True cost to run EV like paying $17.33 per gallon if not for $22 billion in government subsidies.

[sim1tti]

While we are at it, since EV owners save so much money we should make them pay back all of the subsidies, along with all of the money that they didn't pay to maintain the roads, all of the money needed to expand the capacity of the grid, for all of the charging stations and for all of these windmills and solar panels.

I try to stay away from the subsidies part of this topic because it easily goes both ways. The petroleum, coal, and transportation subsidies that have been (and still are) dished out are easily on par with any green subsides.

 

[mrfixitman]

it's not just ICE vehicles, it's meat, guns, light bulbs, toilets and just about anything else they think of to ban. And oh yeah, they want to kill off 6 billion people and make the rest of us eat bugs:

I get it. "Meal" worms.

 

[mrfixitman]

Sorry "pretty much what's going on" doesn't cut it – only a tiny percentage of the energy in our grid is generated by wind and solar. If these states/cities/individuals want to force us to do these things with all these mandates they should lead by example and live under their own rules before they force them on the rest of us.

While we are at it, since EV owners save so much money we should make them pay back all of the subsidies, along with all of the money that they didn't pay to maintain the roads, all of the money needed to expand the capacity of the grid, for all of the charging stations and for all of these windmills and solar panels.

You were saying?
NATION
Riverside County, CA
Add Topic

Renewable electricity powered California just shy of 100% for the first time in history

Janet Wilson
Palm Springs Desert Sun
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/02/california-renewable-energy-100/9612901002/ As we are saving your lungs we EV users are given privileges by law from those you elected. Thanks.

 

[mrfixitman]

I try to stay away from the subsidies part of this topic because it easily goes both ways. The petroleum, coal, and transportation subsidies that have been (and still are) dished out are easily on par with any green subsides.

Not only on par but way more. Trillions. So people shouldn't complain about the measly amount renewables are getting. They, btw, are popular because they are cheaper than fossil fuel and less damaging to the planet. With a solar RV for instance or parts there of. One can Boondock in the middle of nowhere forever if one wished. Can't do that with fossil fuel. Gotta come to town for gas or diesel. Once you have solar and batteries you can go off grid. Survivalists love that.

 

[mrfixitman]

Remember when lunatics used to be placed in mental asylums, where they belonged? Tolerance isn't always a good thing.

Thanks to Reagan, who closed the mental institutions.

 

[sim1tti]

Renewable electricity powered California just shy of 100% for the first time in history

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/02/california-renewable-energy-100/9612901002/

This was a pretty big accomplishment, but the headline can be misinterpreted to think that Ca has hit its 100% renewables goal. I think the sober reality is impressive enough. The 2023 numbers havent been put up yet (that I can find) but but 2022 saw 43% renewables (non-nuclear) and only 2% coal. Nat gas is still huge, though it's pretty low on the polluters list as far as fossil fuels go.

 

[sim1tti]

Bit surprised that the environmental advocates in this thread have not declared that air-conditioning and babies breathing is as bad for the environment as the pollution from ICE vehicles. (Actually no, I'm not joking. I attended a very liberal college back in the day. Our lunatic liberal professors saw nothing wrong with presenting classes that discussed how both should be banned/heavily regulated and restricted.)

Pretty big leap to go from environmental advocate to baby regulator. Every movement has it's fringe side though. Doesn't surprise me. I doubt those professors would find broader support for those ideas, thankfully. Keep the government out of reproduction choices.

My electricity bill helps regulate my AC usage. Gas bill my heater usage. Mrfixit is probably the only one here who is free of those concerns. Solar powered house, so I've heard 😅!

Does the Earth naturally go through cycles of heat and cold. Yes. Does that have anything to do with human-beings? Nope! But since the scam is based on this actual science, people still buy into it.

The climate change debate is tough to broach w/o taking this whole thing sideways. Pollution and money is easier. Real numbers, not so many projections to debate, but still plenty contentious.

 

[xxo]

Again, that's pretty much what's going on. Almost exactly. Weather it cuts it or not doesn't change that fact that Ca is in fact leading by example. I've posted this 11 part series before, but part 1 does a good job of running through the plan and challenge. It's fair coverage.

