John F. Kennedy

^ Didn't they shoot that guy?

I don't think anyone supports this attitude.

Who is putting in these non-existent batteries then?

If energy prices increase, that's a price I'm willing to pay. If I have to get solar and battery cells, that's an investment I am willing to make. If other people don't want to do their part, that's on them. Plenty of us are willing to do it. Everyone has to look in the mirror and see if they have the fortitude to do their part, or just throw their hands up and give up.

With all those in poverty, I find that very, well, I won't say that here.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Call it whatever you want, what you have described above is called smart grid in the industry, and you already have it is seems.

Who's battery cells?

Best for whom?

It's also the dirtiest time to charge one. Trading lower cost for dirty air, and calling it a green move?

Guaranteed demand with no provisions to guarantee increase supply? Inventing a crisis so the crisis can be solved.

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

― John F. Kennedy

^ Didn't they shoot that guy?

Who is putting in these non-existent batteries then?

With all those in poverty, I find that very, well, I won't say that here.

I didn't call it a smart grid. I have no idea if there is any such thing. The system I described is done at the site level as far as I know. Your panels capture energy, it either uses it, stores in in battery cells, or sends it to the grid. I have no idea if the grid is "smart".


What do you mean who's cells? I thought it was clear.

You keep saying it's the dirtiest time to charge. Based on what? Does the power company switch the coal burner on at night only? I don't understand.
If you charge at night and you have battery cells, it's solar. We've gone over this several times.

Again, you can't start producing supply of there is no demand. Basic economics.

I thought that was clear. I am. My neighbors are. Those who chose to be a part of solving problems will.

You should say it so you are clear and there are no misunderstandings.

Sorry I'm on mobile so I couldn't break up your post to answer specific points. Hope this is okay.

[x622]

Originally Posted by chris719

The solution to that is to buffer with batteries. Everyone with a solar installation does this and knows this. It will come to the grid.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/battery...id-11640082783

I laughed so hard. Thanks for the jokes.

Originally Posted by Torgus

All I hear is: BUILD MORE NUKE PLANTS!!!

Correct.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Natrium plants specifically :

https://natriumpower.com/

They can store power for peak demand and attach to retired coal plants, repurposing power transmission infrastructure that is already in place.

Here's the type and style we need.


-----------


I'm just kidding we're not going to learn shit from what's going on in the EU right now and just going to build more stupid ass solar and wind farms, converting coal to LNG. More people just like the ones in the thread right here can't get it through their skull not only what an order of magnitude is, but just how hard that's going to be with photovoltaics. I don't see wind magically getting better.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

I didn't call it a smart grid. I have no idea if there is any such thing. The system I described is done at the site level as far as I know. Your panels capture energy, it either uses it, stores in in battery cells, or sends it to the grid. I have no idea if the grid is "smart". .

Smart grids are a thing. "Distributed power grid" is another term to google and relies on a smart grid already being put in place. If you don't have it, you'll need it for this plan to work. If you do have it, the power company will decide what it does with your generation resources, not you.

What do you mean who's cells? I thought it was clear. .

That question is for you to answer, who will be putting this extra infrastructure to support this mandate?

You keep saying it's the dirtiest time to charge. Based on what? Does the power company switch the coal burner on at night only? I don't understand.
If you charge at night and you have battery cells, it's solar. We've gone over this several times. .

When the sun goes down, supply shifts to fossil fuel. If your EV doesn't come with a comprehensive solar system & power wall, you will be filling your EV battery with mostly fossil energy. It is literally the dirtiest time to charge an EV. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Again, you can't start producing supply of there is no demand. Basic economics. .

And you can't cheat the laws of physics. If its not there, you can't sell it.

I thought that was clear. I am. My neighbors are. Those who chose to be a part of solving problems will.

You should say it so you are clear and there are no misunderstandings.

Causing an imbalanced system to achieve a personal environmental goal that will harm everyone economically for a self-perceived "greater good" is an exercise in narcissistic grandeur, and frankly irresponsible when there are no provisions or accommodations built into said goals to manage these risks and financial impacts for the the less fortunate. It's one thing to make a personal decision to take a stand and do a good thing at personal cost, its another to commit someone else to that cost to make yourself feel better, or because you are sure you know better. If you don't even know how the whole system works (or doesn't work), that's when it borders on absurdity.

I appreciate you have been cordial. I had hoped to keep it that way.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Smart grids are a thing. "Distributed power grid" is another term to google and relies on a smart grid already being put in place. If you don't have it, you'll need it for this plan to work. If you do have it, the power company will decide what it does with your generation resources, not you.

