[x622]

Originally Posted by Quadruple VANOS

Yes. Relying on Putin for such a critical need was predictably stupid. People have been saying it for years.

I’m not even a trump guy but the German assembly literally laughed at him when he pointed out their follies a couple of years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg

It’s funny because look at those smug pieces of shit chortling like children. Haha orange man bad so I don’t have to listen.

They sold their fellow countrymen out and laughed when they were warned.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by x622

When I saw this thread title I knew it was going to be full of people who have no idea how electricity or the grid works, opining their thoughts on why electric cars are good.

I am no expert in the Cali side of the grid since I work with states that have a sane energy policy but lets check some stuff out here;

https://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/Pages/index.html

This little page shows you demand, generation, and day forward price estimates. If you note, their demand is right around 40GW with peaks as high as 43GW. Check out their 7 day resource adequacy trend there, it shows how much reserve, net demand etc and the deltas between each of them. A publicly regulated utility is required to keep 112% of total net demand at all times which is why they do so.


Now that that's established lets add some variables;

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/d...iven-per-year/

According to this californians drive 230 billion miles a year.

https://ecocostsavings.com/electric-...per-mile-list/

According to this, most EV's are about .25 to .5kWh/mi

Let's be optimistic and assume most EV's are in the .3 range in the future as an average. This is a total of 69 billion kWh annually. We all know that some days see more miles than others, but that's an average of 189 million kWh a day or approximately 8GW+ of total baseload added as an average at any given point of time in the day. This is approximately 20% of the entirety of California's energy infrastructure. Remember, this is just that load spread across a 24 hour average, if you wanted to restrict that to say a 12 hour window because "stuff just charges at night" you'd then be adding 16GW of baseload there. All the peaker plants, and everything else that comes online during those peak times would have to stay online since there is no nice 17-20GW trough at night.


All of these numbers are very crude, but it should hopefully illustrate that if California wants to do their inane experiment, they need to step up on their baseload. No renewables don't do much for baseload, most utilities list them at about 22-32% of nameplate capacity. All baseload that has been added in the past decade or so has all been natural gas, which as we've seen has exploded in pricing recently and further contributes to energy being expensive. Look no further than day ahead pricing in Germany for electricity to see the outcome of having poor energy policies by their elected officials.

I don't have an issue with electric cars, but I do have an issue with people having no fucking idea how electricity works dictating our energy policy and causing pain in every single sector of industry as well as taking money from the working class by their energy bills. Right now every single business in Germany is getting punished by their poor choices. The working class, mom and pop shops, the industrial manufactories, everyone.

The sooner we stop being so dumb with how we deal with energy, the better off we will be as a species, all this partisan shit has to stop.

This.

I work in the energy industry and no one seems to grasp these simple concepts.

Renewables is fine. We should be building nuclear reactors left and right. They take 10-15+ years to get operational. So should Europe. So should any country that wants to be 100% electric.

The energy is not free and has to come from somewhere. The US electrical grid is very weak in the grand scheme of things.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by x622

I do not agree with you that the rate of natural disasters increasing either, I think it’s just much more reported and well known now.

Yeah, uh, maybe you should Google that. It's increasing pretty rapidly and this is widely agreed upon. The World Meteorological Organization estimates they have increased 5x in the past 50 years. That was one of the lower estimates I came across.

[x622]

Originally Posted by chris719

Yeah, uh, maybe you should Google that. It's increasing pretty rapidly and this is widely agreed upon. The World Meteorological Organization estimates they have increased 5x in the past 50 years. That was one of the lower estimates I came across.

Would you agree or disagree we have much more sophisticated means of communication than we did in the 1950s? What percentage of these are now in remote places but have cellphone signal?

Like I said, more documented disasters. Supposedly deaths are down which are good.


Back to the topic of the thread;

I do not believe if it feasible for California to do this without reconsidering their energy policies. I think NY following suite will have much less resistance as there is a TON of hydro capacity there. I question when the other states will follow suite.