Edit: removed half of quote, added link

Currently, nation wide, wind and solar combined provide about 15% of the grid energy while coal is still around 20%. Wind and solar will never be anywhere near 100% simply because the sun isn't always shining and the wind is not always blowing. And even when they are, you need to have back up fossil fuel generators spun up and running on standby to keep the grid from crashing each time the wind dies or a cloud blows over.

While wind/solar are not good for the grid, they can be used for charging batteries which is why they should be mandated for EV charging.

 

[sim1tti]

Currently, nation wide, wind and solar combined provide about 15% of the grid energy while coal is still around 20%.

True. But coal is quickly on its way out. Less and less every year. Natural gas is king now. A much cleaner fossil fuel and a step in the right direction. California also uses more natural gas than anything else, but it's changing. Leading by example, as you say.

Wind and solar will never be anywhere near 100% simply because the sun isn't always shining and the wind is not always blowing. And even when they are, you need to have back up fossil fuel generators spun up and running on standby to keep the grid from crashing each time the wind dies or a cloud blows over.

While wind/solar are not good for the grid, they can be used for charging batteries which is why they should be mandated for EV charging.

You're right. Wind and solar are not great for reliable energy on demand. Just as you described. Nothing beats fossil fuels for that.

You're also right about wind and solar being able to charge batteries...Reservoirs are giant batteries. Releasing water from a reservoir to spin turbines––hydro power––is another time tested way to produce grid level power on demand. Rain or shine.

Ca's plan plan involves using the available energy from wind and solar as it's being produced. The excess goes to charging massive battery houses (newer tech) and pumping water up hill to reservoirs. This isn't new tech. Long been used, all over the word. That's where the energy on demand comes from, according to the Ca plan.

Nuclear will probably end up being used to some extent (I think) for better or worse. And you're correct, natural gas power plants will be maintained for emergency back up and peak surge. Energy imports from places where the wind is blowing and the rivers flowing is also on the table.

The state is shooting for 2045, 100% zero emissions. Might be overly ambitious, but I bet by mid century it'll be at at >90%, 90% of the time.

I hope you read that series. It's really interesting, even if you're not into the idea.

 

[yearnslow]

This has been covered in the threads of this forum, but it all gets lost in the soup. I'll try to post a cohesive summary of the info when I have more time. It's been interesting. For now, my quick take is this:

Environmentally speaking, EVs are pretty clean and getting cleaner, but there is still pollution associated with them, including upstream sources. Harder to quantify is impact of securing materials (like cobalt), making the infrastructure more robust, ect.

The current US grid doesn't use much coal anymore. Other non-renewables, like natural gas, are much less polluting and dominate US energy production. Some states have a cleaner balance than others, and renewables are a fast growing share of energy production. Some states are even committed to have renewables be the dominant or only contributor.

Even as it stands right now, even in the most coal-heavy grids in the US, the emissions generated to power EVs is far less than the pollutants that would otherwise come out of tailpipes. Some people claim that's not true in some places, but the available data doesn't seem to support those claims.

The sources for this data has mostly been posted in these threads. Again, the soup. I'll try to compose it later.


At present, sure, hypothetically. In reality there is no impingement right now. Only a rhetorical one. The most aggressive plans are 10 years out, just for new cars, and only in some states.

With a cleaner grid and more of the EV downsides addressed, I don't think peoples' ability to travel by car will be impinged, much if at all. It'll look a little different though. More convenient in some ways, probably less convenient in others. Probably cheaper and easier in the long run, but there will be some growing pains and anxiety.


It's not purely political. Certainly not for me. But everyone seems to be working with their own preferred facts from their own preferred sources.


I'd agree that nobody's right to travel is currently impinged. The concern for many is that EV mandates will amount to a significant impediment on people's freedom to travel. I think it's a valid concern. And no...Ships, trains busses and ride shares are not an acceptable concession. Nor should they be.

