New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’m missing your point when you say lost.

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I've read that there is a certain amount of power required to keep the grid active. At night the consumption of that power can fall below that minimum and is somehow dumped. If the power isn't being consumed by a consumer, it is consumed by the grid, and effectively "lost" as in it doesn't power anything else. Since I'm no expert though I could be completely off in my understanding.

There are examples of this in the production of electricity, although not exactly the same thing. For example, in some cases of hydroelectric power, the generators required to provide electricity during the day to the grid may not be needed at night. Rather than turn the generators off, they are used for another purpose. For example, in Georgia, Lake Oconee is a power generating lake and Lake Sinclair (downstream) is basically "battery storage". Each night, the excess power generation is used to pump water from Lake Sinclair back into Lake Oconee, then that water is reused to power the turbines during peak times. Lake Sinclair, as result, has a low and high "tide" every day as the water is pumped out then flowed back in.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I've read that there is a certain amount of power required to keep the grid active. At night the consumption of that power can fall below that minimum and is somehow dumped. If the power isn't being consumed by a consumer, it is consumed by the grid, and effectively "lost" as in it doesn't power anything else. Since I'm no expert though I could be completely off in my understanding.

There are examples of this in the production of electricity, although not exactly the same thing. For example, in some cases of hydroelectric power, the generators required to provide electricity during the day to the grid may not be needed at night. Rather than turn the generators off, they are used for another purpose. For example, in Georgia, Lake Oconee is a power generating lake and Lake Sinclair (downstream) is basically "battery storage". Each night, the excess power generation is used to pump water from Lake Sinclair back into Lake Oconee, then that water is reused to power the turbines during peak times. Lake Sinclair, as result, has a low and high "tide" every day as the water is pumped out then flowed back in.

I don’t know if this is done with green/renewable energy only like wind, nuclear, solar and geothermal. All plants are designed to stop, so I don’t think there is a minimum. Some plants just run continuously to meet a basic need and other plants fine tune their output to meet fluctuations in energy supply and demand, so coal and nuclear might provide a continuous base, and as solar and wind comes online, hydro and natural gas turn down supply. Like the video details, incentivizing power usage at night helps to flatten the curve, so there are natural price reductions in utility costs at night from supply and demand, but there may also be tariffs or government incentives to use power at night, not because of waste or to avoid loses, but rather, to ease the burden on the system and possibly avoid the use of the more-expensive, on-demand utilities.

On a separate note, the US is one of the most wasteful countries in how we use energy—in terms of absolute amounts and per capita, so we have the capacity to improve on that metric to get more energy by not wasting more energy. For example, many homes could be much more efficient. New homes are being designed with smart cooling/heating and zone climate control, better insulation, etc.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I've read that there is a certain amount of power required to keep the grid active.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t know if this is done with green/renewable energy only like wind, nuclear, solar and geothermal. All plants are designed to stop, so I don’t think there is a minimum.

Capacity (amount of electricity a grid can generate) vs supply are two different things.

Plants can run continuously but whether they generate power or not is a different story, depending on how they generate power.

Wind is pretty much based on forecast and location, so it is variable. Hydroelectric usually are at dams, so they can turn it on/off as long as the dam is not at capacity. etc etc...

Other plants like coal/oil/gas/nuclear usually are always "on", so the only variable is whether they are running at 25% or 100% based on demand.

This real time graph shows the overall US electrical grid at any time with info on supply and demand. The only real concern is what the forecast electrical need is vs what is actually available, and whether or not excess capacity can be provided in case of spikes.

https://www.eia.gov/realtime_grid/#/...nd=20210211T12

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t know if this is done with green/renewable energy only like wind, nuclear, solar and geothermal. All plants are designed to stop, so I don’t think there is a minimum. .

My point was around the minimum amount of energy required to energize the grid (basically keeping the supply line hot). Perhaps I misinterpreted the explanation from my EMC on why they could provide free charging at night, and it had to do with some other factor around what they had to pay for, as you mention.

[Irace86.2.0]

Regardless, the utilities argument against EV adoption is mostly debunked. We don’t know for sure what the future holds.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Regardless, the utilities argument against EV adoption is mostly debunked. We don’t know for sure what the future holds.

Agreed. All the electricity providers around me seem to have no concern and are all in. Heck, besides providing free charging mine actually has two Teslas and a Bolt that they allow members to check out for a day to test drive.

https://cobbemc.com/content/electric-vehicle-checkout

[Irace86.2.0]

So Elon Musk leaves Texas because of taxes and regulations (according to some here), and then he says...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/12/elon...arbon-tax.html

Elon Musk: ‘My top recommendation’ for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax

...I’m so confused.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

So Elon Musk leaves Texas because of taxes and regulations (according to some here), and then he says...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/12/elon...arbon-tax.html

Elon Musk: ‘My top recommendation’ for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax

...I’m so confused.

can't read specifics due to paywall.

but my 'read between the lines' moment from the title: he's like every other rich entitled ****wad. "tax THE OTHERS that aren't doing what i'm doing so i don't get taxed."

one of tesla's many income streams has been selling all of their unused carbon credits to other industry players.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

So Elon Musk leaves Texas because of taxes and regulations (according to some here), and then he says...

Elon Musk: ‘My top recommendation’ for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax

...I’m so confused.

Nothing confusing here.

