| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| techno900 wrote: | | Quote: | California’s Energy Scorecard Fails on the World Stage
September 23, 2020 By Ronald Stein
California, with 0.5 percent of the world’s population (40 million vs 8 billion) professes to be the leader of everything and through its dysfunctional energy policies imports more electricity than any other state – currently at 32 percent from the Northwest and Southwest – and has forced California to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy demands from foreign country suppliers to meet the energy demands of the state (58.4% from foreign countries and 12% from Alaska).
State energy policies have made California electricity and fuel prices among the highest in the nation which have been contributory to the rapid growth of “energy poverty” for the 18 million (45 percent of the 40 million Californians) that represent the Hispanic and African American populations of the state. |
I wonder where California will get the power to charge all the car batteries? Over the last 35 years, California has decreased their own crude oil energy production by 50% (61.8% down to 29.7%).
https://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2020/09/californias-energy-scorecard-fails-on-the-world-stage/ |
https://theconversation.com/switching-to-electric-vehicles-could-save-the-us-billions-but-timing-is-everything-106227 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4171
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
from vientomas's article:
| Quote: | | By comparison, because of a more temperate climate, California might require nearly 50 percent more electricity than it currently consumes if passenger vehicles in the state were fully electrified. That means California would need to generate an additional 120 terawatt-hours of electricity per year. |
That's going to take a shit load of windmills and solar panels. And guess what, when will the demand for power be the greatest for recharging cars in the garage? In the evening and night when the sun "don't shine" and if there is less or no wind = HUGE black outs. Maybe a little more planning is needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9125
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | from vientomas's article:
| Quote: | | By comparison, because of a more temperate climate, California might require nearly 50 percent more electricity than it currently consumes if passenger vehicles in the state were fully electrified. That means California would need to generate an additional 120 terawatt-hours of electricity per year. |
That's going to take a shit load of windmills and solar panels. And guess what, when will the demand for power be the greatest for recharging cars in the garage? In the evening and night when the sun "don't shine" and if there is less or no wind = HUGE black outs. Maybe a little more planning is needed. |
That's what Elon is figuring out with battery/storage. Nexterra is also billions in storage. Also not in the current math is the driverless car factor which dramatically reduces demand /usage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9125
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | from vientomas's article:
| Quote: | | By comparison, because of a more temperate climate, California might require nearly 50 percent more electricity than it currently consumes if passenger vehicles in the state were fully electrified. That means California would need to generate an additional 120 terawatt-hours of electricity per year. |
That's going to take a shit load of windmills and solar panels. And guess what, when will the demand for power be the greatest for recharging cars in the garage? In the evening and night when the sun "don't shine" and if there is less or no wind = HUGE black outs. Maybe a little more planning is needed. |
That's what Elon is figuring out with battery/storage. Nexterra is also billions in storage. Also not in the current math is the driverless car factor which dramatically reduces demand /usage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess Newsome figures this won't happen unless he forces it to happen. But, it seems like a real stretch to make this work.
I still go back to the idea that carbon reduction needs to be market driven rather than mandate driven. Applying the costs of carbon to a gallon of petroleum products would seem to me to be a method for immediate reduction in carbon emissions. Using these funds to wean us off of carbon could move the process forward.
In my situation, I am, seriously, looking at a new VW plug in and will likely buy one when they go 4 x 4 unless Toyota has one too (small town...no VW dealer). I have excess solar I am selling back to the grid at WAY reduced value. My strategy is to charge the car on days I don't use it. I don't drive every day. I might fire up a car twice a week but when I do it is longer distances. So, with the right range, I can be carbon low (nothing is carbon free) with my day to day travel.
