EV batteries

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
Found this on another forum I frequent.


Aluminum ion batteries, which apparently charge 60 times faster than lithium ion, hold 3 times the energy per pound, won't kill Junior when he eats one (they are also looking at button batteries) while not being toxic to the environment. They also don't overheat and won't explode, and can be made to fit existing EV form factors. So, picture a Tesla with a battery pack that weighs half as much but has twice the range, since not only would you need fewer batteries you'd also not need the existing heating/cooling gear for the battery pack. The batteries are also not temp sensitive like lithium, keeping pretty much the same charge from 0F to whatever temp on the upper side.

This would make infrastructure the last obstacle to wide scale EV adoption, we still need to be able to generate and deliver the power all those EVs need. And for that, I say start building breeder nuclear reactors across the country. I'd even support building one in my back yard (not literally, of course, but in the small town I live in.) Breeders don't generate the waste because the fuel is reprocessed and used again for up to 500 years, although we'd need to fund research starting now on what is done with the old fuel when it can no longer be reprocessed. If this aluminum oxide battery pans out and they did the breeders, we could be an all EV nation inside 20 years.
 
Last edited:

Euurx

Cat Lover
Intermediate User
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Messages
864
Reaction score
1,412
Location
NY

Denver1357

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
50
Reaction score
142
Interesting about using the breeder reactor to supply the juice for the batteries.
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
Interesting about using the breeder reactor to supply the juice for the batteries.
Gotta do something, depending on sunshine and unicorn farts isn't going to cut the mustard when you add 300 million EVs just to the US alone. Perhaps one day they'll be able to do it with solar panels and wind generators, but the only tech I'm aware of that will do the job right now is the nuclear reactors. There aren't enough rivers to dam for hydro, and the only thing left would be fossil fuels.
 

RadarScout

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
7,240
Reaction score
13,213
Location
Land of Crimson Tide!
Interestingly, I was looking at info about electronic vehicles and all the other stuff involved. I learned that the costs of EVs are coming down, but replacement battery packs would cost in the neighborhood of $15k. The batteries will last between 5-8 years. It seems after ~ 6 years, you either buy a new vehicle, or hopefully have $15k saved up to replace the battery pack. The good news is, the miles you can travel per full charge is up to between 300-400 miles. That's about what we get on a tank of gas in our SUV. The availability of charging stations is going to be another determining factor for people deciding to go electric. Most of the EVs have an equivalence of ~340 hp. Not too shabby.
I wonder how well jammers and detectors play with all the AI and other electronics pulsing throughout the vehicle. Does the windshield have any special considerations as far as interfering with a detector?
@STS-134
 

kort677

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
68
Reaction score
141
Interestingly, I was looking at info about electronic vehicles and all the other stuff involved. I learned that the costs of EVs are coming down, but replacement battery packs would cost in the neighborhood of $15k. The batteries will last between 5-8 years. It seems after ~ 6 years, you either buy a new vehicle, or hopefully have $15k saved up to replace the battery pack.
@STS-134
I don't know the source of your info but the two EVs that have been out the longest the nissan leaf and tesla both have instances of the batteries lasting longer than 5 to 8 years. the early leafs suffer from massive battery degradation because of poor chemistry but that issue has been corrected in later models and there are teslas with hundreds of thousands of miles on their clocks and their batteries are fine.
 

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
13,650
Location
Saratoga, CA
Gotta do something, depending on sunshine and unicorn farts isn't going to cut the mustard when you add 300 million EVs just to the US alone. Perhaps one day they'll be able to do it with solar panels and wind generators, but the only tech I'm aware of that will do the job right now is the nuclear reactors. There aren't enough rivers to dam for hydro, and the only thing left would be fossil fuels.
There's a crap ton of roof space in the US, most of which receives a lot of energy from the Sun each day, and either reflects it back into space or turns it into heat. Converting every vehicle into an EV would be the equivalent of increasing constant load on the grid by about 20-50%. In other words, all of the other stuff we have already consumes more energy than all vehicles would take, if they were converted to EVs overnight.