[definition] hypocrite: 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 2. see Elon Musk

I'm sure the fact that higher gas taxes would increase Tesla sales has absolutely nothing at all to do with his selfless and purely altruistic views on this.

(For further reading, see: pompous; self-aggrandizing; egomaniacal; self-serving)

Apparently the Great Elon thinks it's OK for him to flee California to escape paying taxes, as long as it's offset by imposing a tax on everyone else but him. Seems fair. After all, the money to pay for government services has to come from somewhere, and as the Goddess Leona Helmsley said, "Only the little people pay taxes".

Aside from all that, it does seem the only way to move to a renewable energy economy and away from fossil fuels would be by some form of direct government action, such as either paying for and building renewable energy generating plants (solar, wind, tidal, etc.), or some form of carbon tax and hoping the 'market' would 'figure it out'.

The key concept is paying for. The money to pay for replacing fossil fuel generating stations with renewable sources has to come from somewhere. Since there is no such thing as "government money" - after all, the money any government has comes from us - one way or another, we will have to pay for this. Which means higher taxes. However it's packaged, higher income tax, carbon use tax, or higher energy costs (if it's left to utility companies), we will have to pay for the construction of new renewable energy plants.

I'll leave it to much smarter economic minds than mine (which means pretty much everyone) to figure out how to do this fairly and efficiently, in ways that don't disproportionately hurt lower income people, and avoiding waste and corruption (oh, that's right - no one has figured out how to do that, at least not in this country).

[ZDan]

CAFE has been rigged to benefit big3 automakers and fossil fuels. De-rig it, make ONE number that goes up every single year, and if you sell cars that get worse mileage they get a guzzler tax based on how far over. Sell cars that do better and get a tax credit.
And ONE number means the *same* standard applies to SUVs. CAFE rules are rigged to favor bigger less-efficient cars, and especially ginormous and hideously inefficient SUVs. Let's FIX that.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

So Elon Musk leaves Texas because of taxes and regulations (according to some here), and then he says...

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/12/elon...arbon-tax.html

Elon Musk: ‘My top recommendation’ for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax

...I’m so confused.

what's to be confused about?

Musk leaving CA is just fodder for the average person to hate California. It's no different than other auto makers going to another state, they have their own legitimate reasons but all you and I see are "these states are so much more business friendly than California" and not see what actually happens behind the scenes. At the end of the day, if Musk is going to start selling some of his personal gains from TSLA's stock price rise, he's better off in a state with no personal income tax. I have no problems with that if I made that much money in a year.

It's like all this recent talk about bringing chipmakers back into the US for manufacturing. Great... who the hell are going to man the factories? There aren't enough graduates with advance degrees in the US as-is, you think we can just grow people with education overnight?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by mav1178

what's to be confused about?

Musk leaving CA is just fodder for the average person to hate California. It's no different than other auto makers going to another state, they have their own legitimate reasons but all you and I see are "these states are so much more business friendly than California" and not see what actually happens behind the scenes. At the end of the day, if Musk is going to start selling some of his personal gains from TSLA's stock price rise, he's better off in a state with no personal income tax. I have no problems with that if I made that much money in a year.

It's like all this recent talk about bringing chipmakers back into the US for manufacturing. Great... who the hell are going to man the factories? There aren't enough graduates with advance degrees in the US as-is, you think we can just grow people with education overnight?

If you go through the pages of this thread, you will find a lot of conversation about the exodus from California from companies to individuals. Specifically, Elon Musk was used as a reference for someone who wants to get away from taxes and regulations, but here he is calling for a regulation for higher carbon taxes. Yes, I get why that would favor his business model and why it would be good for getting us to a carbon neutral future, so I was just being snarky in reference to those earlier debates.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If you go through the pages of this thread, you will find a lot of conversation about the exodus from California from companies to individuals. Specifically, Elon Musk was used as a reference for someone who wants to get away from taxes and regulations, but here he is calling for a regulation for higher carbon taxes. Yes, I get why that would favor his business model and why it would be good for getting us to a carbon neutral future, so I was just being snarky in reference to those earlier debates.

Oh I know, I see comments like this on a weekly basis.

If where I lived was purely about how much I pay in taxes, I'd move out of the US entirely. Plenty of places in the world where I can pay nothing in taxes.

What people fail to understand is that some companies move because they are trying to be more efficient (Toyota), and some other companies move because another state (TN) bent over backwards to get a company (Nissan) to move.

People forget that the Japanese car companies established their roots in California because back in the 1960/70/80s, airlines still needed to refuel in Hawaii or Alaska to fly to the US. Nonstop flights did not start until longer range 747-400s or 767/777s were introduced, and even those aircraft could not go from Tokyo to Chicago or Dallas without refueling somewhere. Add on the abundance of a large Japanese American population, and it was easy for Japanese car companies to be based in Southern California since it made doing business easier.

As these companies became more global, there was less incentive for them to stay here. Add on the fact that most of their automotive plants are in the midwest US, and it simply makes better business sense to relocate their HQ to someplace central in the US.

But you know, "regulations"

[serialk11r]

Yea I've also heard of negative priced or free electricity in Texas that people use to mine bitcoin for example. There definitely is a minimum load that a natural gas turbine plant or any other thermal plant can run at since the turbine needs to be spinning fast enough with enough throughput to produce power at any reasonable efficiency. Base load plants are supposed to take up this capacity but it must be possible for the electrical energy demand to fall below what the base load plants produce.