Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban | Hacker News Reader

Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban

newsweek.com

33 pointsrufus_foreman60 comments

I guess "13 years before gas car sales ban" doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "days after"

I think it more highlights the fact that our grid already cannot sustain high-demand usage, and adding a zillion EV's will not make the situation any better.

Given how long it takes to build out major things to augment the grid, 13 years doesn't seem like enough time in all honesty.

Also.. what's with the year 2035? Seems like everything we talk about today takes place by 2035... far enough away to not worry about it today but close enough to seem like we're doing something?

If I was a betting man, I'd bet this "due date" will get punted once we get closer and realize we're still not ready for a full-blown EV fleet in this state.

The grid is two things: generation and transmission.

We need a lot more generation. But solar and wind have gotten incredibly cheap, and can be added quickly.

Transmission is more expensive and difficult to replace. EV's don't need a lot more of it, since transmission is sized for peak demand, and EV's generally don't charge during peak periods. Transmission capacity will be stressed more by air conditioning demand than it will be by EV charging.

Massive roll-outs of either takes a lot of time and resources. There's also no guarantee that a build-out starting today will even be relevant in 13 years - just look at the warpspeed progress solar panel technology has enjoyed in the past decade.

It's a lot easier to hand-wave away these concerns than it is to actually build them out. Just look at warehouse roofspace in this state - nearly all of which are perfectly flat and huge (thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of square footage) - but few are covered in solar panels. These things are incredibly expensive, and need to return the investment. We can't pretend the last 20 years of snail-paced build-outs are just because people don't care...

We're adding ~60 GW of renewables per year. That's not snail-paced.

The US produced 4.12 Trillion kWh in 2021, of which ~20% came from renewables.[1]

~60 Million kWh is a drop in the bucket even if it's true (your claim lacks a citation).

[1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

You've mixed up kWh and kW, which are very different things.

multiply the GW by the number of hours of daylight in a year.

We're talking about California not the entire US here.

There is a deep issue with p.v. + e.v.: while in many places in the world (i.e. those with a continental climate) a/c+p.v. is a perfect match because at night there is far less needs of A/C or no need at all while the most needed timeframe is during the day e.v. are the exact opposite: we normally live, and so move/drive, during the day while sleeping at night at home.

As a result with p.v. you can eliminate much of the A/C consumption in many places. You hardly reduce EV charging consumption though. EVs can be recharged from p.v. almost only for teleworkers and retirees, who tend also to be those who discharge them less, simply because they move less.

When all the cars are EV the peak period will be whenever everyone gets home and puts their car on the charger.

EV's don't start charging when they are plugged in, they start charging when they are programmed to start charging.

Which must people have set to when it's cheapest.

  Given how long it takes to build out major things to augment the grid, 13 years doesn't seem like enough time in all honesty.

That presumes no current effort to improve the grid is underway. California's been working to eliminate transmission bottlenecks for a couple decades now. And then you have projects like this:

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-23/wyoming...

> California's been working to eliminate transmission bottlenecks for a couple decades now.

Well, that's my point. We're still not there and several decades have been spent already.

As it stands today, if you want your electricity to come from renewables, it often costs significantly more than "regular" power. That's a step in the wrong direction...

> And then you have projects like this

Been around long enough to have seen things like this before. I'll believe it when I see it.

Cynical take: 2035 is after Gov. Newsom's term limits in California (2 terms, 4 years, 2026) and after being elected President and having the same 2 term limitation (2034). So any issues caused by these laws will come into effect after Newsom is out of office both for state and federal.

"X by year Y" gives leaders a pass to finish their tenures and retire before anything hard or unpopular has to be done. When you see "X by year Y", ask: what is the transition plan for the intervening years, to ensure achievement of X on schedule?

It’s the irony and optics of it. Doesn’t matter how far off in the future it is, you’re pressing a direction in one breath and then in the next breath, giving the opponent’s of that direction a nice little “see, I told you so” moment.