So there's two ways to do this, and we'll use a combination of these two. First is to increase solar generation, and give people economic incentives to charge during peak solar so you don't have to store that energy, because it's always more efficient to use electricity when it's generated than to store it for use later.

bEV-675px.png



The second is to charge vehicles at night, when household usage is low because everyone is sleeping. In this case, existing power plants that have already been built can provide the energy (instead of ramping down for the night and back up in the morning).

Interestingly, I was looking at info about electronic vehicles and all the other stuff involved. I learned that the costs of EVs are coming down, but replacement battery packs would cost in the neighborhood of $15k. The batteries will last between 5-8 years. It seems after ~ 6 years, you either buy a new vehicle, or hopefully have $15k saved up to replace the battery pack.
You shouldn't have to ever replace the battery pack, except in rare cases. It's all about cycles.

prm5bbtgb7661.png

Big battery = most of the range not used every day = small depth-of-discharge = even more cycles out of the battery. Plus of course, each cycle itself is more miles. https://www.rdforum.org/threads/107441/#post-1553738

Let's assume that each battery pack can last for 1000 cycles. If you have a 300 mile range, that's 300k miles (Tesla apparently estimates around 1500 cycles). How many cars even travel 450k miles in their lifetime?
I wonder how well jammers and detectors play with all the AI and other electronics pulsing throughout the vehicle. Does the windshield have any special considerations as far as interfering with a detector?
@STS-134
I haven't noticed any issues. The big issues with PHEVs and BEVs are with interference in the mediumwave (AM radio) band. In my PHEV, I can hear the static over the AM radio when the inverter is working. For example, I can hear static over 680 AM, the most powerful AM station in the SF Bay Area, in Monterey! And when that inverter is working to drive the motors or do regenerative braking, it has become almost inaudible by the time I get to Coalinga and Kettleman City, about 150 miles from the transmitter. In my pure ICE propulsion cars, I could hear this station as far away as Grapevine, more than 250 miles from the transmitter. I know it's the inverter because if I can put the PHEV in a mode where the engine is driving the wheels mechanically and the inverter is inactive, the static temporarily disappears. And of course if I stop the vehicle, I can hear AM stations just fine.

But up in the RADAR bands? Not really a problem, regardless of what the inverter is doing.
I don't know the source of your info but the two EVs that have been out the longest the nissan leaf and tesla both have instances of the batteries lasting longer than 5 to 8 years. the early leafs suffer from massive battery degradation because of poor chemistry but that issue has been corrected in later models and there are teslas with hundreds of thousands of miles on their clocks and their batteries are fine.
The Leaf still sucks. They still don't have any form of active battery cooling and rely entirely on passive airflow to cool it, which causes the batteries to overheat and die early. This is especially true when it's fast charging and the vehicle isn't moving to generate airflow. Pretty much everyone has active battery cooling except Nissan. GM's got its own issues but they relate to motors and not batteries (namely I have to question the 92 mph hard speed limit in the Bolt because of poorly designed motors/gearing ratio that results in them hitting a motor RPM limit at that speed and requiring a speed limiter to kick in and cut power).
 
Last edited:

RadarScout

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
7,240
Reaction score
13,213
Location
Land of Crimson Tide!
I don't know the source of your info but the two EVs that have been out the longest the nissan leaf and tesla both have instances of the batteries lasting longer than 5 to 8 years. the early leafs suffer from massive battery degradation because of poor chemistry but that issue has been corrected in later models and there are teslas with hundreds of thousands of miles on their clocks and their batteries are fine.
I guess I got the specific answer of 5-8 years is because I googled the specific question.

But up in the RADAR bands? Not really a problem, regardless of what the inverter is doing.
Any issues for jammers? I'm not sure of collision avoidance systems used.
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
There's a crap ton of roof space in the US, most of which receives a lot of energy from the Sun each day, and either reflects it back into space or turns it into heat. Converting every vehicle into an EV would be the equivalent of increasing constant load on the grid by about 20-50%. In other words, all of the other stuff we have already consumes more energy than all vehicles would take, if they were converted to EVs overnight.