It could go the other way and the CARB becomes irrelevant to an entire market of buyers, since there will always be a reason to have a gasser somewhere.

[H2O_Doc]

I think one thing to consider is that we really need to address climate change and we've known that for decades. The problem that it has been easy to kick the can down the road from a policy standpoint. So we never put in place the incremental changes that we needed to ease the transition. So, we end up with clearly imperfect policies that are clearly geared, in part, at forcing the issue.

Much of the criticism here is quite fair; I think a lot is also a bit of a pretext. But transportation is one part of the puzzle and EVs will be part of solving it, even if our grid awaits renewables for a while.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

This is the political problem in a nutshell. Politicians think they can control the climate. They can't, but they can't be proven wrong either*. The sky is falling.

* if you try to engage in debate to show them why they are wrong, you get shouted down and canceled by Big Tech and the Government Police State.

Well, we can control Climate unfortunately, or it least exert strong influence over it and that's what we are doing now: an uncontrolled experiment in what it will be like to live in a global climate no human being has ever experienced.

[PittsDriver]

It seemed pretty easy for them to pass this law. It'll be equally easy to repeal or change it in several years when they see their folly. Rolling blackouts in California are no joke.

[racerbruce]

On Tuesday August 30 2022, Honda and LG Energy Solution announced they would spend $4.4 billion to construct a new battery plant in the U.S. to join the plants General Motors is building in Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee; the ones Ford is building in Kentucky and Tennessee; the one Toyota is building in North Carolina; and the one Stellantis is building in Indiana. The plants are part of the switch to electric vehicles. According to auto industry reporter Neal E. Boudette of the New York Times, they represent “one of the most profound shifts the auto industry has experienced in its century-long history.”

Today, Kentucky governor Andy Beshear (D) announced that Kentucky has secured more than $8.5 billion for investment in the production of electric vehicle batteries, which should produce more than 8,000 jobs in the EV sector. “Kentuckians will literally be powering the future,” he said.

Also today, First Solar, the largest solar panel maker in the U.S., announced that it would construct a new solar panel plant in the Southeast, investing up to $1 billion. It credited the Inflation Reduction Act with making solar construction attractive enough in the U.S. to build here rather than elsewhere. First Solar has also said it will upgrade and expand an existing plant in Ohio, spending $185 million.

Corning has announced a new manufacturing plant outside Phoenix, Arizona, to build fiber-optic cable to help supply the $42.5 billion high-speed internet infrastructure investment made possible by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. AT&T will also build a new fiber internet network in Arizona.

The CHIPS and Science Act is spurring investment in the manufacturing of chips in the U.S. Earlier this month, Micron announced a $40 billion investment in the next eight years, producing up to 40,000 new jobs. Qualcomm has also committed to investing $4.2 billion in chips from the New York facility of GlobalFoundries. Qualcomm says it intends to increase chip production in the U.S. by 50% over the next five years. In January, Intel announced it would invest $20 billion, and possibly as much as $100 billion, in a chip plant in Ohio.

[Equilibrandt]

Originally Posted by x622

Now that that's established lets add some variables;

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/d...iven-per-year/

According to this californians drive 230 billion miles a year.

https://ecocostsavings.com/electric-...per-mile-list/

According to this, most EV's are about .25 to .5kWh/mi

Let's be optimistic and assume most EV's are in the .3 range in the future as an average. This is a total of 69 billion kWh annually. We all know that some days see more miles than others, but that's an average of 189 million kWh a day or approximately 8GW+ of total baseload added as an average at any given point of time in the day. This is approximately 20% of the entirety of California's energy infrastructure. Remember, this is just that load spread across a 24 hour average, if you wanted to restrict that to say a 12 hour window because "stuff just charges at night" you'd then be adding 16GW of baseload there. All the peaker plants, and everything else that comes online during those peak times would have to stay online since there is no nice 17-20GW trough at night.