That question is for you to answer, who will be putting this extra infrastructure to support this mandate?

When the sun goes down, supply shifts to fossil fuel. If your EV doesn't come with a comprehensive solar system & power wall, you will be filling your EV battery with mostly fossil energy. It is literally the dirtiest time to charge an EV. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

And you can't cheat the laws of physics. If its not there, you can't sell it.

Causing an imbalanced system to achieve a personal environmental goal that will harm everyone economically for a self-perceived "greater good" is an exercise in narcissistic grandeur, and frankly irresponsible when there are no provisions or accommodations built into said goals to manage these risks and financial impacts for the the less fortunate. It's one thing to make a personal decision to take a stand and do a good thing at personal cost, its another to commit someone else to that cost to make yourself feel better, or because you are sure you know better. If you don't even know how the whole system works (or doesn't work), that's when it borders on absurdity.

I appreciate you have been cordial. I had hoped to keep it that way.

This bill passed last month:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...02120220AB2700

So the ball is already in play to help make sure electric companies will be able to adapt to the added grid demand in the upcoming years.


"Smart grid" or not, utilities have had the ability to cut your power since the beginning. This isn't part of the "new world".


Source on the grid switching to fossil fuel when the sun goes down?


This is a difference of opinion. I believe it's not a personal environmental goal. It's a state voted goal by the people and for the people that ultimately does good, not harm. Again, my opinion.

However, I cannot tell the future. I cannot, with 100% certainty say it is possible to meet a goal 13 years from now. But you cannot see the future either. You cannot logically say with 100% certainty that we will fail, because you also cannot see the future.

We can only asses what we are doing, and see if our actions go towards or against success over time.

Provisions are provided in legislature like the link I posted above. It's a good step towards success. As a citizen of this country, I will be doing my part in participating to favor success.


I've think I've kept it cordial. Have I not?

[jmg]

https://www.energy.gov/articles/bide...ricas-electric

In the least, even if this whole EV endeavor never really completely replaces every single ICE, our grid should be more resilient than ever. If you're from Texas, this should be welcome news.

[zx10guy]

It'll be interesting to see if this lofty goal can actually be executed in the time frame set. But with situations such as this, I'm not holding my breath:

https://www.businessinsider.com/pge-...the%20wildfire.

https://www.newsweek.com/pge-still-f...lement-1595231

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

This bill passed last month:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...02120220AB2700

So the ball is already in play to help make sure electric companies will be able to adapt to the added grid demand in the upcoming years.

Did you read it? All it does is say utilities need to think about upgrades, or as they say it : "shall consider the fleet data". Some interesting passages :

Public Resources Code imposes a limitation on the publicÂ’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies

No reimbursement is required by this act

There is nothing in there that will enable anything, just a suggestion, and they can do whatever they want about it without public review/input or governmental intervention/penalty, and they won't be reimbursed in any way.

"Smart grid" or not, utilities have had the ability to cut your power since the beginning. This isn't part of the "new world".

The ability to do so remotely and instantly on an individual home basis based on what you are doing with your supply/load is fairly new. Prior it was a on a neighborhood basis, or required dispatching a person outside your house with tools.

Source on the grid switching to fossil fuel when the sun goes down?

Seriously? where do you think power comes from when there is no solar?


I'd offer my own self because I support the guys that run a major portion of the transmission and distribution grid, but I can't share real data without risk of firing and serious legal trouble, so just stop by Caliso, look at their supply trends and demand cycles. I've supplied links to them prior. but here it is again :

https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

However, I cannot tell the future. I cannot, with 100% certainty say it is possible to meet a goal 13 years from now. But you cannot see the future either. You cannot logically say with 100% certainty that we will fail, because you also cannot see the future.

So if neither of us can know, why the confidence? Do you know something I don't about these resources and technologies? I admire your confidence, but what is it based on?

I've think I've kept it cordial. Have I not?

You totally have, and I want to keep it that way.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

It'll be interesting to see if this lofty goal can actually be executed in the time frame set. But with situations such as this, I'm not holding my breath:

https://www.businessinsider.com/pge-...the%20wildfire.

https://www.newsweek.com/pge-still-f...lement-1595231

Most utilities can barely keep the lights on, and are in shambles in a lot of areas.