Has anyone run the numbers on what the "gas car sales ban"[1] would do to increase electricity consumption in California?

Is there a plan to scale up electricity production to meet that need?

[1] I haven't read the law, so I don't actually know if it "bans" anything.

I dont have specific numbers, but the formula is straightforward.

Cars * 12000 * kwh/m

EDIT: Numbers, with a tesla model 3.

15 000 000 * 12 000 * .24

Around 43 200 GWh. The total power generation in CA was around 194 000 GWh in 2021

Thanks. And how is this formula derived?

The magic number of 12000 is the average number of miles a car is driven in a year. So, multiply that by kilowatt hours per mile, and you’ll get the energy consumption of one car per year.

Times the number of cars in CA, and you have the amount of power used by cars in CA, and by association the power consumed to charge cars.

There are some inefficiencies, but they’re in the 2% range.

Thanks again. So if your numbers are right, California needs to increase it's electricity production by ~25%. This seems hard, but I think that only because I'm used to other things where increasing output by 25% is very difficult. How much does California increase its electricity output each year? Does PG&E et. al. publish data on that? A quick google is failing me.

Well, it’s more complicated than just A + B. Power is currently more constrained by peak, and most car charging isn’t done during peak. It is easier to produce more off peak than to increase peak. There is also a question of how efficient EVs might be in 13 years. Cars have tended to get incrementally more efficient over time and there is no reason to believe that won’t also happen with EVs.

It's not that hard.

Also, conservation plays a part. CA energy consumption peaked in 2006 and then again came very close to it in 2017. Consumption has been roughly flat for 2 decades.

https://www.caiso.com/documents/californiaisopeakloadhistory...

Here’s a starting point for finding that data.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...

Last I heard US domestic energy consumption breaks down into about 50% electrical generation and 50% fossil fuel motors and engines of all types. Figure needing to roughly double electrical generating capacity to replace every internal combustion motor with an electric one.

There really is no grand plan to increase capacity of the grid. I think there is some hope that improvements in battery/solar production somehow magically fix the energy problem.

The EV "revolution" was really powered by one salesman's dream—Elon Musk. Decades before Tesla there was a lot of discussion about whether EVs powered by heavy and expensive batteries could ever be successful and sustainable at scale. It's why some companies tried (and are still trying) things like fuel cells/hydrogen (which has its own problems for sure).

But Elon Musk just kind of decided for us that battery powered EVs were the future. Everyone will drive and all the logistics involved with battery and electric production were simply shuffled under the rug because the Telsa was pretty cool.

The battery powered EV future is very much reliant on technology that doesn't exist yet, which must be invented before we run out of the raw materials (or more likely, wars disrupt the pipeline of these now precious materials) to make batteries and before the grid collapses under the weight of people thinking they are going to "save money" by getting an EV.

We already see the outrage in home solar as those who got solar simply for the cost savings are losing their minds now that states are looking to tax them for leaving the grid.

Musk didn't "decide for us," he made a product that's attractive to consumers. If the companies working on fuel cells and hydrogen manage to do the same, then maybe those will actually have an impact.

The other reason electrics have done well is that battery costs have plummeted. If the trend continues, electric cars will be cheaper than ICE in a couple years.

Meanwhile, fuel cells are still quite expensive, and hydrogen has a chicken-and-egg problem since it would require extensive new infrastructure. That's not a problem for electrics, where you can plug in even if you're the only electric in town.

Yeah, we're going to need plenty of electricity. But that's a given, if we're going to decarbonize transportation. That's true even if you're running on hydrogen: if you're using "green hydrogen" from electrolysis then you're still using electricity. If you're using hydrogen made from natural gas, then you're effectively still burning fossil fuels.

Mh, a small note: seeing Toyota Mirai I doubt hydrogen fuel-cell cars would be less unsustainable than BEVs. Not counting their astronomic price, the complexity of the infra needed to distribute VERY high pressure gas with very little molecules they are still BEVs because fuel-cells are not so fast to adapt their power output as a result you get a small battery BEV, with the battery hyper-stressed. Something that hardly last.