In my opinion those concerns are born of the assumption that society will simultaneously not improve upon the shortcomings and will double down on the mandates. That doesn't sound realistic to me. We are and will continue to mitigate the issues such as EV battery cost, access to charging, range, etc. In ten years, the trip to Portland you reference will look even more like a ICE road trip. In 20 years, near identical.

To repeat, travel by car will likely become more convenient in some ways, probably less convenient in others. Probably cheaper and easier in the long run, but there will be some growing pains. But significantly infringing on peoples freedom of travel by car? Nah. I don't think we'll see that.



@mrfixitman, I find myself agreeing with the the substance of much of what you say, but you really gotta work on your delivery. Are you trying to convince people of something, or just convince yourself that you're right? If convinced the world is going to play out more aligned with your vision than your detractors, perhaps that can inspire some patience. Hubris is corrosive. It's why you have detractors in the first place.


I mean, as of right now, that's pretty much what's going on, though much less aggressive. There's no federal mandate, and the EPA's federal power is being curtailed by the courts. Some states have have a no-new ICE sales by 2035 plan. California is trying to go 100% zero emissions grid by 2045 (not 2035).

Thats quite possibly the longest, most sanctimonious reply I've ever had, without actually answering the question! Well done!

 

[sim1tti]

Thats quite possibly the longest, most sanctimonious reply I've ever had, without actually answering the question! Well done!

Maybe a bit long, but Sanctimonious? I'm trying here. Really, I am. Thought I was being polite. Responding in good faith. It sounded like you were asking "But isn't all powered by coal and oil anyways? What's the point?" That one has been asked and responded to a number of times on this thread (and others). Long answers because it's a question that seems to require them. I believed I was packaging it up for you. Appolgies if I got it wrong.

More directly this time. Take it however you want.

Can someone explain to me, how, with the proposed adoption of an all EV policy,
That they are all going to be charged without Oil, Gas or coal running power stations?

The EVs aren't going to be charged with a no-fossil-fuel grid. Not for a while. It will still be much cleaner than petrol cars. For what a grid with no emissions and no nuclear could potentially look like, please see California's 2045 plan. That's one idea.

Because the obvious answer would be Nuclear, which has always been unacceptable to the very people who are advocating EV's?

If nuclear powers the grid, nuclear will charge the cars. It's not opposed as stridently as it once was. Often seen as a means, safer than it used to be. Still taboo, cuz past disasters and all. But yeah. It could power the world emission free.

The obvious answer is to reduce a populations opportunity to travel, or in other words, remove your right to travel.
This is the only way it would work, at present.

For that one, read my"sanctimonious" answer still does it. Said my piece on it earlier, too. I'm admittedly tired of reading the same "taking our rights" schpiel over and over again on this thread.

 

[yearnslow]

Then the obvious answer to your tiredness is to stop?

 

[Monocrom]

As far as solar is concerned, it just seems as though in 2024; it's still in its infancy. No where remotely as efficient as it needs to be to make a dent in clean energy. Heck, you need a house with a large roof in a community where the sun shines most days out of year for solar to be useful.

 

[alpg88]

Then the obvious answer to your tiredness is to stop?

They can not stop virtue signaling, this is above any reason or logic for them.

 

[Chauncey Gardiner]

The cat's name tag is not visible, but rumor has it ... mrfixitman.

 

[alpg88]

I see a lot of images and video from ukraine war ( and this one with a cat is from there too) mirror flipped, is it a way to avoid image google search or something? btw the tag on the guy basically says shut the frack up. lol

 

[alpg88]

The cat's name tag is not visible, but rumor has it ... mrfixitman.

That would be insulting to the cat, lol

 

[Chauncey Gardiner]

That would be insulting to the cat, lol

The reason being, The Cat is at war while @mrfixitman only thinks he is. Reading his reply to my other joke/post convinced me of that.

 

[alpg88]

The reason being, The Cat is at war while @mrfixitman only thinks he is. Reading his reply to my other joke/post convinced me of that.

Well, he IS at war, and you are his enemy, your rights and freedom is what he aims to dismantle, he is not doing it with a gun........ yet. history has so many examples, so it is as clear as day. As they said in battlestar galactica, it has happened before it will happen again

 

[Mister Ed]

and with that....I bid you all good day.