But, let's face it. I am not going to travel to Baja or the Gorge in a rig large enough to windsurf, kite and camp that is powered by electricity. I am also not going to get to remote job sites in the winter in an electric car. I think the sort of mandate that Newsome is supporting is the wrong way to go about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5181
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | You're the one who claimed that they do a better job with forest management on the East Coast than the West Coast. |
No I didn't. In response to the repeated wailing from the West that it is too difficult and too expensive, I pointed out that in the mid-Atlantic, priority has been given, and funding has been found, for forest management despite a significantly lower fire risk. One motivation is to protect the flora and fauna, something that doesn't seem to enter the conversation out West in this context. So, again I say, it is up to you. If you all think it giving wealthy people $20K to buy an EV is a better priority use of government funding than remediating forests which may go up in flames and spew out more CO2 and particulate matter than will ever be saved by EVs.......vote for that. If you all think that funding massively carbon intensive, unreliable windmills, that slaughter large birds and bats in numbers that DDT could only dream of, is more of a priority than forest fire avoidance measures........vote for that. I respectfully disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17760
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
What Fox won't tell you is that electricity is much cheaper per BTU, making the operational cost of electric cars much less than petroleum fueled cars.
What you won't hear from Fox is that yesterday the House passed a bill that is way more moderate than the Green New Deal. It's main feature is conservation--which is the cheapest way to provide new power.
But Fox will continue to tell folks like Techno that we'll have to wear hair shirts. They're shills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | You're the one who claimed that they do a better job with forest management on the East Coast than the West Coast. |
No I didn't. In response to the repeated wailing from the West that it is too difficult and too expensive, I pointed out that in the mid-Atlantic, priority has been given, and funding has been found, for forest management despite a significantly lower fire risk. One motivation is to protect the flora and fauna, something that doesn't seem to enter the conversation out West in this context. So, again I say, it is up to you. If you all think it giving wealthy people $20K to buy an EV is a better priority use of government funding than remediating forests which may go up in flames and spew out more CO2 and particulate matter than will ever be saved by EVs.......vote for that. If you all think that funding massively carbon intensive, unreliable windmills, that slaughter large birds and bats in numbers that DDT could only dream of, is more of a priority than forest fire avoidance measures........vote for that. I respectfully disagree. |
Who is "...the West..."?
Be specific Gybie. Your education and experience certainly lend themselves to articulating in a less generalized form.
Do try and assert yourself a wee bit more. I know you are capable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | You're the one who claimed that they do a better job with forest management on the East Coast than the West Coast. |
No I didn't. In response to the repeated wailing from the West that it is too difficult and too expensive, I pointed out that in the mid-Atlantic, priority has been given, and funding has been found, for forest management despite a significantly lower fire risk. One motivation is to protect the flora and fauna, something that doesn't seem to enter the conversation out West in this context. So, again I say, it is up to you. If you all think it giving wealthy people $20K to buy an EV is a better priority use of government funding than remediating forests which may go up in flames and spew out more CO2 and particulate matter than will ever be saved by EVs.......vote for that. If you all think that funding massively carbon intensive, unreliable windmills, that slaughter large birds and bats in numbers that DDT could only dream of, is more of a priority than forest fire avoidance measures........vote for that. I respectfully disagree. |
Again. I have not promoted providing tax credits for EV in place of forest management. I am promoting a carbon tax to mitigate damages caused by carbon emissions. If that, ultimately, provides funding for infrastructure for EV, then OK. But, the first order of business is to protect our citizens who have been put at risk due to increased fire and flooding risks.
Do you have any sources that show how much we can reduce potential forest fires? What will an average fire season look like if we "protect the flora and fauna"? Making statements that the forest fires emit more carbon than EVs would save and then not quantifying the potential reduction in fire due to forest management is not a very strong argument.
So, I would ask. How much of the forest CAN be protected by management? how much cannot be saved? What is the, actual, carbon footprint of a fire? Does the regrowing forest, after a fire, reduce carbon more than a mature forest?
It would seem you would want to know the answers to these sorts of questions before you categorically claim that forest management negates the benefits of EVs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mrgybe
One of my pet peeves with both the greenies and the oilers is that neither side likes to present the math. Only the parts of the equation that suit their agenda.
In your case, you diss windmills as being "massively carbon intensive". Of course they are. But, they pale in comparison to coal power plants. You also mention the birds that are killed by windmills but there is not column for the birds that are killed in the extraction, transportation, refining, transporting...again...,distribution, transporting...again, consumer sales, then, finally, burning of carbon fuel sources. It is estimated that more birds are killed in this than windmills.
Do you know the math or are you just guessing?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