Norway is proof by example that you're wrong.

How is that? There are 10 metro areas in the US alone with a population greater than all of Norway.

There are, what, 200,000 or so Teslas in Norway? With massive oil reserves and massive wind farms. How exactly does what Norway has accomplished scale to the US? Or to China?

The amount of cars in Norway is about 1% of the amount in the US.

> There are, what, 200,000 or so Teslas in Norway?

At this moment there are 87,958 Teslas in Norway:

https://elbilstatistikk.no/

Volkswagen sells the most EVs in Norway across all of its brands (VW, Audi, Skoda, SEAT, Cupra, Porsche, Scania, MAN, etc.). Volkswagen Group develops platforms and the different brands build their variants on those platforms. The VW ID.4, VW ID.5, Audi Q4 e-tron, Audi Q4 e-tron sportback, Skoda Enyaq, and Skoda Enyaq coupe are brand variants of the same car.

This is more interesting... https://norwaytoday.info/news/the-norwegian-state-is-coverin...

Norway (and the nordic countries in general) are rarely if ever a good example of anything in reality. Their populations are far too small (Norway is < 6 million for example, Los Angeles county alone is over 10 million) and natural resources in such excess that their situation doesn't apply to a nation the size of the US (325-350 million). Things they do don't scale to match the US.

Being smaller makes things harder, not easier.

I'd like to know how one comes to that conclusion.

*rolls eyes*

Meanwhile Bay Area's been told not to drive three (3) times this year with the top suggestion:

  The best way to improve air quality on a daily basis is to drive less.
  Cars, light duty trucks, and other vehicles are the biggest source of
  air pollution, contributing 75 percent of emissions. Change up your
  commute and help the Bay Area breathe a little easier.

Sacramento residents have seen "Spare the Air" days twice so far this year.

Is that a lot? That doesn't sound like a lot from my ~20 years in the area.

Not as bad as the title implies.

> consumers are urged to reduce energy use from 4-9 p.m. when the system is most stressed because demand for electricity remains high and there is less solar energy available

So plug in before you go to bed, instead of when you get home from work.

I wonder if charges can be configured to wait for a given time to begin charging. That way you could plug in your car whenever you want, but still get the benefit of waiting.

My Leaf had a charging timer feature back in 2016, so yes, this is definitely available.

My Chevy Bolt has exactly such a setting.

How smart are standard level 2 chargers and cars? As I understand it, you can recoup about 25 miles of range per hour with a Lvl 2, so most people would only need to charge for a few hours per night. Can these systems negotiate with grid and charge at the ideal time?

Exactly, fear mongering , click baiting, etc. My car even has a timer to do that already normally, because it's the right thing to do. gee

Why is domestic solar so expensive in the US? I've a 6.4kwp plus 5kwh battery system and it cost me 9k. I've heard prices of 40k to 70k for us domeestic (roof top) installs my brother in law, who lives in the US, told me he was quoted. His roof is not that big, so I estimate less than 8kwp. That's 4x to 7x the price I paid in Europe, so why so expensive? Solar in a heatwave sounds like a great thing to have.

At least in the Bay Area I think a large part of the problem with residential solar is simply local red tape. Systemwide though solar can be a pretty large chunk of the power grid. Right now renewables are about a third of the current electricity supply (and I believe historically it's topped out at closer to 80-90% under the right conditions) with solar being 80% of that.

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx

I just ran across the same thing. Tesla quotes a little under 30k for a 12kWH system, which seems pretty fair/honest. But I also got a quote from some other company and they wanted 70k for a 9.6kWH system.

How can you have a 40k difference for a worse system?

I actually think it's because the economics of solar are, in fact, really good. Plus there's a 26% (or something) national tax rebate if you install solar right now. That's a straight up rebate (cash in pocket), not an income credit. Because things are good, there's lots of wiggle room for people be taken advantage of.