Though I disagree with your conclusion about the impracticality of Cali's inane experiment, I genuinely wish more people argued in such a way. I appreciate the back-of-the-envelope calculations, as they actually add something valuable here.

Ask me if we can fix this baseload/infrastructure issue in 15 years; I don't see how not, given we as a state throw more money at such things than most other countries in the world.

People seem to forget that as of sometime in the last year, England has become a net energy exporter due to renewable energy sources. It's all policy. One could argue its due to their congestion tax, public transport, societal view on driving, etc. Regardless, they weren't a power exporter when they were rolling coal, were they? Let's move battery plants, photo-voltaic cell manufacturing, and turbine forging to parts of the midwest and south that need a cash infusion. Current legislation helps pay for that; I'd love to know that my taxes were going toward building a wind turbine blade and the salary of some dude in the south who got replaced by a robotic CNC machine.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by x622

Would you agree or disagree we have much more sophisticated means of communication than we did in the 1950s? What percentage of these are now in remote places but have cellphone signal?

Like I said, more documented disasters. Supposedly deaths are down which are good.

Do you really think the studies have forgot this one simple fact? You’re such a genius, you should pick up the phone and call the researchers and tell them they forgot that it was harder to report things in 1970. 50 years is roughly 1970 btw not even 1950. This is why it’s hard to take you all seriously.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Okay, great, so which day, or decade, or century is your target Doc for the ideal climate? How about we just narrow it down to a year? 1872? 1555? 1962? 1865? 1978?

If we can control the climate as you say, then we must have already done the math that accounts for all the other non-human factors that actually control the climate, like plate tectonics, solar output, axis tilt, rotational wobble, ellipsis change in the Earth's revolution around the sun, etc. THEN subtract man's input into the equation, where does your ideal date fall?

Just curious.

The target will be atmospheric GHG concentration. Those possibilities and their associated climate are described in various assessments. We need to focus first on slowing the increase in GHGs, getting to net zero increase, and maybe then a draw-down.

Oh, and we account for natural drivers in our accounting. We should be in a slight cooling period.

[440i6MT]

Originally Posted by gonzo

The privileged, white, progressive EU leaders laughed and laughed when that guy called this. They're going to be warm and fat this winter but who'd like to make a prediction on the number of Europeans that freeze to death this winter.

2022...oh so advanced...oh so cutting edge...such forward thinking and policies...WE KNOW THE WAY FORWARD!!!

Freezing to death? Really?
It's coming and they'll just mumble some bs to their favorite reporters and call those that demand accountability fascists, nazis, homophobes or some other crap -out-slobbering-I'm a big brain tongue war against them.

It's like we're going in reverse...intentionally?

The elites won't freeze. Thank goodness they'll stay warm.

[NickyC]

Just had to end my self ban for this hilarity. The same CA now asking people to avoid charging their EVs. You can’t even make this shit up.

I”m trying to decide what’s more hilarious. This or the fact China is stocking up on Russian gas to sell to Europe at prices 3-4 times higher than Europe would pay Russia for the SAME gas. By doing so, increasing the wealth of China/Russia and proving for the 10 millionth time sanctions are a fraud. At least we can all still virtue signal with “Slava Ukraine” while freezing to death poor.

http://www.caiso.com/Documents/exces...nergy-grid.pdf

[GoneIn4Secs]

bahahaha California braces for BLACKOUTS while they force their groveling citizens to switch over to EVs!

You cant make this stuff up! 🤣

"you will enjoy your servitude and beg for moar..."
-k schwab WEF sith lord , 2022

[Equilibrandt]

Originally Posted by GoneIn4Secs

bahahaha California braces for BLACKOUTS while they force their groveling citizens to switch over to EVs!

