Posted on 08/10/2023 6:32:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Hint: 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, mandating the end of gasoline-powered personal vehicle sales in the next decade, and is already planning to exploit its monopoly on vehicle energy for its own ends. This proposal in particular exploits that monopoly to cover up the insane and destructive energy policies of the Democrat government monopoly in Sacramento. Internal combustion vehicles and their decentralized, independent power sourcing are still the best choice for freedom — which is why California Democrats want to eradicate them.
Redistributionists. Electricity to each according to his need.
Something else. This bidirectionally thing only works if you plug in the EV to charge. If you unplug the EV ain’t no reverse flow happening. Of course the trick is to know when that is occurring.
Well you are to be commended for doing what’s needed to take of you and yours. You are among 10% at most. You would be on the right side of the door of the fallout shelter when the others are pouring on it to be let in while the bombs are falling
This would work if power delivery went both ways.
It would have to be designed into the charging units.
I don’t think Tesla would be dumb enough to do this on theirs but for sure the ones getting Fed Funds.
The home chargers would be the best bet to investigate as these would make the most sense.
I don’t think Tesla would be dumb enough to do this on theirs but for sure the ones getting Fed Funds.
Don't get me started on the kickback Tesla gets. Most especially in the carbon tax oil refineries pay (which is passed on to gasoline customers at the pump, I read it's about 75 cents per gallon) either to the government or to Tesla (if Tesla sells them carbon credits at a cheaper rate). The selling of carbon credits is one of Tesla's main profit sources, and the government mandates it.
The home chargers would be the best bet to investigate as these would make the most sense.
Agreed. And a lot of us conservatives who have EV's and solar to give us some energy independence have chargers that aren't networked. My Level 2 charger at home isn't hard-wired. It plugs into a simple 240V NEMA 14-50 outlet (dryer outlet) I installed for the EV. See comment # 54 for details of how conservatives use solar and an EV to give us more control over our energy needs. In other words, neither my EV nor my charger nor the circuit that powers it are bi-directional.
Shifting power to the vehicles, and then pulling it back when the state decides to apply it elsewhere.
What a hooker does when you fall asleep.
I go back and forth on Elon.
Yea he got lots of funding from the gov but unlike many of them, he seems to be doing the right things.
He is now the world leader in EV and in Space.
He also seems to know more what is really going on in the world than the USA Congress.
Again, I go back and forth on him and definitely see your point.
Rumor has it that PG&E every now and then tweaks the sine wave of the power on the grid to put inverters in California in protective mode for a few minutes to keep them from putting power onto the grid. (And thus, reduce how much PG&E pays them for power, since California until recently had net metering and still does for solar customers still on old contracts.)
That's not how they see us.
They see us as slaves. They do all this in order to make us see us as slaves, so we won't fight them anymore.
Also, since your charging outlet will have special equipment on it to sell the power back, they'll know which outlet you are using to charge your car.
Boom! You are now paying $20 to charge your car, and they'll pay you $10 for grabbing your power.
It's a lose-lose all the way around.
I am sure PG&E does that, plus edison and SDG&E too.
i’d love to have solar on my mobile home, but no solar company will put it in for me, told me the house must be on a foundation.
I’d rather have solar on the ground so that it’s easier to clean twice per year. But I have no place like that that’s not shaded. So my solar panels are on my roof (standard home).
Begin...
Flew in from Miami Beach, B.O.A.C
Didn’t get to bed last night
On the way, the paper bag was on my knee
Man, I had a dreadful flight
[Chorus]
I’m back in the U.S.S.R.
You don’t know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the U.S.S.R.
This mieda is now totally out of hand.
Bloat.
5.56mm
Willie Green has gone from trains to EV’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.