I don't really know how to details work out but when you get "solar loan" financing involved a lot of weird stuff happens. All of a sudden you can afford a 60k loan every month because it's basically what you pay during peak usage anyway, and the loan hides in the value of the house when you sell it, and why not get some instant cash from the government rebate? It doesn't matter that the system only actually costs 12k to install. You paid 60k and that's what the government knows and future buyers won't even question it because it's like a $40 difference on their mortgage payment. Everyone in the middle gets a cut, the company profits, the sales rep gets commission, you get a rebate and future homeowners get the bill, nice!

I don't even think it's necessarily nefarious. There's just a lot of room once you're going to finance something.

I'd recommend cutting out the middlemen. Go straight to the source. Or just buy the hardware and talk to a roofing company and electrician.

At those prices I'd definitely be doing it myself with 'direct labour'. It's amazing no company has come in with installs for 20k, there would be loads of profit still, and they would get many more customers.

It's interesting the rebat is a % and not a per Kwp amount. Because 26% of 70k is 17k, which as a fixed amount is actually enough to cover the full install (at non rip of prices). So the govt could fund solar install up to (say) 10kwp fully, regulate the price to 17k, and the homeowners pay 0. Solar would be everywhere. It seems wasteful to spend the money and get less back for it, which is what is happening now.

Just to confirm you're comparing like-to-like: Is yours also rooftop? And was it also installed professionally? Those add a huge amount to the cost. The high end of your BIL's quote is high, but the low end sounds roughly correct (I'd estimate 30k-40k). Labour costs can vary, so if he is in a high cost of living area, that could add to it.

Other possible factors would be if a service upgrade (eg 100A to 200A, meter change, etc) would need to be paid.

Mine is rooftop and was installed professionally. One days work for 2 roofers and 1 electrician, not exactly a huge labour cost, surely. Raw material cost is about 6k (inverter, panels, battery) so at 9k that's 3k for one days install. Not a bad profit, so why is 30k reasonable cost in the US?

I'm in Canada not the US. I had relatives get rooftop solar, bigger system but not significantly (I think around 10kW). It took them 2 or 3 days to do the install for a crew of ~6 (over 2 trips), plus another 3 visits by the contractor and a utilities inspector - once beforehand, once following mounting system and wiring install, and a third time following completion before it could be connected. Don't know material cost, but the full system was somewhere around $40k (I guess that's Canadian $, so subtract a few $ to get USD). This was with an asphalt shingle roof, so it'd be more for metal or tile.

You could ask your BIL if the estimates he received had any breakdown.

Edit: there may have been an electric panel or service upgrade rolled into my relatives cost

You probably skipped the certification that allows you to sell power back to the grid... But maybe not.

Mine was done by a certified electrician, all above board, and I can sell it back to the grid.

Tariffs and higher labor costs.

As posted above, for a 6.4kp major raw material cost, retail, is 6.5k. 14 450w panels at 200ea (2.8k), inverter at 1.6k, battery at 2.1k, is 6.5k. Some roofing mounts etc needed too, but that's a few hundred at most.

So unless labour is about 5k per person per day, it's hard to see how 30k is even close to justified. And don't forget these companies are buying the materials cheaper than you or I can.

Tariffs are a larger factor.

Can you be specific, on the prices I listed, even with 100% tarrifs, its still 11k of materials. Why shoukd someone pay 20k to install for a days work?

The tariffs are up to a monstrous 250%, but were paused last month, I believe to try and drive down install costs.

Headline feels like clickbait. The flex alert isn't specific to EV's, it's a plea to reduce all usage between 4pm-9pm. These are not uncommon alerts during heatwaves in California.

More electric cars with V2G could become an important tool for avoiding blackouts in the future. California has 17M cars. If 30% were electric with 10KWh charge usable for V2G, that's nearly 50GWh. That would be enough to let grid survive most demand peaks.

after sales ban *proposal

Bad newsweek. Bad. https://i.imgflip.com/1ys0zg.jpg

Reply on news.ycombinator.com