California to end gasoline car sales by 2035

[iPlug]

Help me understand: ...
- not enough generating capacity. California is the largest net importer of electricity of any state. or is it okay to charge our cars using coal/gas plants so long as those plants aren't located here?...

Others can chime in on other items, but:

The most recent data, 2019, shows we imported 27.8% (generated 200.5 TWh In-State and imported 77.2 TWh). That’s actually down from 31.8% the year before. Regardless, imports are not a bad thing. Done properly, they add resilience to the grids on both sides.

Coal use, continuing to die and almost all imported, is <3% of Californias power mix, so not a problem. Natural gas will also ultimately nearly disappear. Probably will remain for some time as emergency backup with net total contribution of fossil fuels negligible.

2019 Total System Electric Generation

 

[andy92782]

Natural gas will also ultimately nearly disappear.

How? Nuclear isn't an option. How do we intend to supply tens of thousands of MW during the evening and overnight hours to charge our cars without using non-renewable sources?

CAISO's website has some pretty interesting charting capability. Here's a chart from 9/6/2020 (massive heat wave; it was 110F here in OC that day):

Imagine what this chart might look like 15 years from now when there are far more EVs on the market wanting to charge during the overnight hours. That trough in demand between midnight-6:00AM will disappear as demand rises, but clearly renewables don't start contributing until after 7:00AM.

 

[iPlug]

How? Nuclear isn't an option. How do we intend to supply tens of thousands of MW during the evening and overnight hours to charge our cars without using non-renewable sources?

CAISO's website has some pretty interesting charting capability. Here's a chart from 9/6/2020 (massive heat wave; it was 110F here in OC that day):

View attachment 593465

Imagine what this chart might look like 15 years from now when there are far more EVs on the market wanting to charge during the overnight hours. That trough in demand between midnight-6:00AM will disappear as demand rises, but clearly renewables don't start contributing until after 7:00AM.

Recommend going through these very threads which have covered this in detail and CAISO future scenarios. The summary: solution is excess solar + excess on/offshore wind + batteries + grid HVDC interconnect upgrades.

 

[mikegre]

In a letter to Mr. Newsom on Monday, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said a statewide shift to electric vehicles would strain California’s electric grid.

“California’s record of rolling blackouts—unprecedented in size and scope—coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today,” Mr. Wheeler wrote in the letter.

 

[nwdiver]

In a letter to Mr. Newsom on Monday, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said a statewide shift to electric vehicles would strain California’s electric grid.

“California’s record of rolling blackouts—unprecedented in size and scope—coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today,” Mr. Wheeler wrote in the letter.

And COVID will go away like a miracle 4 months ago. Why does anyone keep believing anything anyone associated with that administration says?

 

[zecar]

Personal EVs are going to need to be charged at work during the day.

 

[mspohr]

California To Ban Gas-Powered Dirt Bikes. What You Need To Know - ADV Pulse

 

[uujjj2]

To those pointing out California needs to add more electricity infrastructure to cover all those new EVs: yeah, no s**t, Sherlock. So?

Continuing to rely on fossil fuel is not an option! Driving Planet Earth into a mass extinction event to save a couple cents per kilowatt hour is not a rational policy!

 

[andy92782]

To those pointing out California needs to add more electricity infrastructure to cover all those new EVs: yeah, no s**t, Sherlock. So?

Continuing to rely on fossil fuel is not an option! Driving Planet Earth into a mass extinction event to save a couple cents per kilowatt hour is not a rational policy!

The devil is in the details.... All the solar panels in the world won't do much good if I need to charge my car at night. And again, nuclear ain't an option.

 

[nwdiver]

The devil is in the details.... All the solar panels in the world won't do much good if I need to charge my car at night. And again, nuclear ain't an option.

Wind peaks at night. The paradigm of driving an EV is you're driving a ~70, 100 or 200kWh grid battery. So ~90% of the time most people are going to charge their car when there's surplus on the grid. For the rare occasion that you 'need' to charge you'll pay a premium... eventually from a H2 gas turbine or H2 fuel cell.

 

[andy92782]

Wind peaks at night. The paradigm of driving an EV is you're driving a ~70, 100 or 200kWh grid battery. So ~90% of the time most people are going to charge their car when there's surplus on the grid. For the rare occasion that you 'need' to charge you'll pay a premium... eventually from a H2 gas turbine or H2 fuel cell.

Wind is unreliable, and even on a good day there's a major shortfall compared to what demand will be. Also, people aren't going to charge their cars when there's a grid surplus. They're going to charge their cars when it's convenient. This is especially true for renters/apartment dwellers who lack dedicated, private charging locations.

 

[uujjj2]

The devil is in the details.... All the solar panels in the world won't do much good if I need to charge my car at night. And again, nuclear ain't an option.

Duh. California will need to invest in lots of grid storage. Luckily, there's a certain company we may have heard of that sells batteries for grid storage.

Fossil fuel ain't an option.

 

[nwdiver]

Wind is unreliable, and even on a good day there's a major shortfall compared to what demand will be. Also, people aren't going to charge their cars when there's a grid surplus. They're going to charge their cars when it's convenient. This is especially true for renters/apartment dwellers who lack dedicated, private charging locations.