You cant make this stuff up! ��

> 'Braces' for blackouts in 2022
> 'Forces' all new car sales to be EVs in 2035

Reading comprehension, man. I'll be first in complaint line in 2035 if we haven't resolved rolling blackout issues.

Not to mention I completely believe that a major factor in why we're having an insane heat wave (which causes controlled, rolling blackouts) has to do with climate change, which renewable power and vehicles aim to abate.

[Equilibrandt]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You said we are now in an uncontrolled experiment with the climate and we must do something to make it a controlled experiment. You screwing with GHG concentrations is no more controlled than the one you believe we humans are now in. The audacity of the Climate Controllers borders on the absurd.

How about we target a year where we weren't in wildfire season 80% of the year? Ignoring things like droughts potentially due to human expansion, maybe we choose a year where there was significantly lower water levels and glacial fracturing? Significantly less floods, tropical storms, hurricanes? Lower north and south pole core temperatures? Greater volumes of ice refreezing at the caps every season? Less heat waves and cold fronts? It's asinine to assume that humans have no impact on the increased frequency of those.

EVs are going to save the polar bears, if they can just hold on until 2035.

Man, you keep deleting the posts I quote.

[H2O_Doc]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

All righty, what is the GHG target and when in the Earth's climate history did it occur? I'm not sure people who fear anthropogenic climate change understand what the word "control" means. You can't be in control of something unless you have specificity of how it will be controlled. Hopefully you believe the science of astronomical forces that control all planets in our solar system. As the Earth's climate changes from the affects of those forces as evidenced by the geological record, the human input to climate must counteract those astronomic forces.

What you are saying is you believe there is a very small band of ideal GHG concentration in the atmosphere that must controlled in order to make the climate static for human inhabitation of the planet. So your plan has the ability to counter act the natural astronomic forces on the planet that affect the climate. I'm sorry but there is no human or group of humans smart enough to understand the astro-mechanics in their entirety and create the correct algorithm to generate the proper control mechanism.

You said we are now in an uncontrolled experiment with the climate and we must do something to make it a controlled experiment. You screwing with GHG concentrations is no more of controlled situation than the one you believe we humans are in now. The audacity of the Climate Controllers borders on the absurd.

This is all wrong.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So, the weather in San Diego on June 12, 1947?

Polar bears... Lol.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurri...-years/1235485

[M4Tejas]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

I had an RM250 at VAFB. Early 80s, back in the day when a guy like Bad Brad Lackey could still win a championship. It was a heck of a place to be a kid. And I think a big reason why I became a biologist.

I wanted to see the "Chumash Petroglyphs" .........there were some at VAFB. Also VAFB Skin Diving Club went out to Japanese subs that were off the coast. Skeletons still in the hulls. WWII. I learned alot of shit on that base. I had probably now what would be a 100 thousand dollar worth of analog components that they would throw away before the IG inspector came around. I threw the Santa Maria Times. I was the paperboy VAFB for a few years. Saved my money and got a racing Schwinn and won the Lompoc Valley Flower Festival race in about 1970. I was riding 100 miles a day up and down VAFB to Orcutt etc.

https://www.loc.gov/item/2013631568/

[M4Tejas]

Originally Posted by H2O_Doc

No kidding? I rode at VAFB. Down the push trail and then into that endless sea of California brush. Great days. That was an experience that people would have paid a fortune for.

The "push trail" was an intentional "fire break". The road graders would create those large voids. California burning? Gavin would not understand. The FBI should investigate him for he is "stoned on the job". His eyes give it away now.......my excuse for some RHCP's!

[bimmer456]

He wants to ban gas cars even though the grid can't handle it. Today there is a flex alert and Newsom himself said not to charge EVs lmao. See 1:19

[Herrkie]

Interesting they wouldn't allow plug-in hybrid, but are just going full-on EV. I'm assuming this is also only for new from the factory cars, not necessarily secondhand? There would be a big exodus of cars to other states, haha.