So there's two ways to do this, and we'll use a combination of these two. First is to increase solar generation, and give people economic incentives to charge during peak solar so you don't have to store that energy, because it's always more efficient to use electricity when it's generated than to store it for use later.

View attachment 179629


The second is to charge vehicles at night, when household usage is low because everyone is sleeping. In this case, existing power plants that have already been built can provide the energy (instead of ramping down for the night and back up in the morning).
Supposedly there's enough rooftop space to replace 40 percent of the total power used in the US using solar panels, but those panels still need to be built and that takes time. Consider that EV panels are not US-exclusive. Spain, for example, allows no new construction without the roof being lined with panels, so US consumers would be competing with consumers around the world. Not to mention, there are states that already can't quite manage the electrical load needed. It could take decades to get solar on every house.

As an aside, I've always wondered why large stores like Wal-Mart aren't already covering their parking lots with solar panels. The benefit would be two-fold; the store would generate far more power than it takes to run the store, and parking under cover means on hot days their customer's car interiors won't be nearly as hot, saving the gasoline used to cool cars from the 150+ degrees an interior can reach when parked outside. And, people would be more willing to shop when it's raining since they'd be able to get their crap out to their cars without getting soaked or covered in snow (which I'm sure an engineering solution for clearing snow from panels in a commercial application without damaging the cars underneath can be developed.) The profits from selling excess power back to the grid would likely pay for the entire project in about 5 years. They could even put in EV chargers, call it Wal-Juice and charge 5 cents per KWh less than the local utility which would still be quite a bit more than the local utility would pay for it.

Then there's still the matter of electrical storage. If every roof in the US were dedicated to solar, where does that power go? It would need to go somewhere, because those EVs will be at work, not at home, and unless every parking spot had power that car's not available to be charged. So, either every house will need a battery bank or the utilities will need to store it somewhere. The world's not going to switch from 9AM-5PM to 9PM-5AM just so people's cars can be at home to be charged. Nor will business be willing to absorb the cost to charge their employees cars free of charge.

Speaking of the utilities, they already try to kill solar whenever saturation reaches the 5 percent mark because then it starts cutting into their profit margins. And if you put a battery bank into every house, that homeowner will no longer feel the need to be connected to the grid. Example, in California a solar setup isn't going to be nearly as profitable for the homeowner after 2022 as it is now. The utility will be paying quite a bit less for solar power than it does now, to the point that it will take 19.7 years to pay back the cost of the solar panels instead of the 7.2 years the current regs allow for. What's the expected panel life again, 20 years? This means in California, the supposed green mecca of the world, the homeowner will take the equipment risk while the utility will make the profits. It's also illegal to disconnect from the grid, so even if you don't use the grid for anything, you have a battery bank and the switch for the utility line stays off, you'll be paying the utility a minimum connection fee. None of this is an incentive to put solar panels on the roof. But, big government to the rescue, as of Jan 1 2020 no house may be built in California without solar panels, with very minor restrictions, so homeowners are now forced to take that risk for the utility company.

When people think about pie in the sky, they forget that the current bakers of pie want to be paid for their effort, and the bakers aren't going to stand by and watch their pie-making livelyhood float away. But don't let any of this fool you; I support going all electric, and would love to have 100 percent solar on a house not connected to the grid. Financially though, it doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
13,650
Location
Saratoga, CA
Any issues for jammers? I'm not sure of collision avoidance systems used.
I don't see why there would be, unless the CAS is using LIDAR.
Supposedly there's enough rooftop space to replace 40 percent of the total power used in the US using solar panels, but those panels still need to be built and that takes time. Consider that EV panels are not US-exclusive. Spain, for example, allows no new construction without the roof being lined with panels, so US consumers would be competing with consumers around the world. Not to mention, there are states that already can't quite manage the electrical load needed. It could take decades to get solar on every house.
Solar is already required on all new construction. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/6740...al-ok-to-requiring-solar-panels-on-new-houses
As an aside, I've always wondered why large stores like Wal-Mart aren't already covering their parking lots with solar panels. The benefit would be two-fold; the store would generate far more power than it takes to run the store, and parking under cover means on hot days their customer's car interiors won't be nearly as hot, saving the gasoline used to cool cars from the 150+ degrees an interior can reach when parked outside. And, people would be more willing to shop when it's raining since they'd be able to get their crap out to their cars without getting soaked or covered in snow (which I'm sure an engineering solution for clearing snow from panels in a commercial application without damaging the cars underneath can be developed.) The profits from selling excess power back to the grid would likely pay for the entire project in about 5 years. They could even put in EV chargers, call it Wal-Juice and charge 5 cents per KWh less than the local utility which would still be quite a bit more than the local utility would pay for it.