Wind doesn't have to be 'reliable' to charge a battery.

Wait.... are you thinking that I'm suggesting people will wait until there's surplus then plug their car in? The process will be seamless like it is now. You set a departure time and battery level required. When there's surplus wind or solar your car charges. Plug your car in when you're home like you do now. Why would you care whether your car charges at 2kW from 2AM - 5AM or 6kW from 9PM to 10PM so long as you have the energy you need when you need it?

No reason we can't get 16A curbside charging. 16A doesn't take much and it will get the job done.

 

[andy92782]

Duh. California will need to invest in lots of grid storage. Luckily, there's a certain company we may have heard of that sells batteries for grid storage.

Fossil fuel ain't an option.

Okay, fossil fuels aren't an option. Let's quit them completely and go 100% renewable.

Just to keep the numbers easy, I'm going to say we'll need 40,000 MW of grid generational capacity, especially during the overnight hours when people charge their cars. Suppose it all has to come from renewable sources. The sun doesn't shine at night (duh) wind generation is unreliable and other sources are just too small to really matter, so we need batteries.

If all 40,000 MW came from batteries, we'd need a battery with 400,000 MWh capacity (40,000 MW * 10 hours). Since it's not good to charge/discharge batteries completely and so often, perhaps we should round it up to 500,000 MWh just to keep things safe and to ensure a long service life before degradation sets in.

Batteries are expected to cost $100/kWh within a few years, so 500,000 MWh of battery capacity would cost approximately $50 billion, not including any of the inverters, switchgear, transmission lines, etc.

In order to "fill up" said battery during the daytime, we'd need a major excess of solar capacity. We only get about 6 hours of solid daylight in the middle of winter, so again, to keep the math easier, let's say we need ~66,666 MW of excess generation (400,000 MWh / 6 hours) to match the nighttime energy drain. At $0.20/watt, that's about $13 billion in PV solar panels, again, not including inverters, switchgear, transmission lines, etc.

Lastly, we'll need to greatly increase the number of charging locations. Costs vary wildly, but let's assume the average cost to install a L2 charger is $1,000 (it personally cost me $2,500 to install my TWC + DCC box). There are 10 million homes in California. That's $10B in charging infrastructure.

So far, my "back of the napkin" calculations are getting close to $75B in costs. And since projects like tthese are never completed in time and always come in over budget, maybe we should just pad it up to a nice, round $100B.

$100B is a pretty tough nut to swallow.

 

[nwdiver]

So far, my "back of the napkin" calculations are getting close to $75B in costs. And since projects like tthese are never completed in time and always come in over budget.

Even ~$200B would be a bargain.

And... most solar and wind projects generally come in UNDER budget. You're thinking of nuclear.

 

[MXLRplus]

This story is why most politicians are considered idiots.

Go talk to Jean Average in your neighborhood hardware store. You will find that government mandates scare people. Newsom has actually hurt the EV adoption movement by putting EVs in the same category as increased property taxation.

Zealotry is good for making martyrs, not for making friends.

 

[EinSV]

Rapidly falling costs of EVs plus Californians directly experiencing dramatic impacts of climate change at an increasing pace mean this deadline will eventually be moved up to 2030 and probably earlier.

But there are many benefits of having a "starter" deadline in place now:

• CARB is required to put in place regs to ensure steady progress toward the phase-out -- this will require the laggard auto companies to start switching earlier or pay a price for dragging their feet, which will help speed up the transition
  
  
• Announcing the end of ICE in the not-too-distant future should help speed the build-out of charging infrastructure at apartments, condos, workplaces, shopping centers, etc.
  
  
• The message that gas and diesel's days are numbered will likely spur EV sales well before the deadline as people realize that EVs are the future and ICE is dead
  
  
• CPUC, CAISO, utilities, energy developers, etc. can build into their planning the necessary power, storage, grid and transmission improvements to support more EVs
  
  • Contrary to all the fearmongering fanned by propaganda from fossil fuel interests, rapidly falling costs of solar, wind, storage, and the ability of distributed resources to support the grid should make it easy and inexpensive to support the additional electricity demand from EVs, especially when combined with the energy reductions from phasing out inefficient fossil fuels

 

[Merrill]

This story is why most politicians are considered idiots.

Go talk to Jean Average in your neighborhood hardware store. You will find that government mandates scare people. Newsom has actually hurt the EV adoption movement by putting EVs in the same category as increased property taxation.

Zealotry is good for making martyrs, not for making friends.

Unfortunately most people never bother to do any research and therefore have no clue as to what is really happening and then make a decision based on lack of knowledge.

 

[MXLRplus]

Unfortunately most people never bother to do any research and therefore have no clue as to what is really happening and then make a decision based on lack of knowledge.

Electric cars sell themselves. They are a superior product. Why would anyone want people to think EVs are a punishment?

We tried this before in California. We did a LOT of damage by accelerating SLEV technologies instead of EV technology.

 

[uujjj2]

$100B is a pretty tough nut to swallow.

Chump change. $100B/15 years is <0.3% of California's expected economic output over the next 15 years. Dirt cheap compared to the harm inflicted by fossil fuel.