Innovating is certainly over due, but there are a variety reasons it hasn't been done already. Those very reasons will make this endeavor a tipping point in reliability. It will alter load profiles and divert resources & manpower away from other reliability efforts that are already "emergencies".

I don't believe this can't be done, I believe it can't be done in this timeframe.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by jmg

https://www.energy.gov/articles/bide...ricas-electric

In the least, even if this whole EV endeavor never really completely replaces every single ICE, our grid should be more resilient than ever. If you're from Texas, this should be welcome news.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates...electric-grid/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/31/us/po...climate-change

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...grid-problems/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/america...le-11645196772

I could flood the site with links, it's not just one mans opinion.

Creating crisis to simulate a change when you are already in a crisis. That's not a good starring point.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Did you read it? All it does is say utilities need to think about upgrades, or as they say it : "shall consider the fleet data". Some interesting passages :

Public Resources Code imposes a limitation on the publicÂ’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies

We need to consider the full text:

"SEC. 5. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 2 of this act, which adds Section 25328 of the Public Resources Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
In order to protect the confidential and proprietary information of an entity subject to Section 2 of this act, it is necessary that this act limit the public’s right of access to that information."

I think we can all agree, on both sides of the political spectrum, that protecting these businesses proprietary info allows for sharing of the data without the risk of weakening said businesses.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

No reimbursement is required by this act

This is reimbursement to local agencies on new legislature.

Again, the full text:

"SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution."

Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution:


"ARTICLE XIII B GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITATION [SEC. 1 - SEC. 15] ( Article 13B added Nov. 6, 1979, by Prop. 4. Initiative measure. )

SEC. 6.
(a) Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service, except that the Legislature may, but need not, provide a subvention of funds for the following mandates:

(1) Legislative mandates requested by the local agency affected.

(2) Legislation defining a new crime or changing an existing definition of a crime."


Reimbursement, in this case, is not for the electric companies, nor it's customers as incentives, if that is what you mean.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

There is nothing in there that will enable anything, just a suggestion, and they can do whatever they want about it without public review/input or governmental intervention/penalty, and they won't be reimbursed in any way.

Violation of the Public Utilities Act is a crime. The company would be in violation of state law by not adhering to this act.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

The ability to do so remotely and instantly on an individual home basis based on what you are doing with your supply/load is fairly new. Prior it was a on a neighborhood basis, or required dispatching a person outside your house with tools.

AMI meters are required by to be accessible to utility techs at all times. The meters on your home are, in fact, owned by the utility company. This is NOT new. The ease that which they have access remotely might be new, but our rights as homeowners haven't been reduced, because they always had the right to switch us off. A regulated electric industry is crucial if we are really looking to protect our rights. The legislature I posted is one of many tools to keep the electric companies in line with public interest. There are also laws to protect shut-off in the cases of public safety, and mandates to how they handle non payment of utilities. All of this is to protect the public, and there is no new legislature that reduces our rights, as far as I know in my state. Maybe look to Texas for an unfortunate example of deregulated electricity?

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Seriously? where do you think power comes from when there is no solar?

I can only really speculate based on each state's allocation of energy sources, which is why I asked for a source.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I'd offer my own self because I support the guys that run a major portion of the transmission and distribution grid, but I can't share real data without risk of firing and serious legal trouble, so just stop by Caliso, look at their supply trends and demand cycles. I've supplied links to them prior. but here it is again :

https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

Perfect! The data I was looking for is on the Supply trend graph. I've attached it to this post. 2200 is considered off peak, and generally when EV's are charged. Renewables sources actually start to trend up for some reason, while Natural Gas trends downwards. Imports increases, so I guess the "dirtiness" of the power would depend on that power source, and would require a deeper dive. One thing I noticed is that at the peak usage at 13:25, Natural Gas was responsible for 21,299 out of 43,372 MW - 49.1%

At 22:00, it's 16,528 out of 35965 MW - 45.9%

It's actually lower.

Admittedly, the reliance on imports is higher at 2200, but like I said, determining how clean that is requires a deeper dive.


However, with more homes adding battery cells and panels, those numbers would be overall lower, and be 100% stored solar power in battery cells.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

So if neither of us can know, why the confidence? Do you know something I don't about these resources and technologies? I admire your confidence, but what is it based on?

It more of having to face an unavoidable problem head on. There is nothing to gain by believing we will fail before we have even tried. The worst that could happen is that the grid is stronger than ever, and there will be more EVs on the road with improved technology to recycle batteries, or even find a new way to make them. The worst we can do is nothing.