Guess Where California Plans To Get Energy To “Stabilize”‘ Its Power Grid?
Hotair | 08/10/2023 | Ed MorrisseyHint: It’s not fossil fuels. It’s not nuclear power. It’s not even wind or solar, although the state will undoubtedly keep expanding both.
The answer? California’s largest electric utility PG&E wants to suck the batteries of electric-vehicle owners plugged into charging stations to stabilize the grid during unstable periods. The Ford F-150 already allows for bidirectional charging, but that was sold as a benefit to the owner as a kind of independent generator for households during blackouts. PG&E wants to use it to commandeer all EV batteries and use their power to prevent grid collapse:
“It’s been said before, California’s power grid will have to expand in order to meet the demand for more energy. PG&E’s CEO Patricia Poppe has come up with an “unconventional” idea, using electric cars to send excess power back to the grid to prevent blackouts. …
“Lawmakers in Sacramento are helping to move things along. For example, Senate Bill 233 would make bi-directional charging mandatory for all new electric vehicles.
“Now the question is how quickly can that electrical connection be up and running in any ordinary home to make vehicle-to-grid a reality.”
Does anyone see the problem here? California’s power grid is destabilizing for a number of reasons, mainly from nonsensical and hypocritical public policies. Chief among those are (a) a refusal to use scalable power sources (oil, gas, coal, nuclear) for demand at current levels, and (b) forcing Californians to transfer their vehicles to the grid rather than use gasoline for independent power, thus escalating demand on the grid dramatically.
This proposal doesn’t solve either of those problems. It instead creates a kind of three-card Monty with the grid — shifting power to the vehicles, and then pulling it back when the state decides to apply it elsewhere. It’s only an illusion of a solution; no additional power gets created. PG&E and the state would simply confiscate that power for their own uses as they see fit. Technically, the grid would operate more efficiently if it never charged the EVs at all, considering the inevitable power losses that would take place in regional “bidirectional charging.”
It’s the ultimate in authoritarian redistribution — no real production, and lots of opportunity for losses and scarcity rationing.
And what does that mean for car owners? PG&E argues that cars are parked 95% of the time, a rationalization for energy seizure which may be true but is irrelevant. The issue for car owners is having the car function the (arguable) 5% of the time they need to travel — to work, school, social functions, and commerce.
What happens when car owners wake up in the morning to go to work to find that their car has been drained overnight to “stabilize the grid”? What happens when they all plug them in at the same time to get them charged enough to go to work? Wouldn’t that sudden demand destabilize the grid?
Nor is that the only issue for car owners in this new proposal. Unlike gas tanks, which can last for decades, batteries have a finite number of charge/discharge cycles before they begin to fail. Bloomberg noted that concern near the end of their otherwise sunny report on this idea:
“Utilities will need to offer drivers incentives, such as paying them for the kilowatt hours they contribute. One study estimates ratepayers could save as much as $1 billion a year from using the technology.
“However, some EV owners have reservations about the potential impacts on their car battery’s lifespan, while concerns linger about the installation adding an estimated $3,700 to an EV’s cost, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.”
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? This proposal would cost consumers more, shorten the lives of their already-too-expensive vehicles, with the only benefit to consumers being a refund for power they bought to charge the car the first time — which they would have to spend again to charge it after PG&E drains it. I’d bet that consumers won’t even get a full refund for that power use, and that PG&E ends up profiting from the charge/discharge/recharge cycle. Amazingly, neither Bloomberg nor ABC7 even thinks about that issue, let alone investigates it to any extent at all. Bloomberg just passes along the happy talk about A Billion Dollars In Savings!! without wondering how consumers will use their cars without buying the same power twice with those “savings” — and likely more.
There’s nothing wrong with owning an EV if you choose to do so. This, however, isn’t a choice. California is forcing its citizens into EVs . . .
Bonus article:
Rivian Tires Are Lasting As Little As 6,000 Miles (EV Truck)
Jalopnik | 08/10/2023 | Collin WoodardThe Rivian R1T and R1S are both super cool electric vehicles, offering huge power, impressive range and distinctive styling. They aren’t cheap, but if you can afford one, we suspect you’ll find it’s an absolute hoot to drive. Sadly, no vehicle is perfect, and apparently, one downside of owning a Rivian is that they tend to eat through tires much faster than you’d expect given that the Pirellis they come with from the factory are warrantied for up to 50,000 miles.
According to The Drive, owners have been complaining on Rivian forums that their tires, specifically their front tires, haven’t lasted as long as they expected. At least one owner claims to have had to replace theirs after only 6,000 miles. Considering they’re large EVs with big, heavy batteries, it’s not surprising to hear that tires wear out faster than they would if they were installed on, say, a Mazda Miata. But there’s more going on here than the fact that the R1T is heavy.
As it turns out, this excessive front tire wear can likely be tied back to Rivian’s “Conserve” drive mode. In order to maximize range, when you switch to Conserve, your Rivian switches from four-wheel drive to front-wheel drive and lowers the ride height. Sending more than 400 hp to the front wheels in a truck that weighs more than 7,000 lbs is bound to increase tire wear, but it appears that lowering the suspension also causes problems.
Apparently, the lowest ride height causes toe-in and more negative camber, which can accelerate and also cause uneven tire wear. According to one owner who drove in Conserve mode for 6,000 miles, the front tires lost an entire millimeter more than the rears. Which seems bad but also explains why Rivian has reportedly told owners not to use Conserve mode over long distances. Owners have also reported issues with the stock alignment.
So, essentially, Conserve mode gives you better range, but the changes that improve range also wear through tires faster. It’s a tradeoff that owners will need to weigh for themselves, although, as The Drive points out, owners who want to maximize range while minimizing treadwear can also get a more toe-out alignment that will help preserve their tires while driving in Conserve mode. Rotating tires regularly can also help. But ultimately, there’s no getting around the fact that you’re driving something that weighs as much as three Miatas.
I thought that California was just a soul-sucking state – guess I was wrong…
Suckas!
Like an 18 year old getting that first credit card..CHARGE IT!
California steps to grid collapse
Incentivize large scale unregulated solar energy production.
This pushes large amounts of energy on to the grid at a time when no one is using that energy.
Force energy producers to buy that energy.
This forces energy suppliers to sell energy to other grid systems at a negative price.
3 Negative prices incentivize suppliers to pull efficient base load generators offline.
The removal of base load generation leads to rolling blackouts 2 years later due to lack of capacity.
Pass NEM 3.0 to try to remove all that excess solar energy from the grid.
Ban gas stoves & heaters to create even more peak load at a time when the sun isn’t peaking.
Blame climate change.
Sounds like their plan.
Crucial to the plan of California grid collapse are:
1 Regulators that are completely unaware of how the system they regulate actually works.
2 An ideal goal founded in the hope that someone smart will figure out how to achieve the goal
3 Bags and bags and bags and bags of poor people’s money
4 Magic beans. All of them.
Huh. I guess IMAO comment script hates numbered lists.
1 this is number one
This is one with a period.
W this a w just for s&gs