Then there's still the matter of electrical storage. If every roof in the US were dedicated to solar, where does that power go? It would need to go somewhere, because those EVs will be at work, not at home, and unless every parking spot had power that car's not available to be charged. So, either every house will need a battery bank or the utilities will need to store it somewhere. The world's not going to switch from 9AM-5PM to 9PM-5AM just so people's cars can be at home to be charged.
Have you visited the Google campus? They have parking lots covered with solar panels and lined with EVSEs. They have solar panels on a lot of their buildings. But I'm pretty sure the cars consume more energy than the panels generate. Solar is at most around 1300 W/m^2, and solar panels are maybe 20-30% efficient. That means 260 W/m^2 of solar panels at the peak time of day, and less at all other times. To offset a 6.6 kW EVSE, you need around 25 m^2 of solar panels. And that's if the Sun is directly overhead on a cloudless day, which it never is outside of the tropics. And that only occurs at noon time. I'd say most of the time, you probably need at least 50 m^2 of solar panels just to offset one car that's charging.
Nor will business be willing to absorb the cost to charge their employees cars free of charge.
The state can easily mandate that businesses or commercial buildings install EV charging equipment. The state can offer incentives and tax breaks for doing so. And since the state has control over electric rates through the public utilities commission, the state could further reduce electricity rates for businesses that install EV charging equipment (for their entire usage, not just the EV chargers) and jack up everyone else's rates as a penalty for not doing so.
Speaking of the utilities, they already try to kill solar whenever saturation reaches the 5 percent mark because then it starts cutting into their profit margins. And if you put a battery bank into every house, that homeowner will no longer feel the need to be connected to the grid. Example, in California a solar setup isn't going to be nearly as profitable for the homeowner after 2022 as it is now. The utility will be paying quite a bit less for solar power than it does now, to the point that it will take 19.7 years to pay back the cost of the solar panels instead of the 7.2 years the current regs allow for. What's the expected panel life again, 20 years? This means in California, the supposed green mecca of the world, the homeowner will take the equipment risk while the utility will make the profits. It's also illegal to disconnect from the grid, so even if you don't use the grid for anything, you have a battery bank and the switch for the utility line stays off, you'll be paying the utility a minimum connection fee. None of this is an incentive to put solar panels on the roof. But, big government to the rescue, as of Jan 1 2020 no house may be built in California without solar panels, with very minor restrictions, so homeowners are now forced to take that risk for the utility company.
Ah yes, I see you've found the link to the solar mandate. And you've also basically summarized why I don't really have an interest in putting solar on my own roof. Every year, I get people trying to install solar on my house and I always tell them that the day they get PG&E to put in writing that they will not change the electric rates, or at least the ratio of the cost per kWh at the peak time vs. offpeak, nor will they change the hours that are defined as peak vs. offpeak, then I will consider it. Because otherwise it's like being asked to commit to playing a game where the other party is allowed to change the rules in the middle of the game and I have no recourse if they change the rules. Every time they've made changes to the rate plans, they push the peak hours later and later (and screw over people with solar in the process). It used to be that 9am-3pm was peak, and now 5pm-8pm. Solar panels hardly produce any energy after 5pm, especially outside the months of May through August. They always try to sell me panels based on saying that they can eliminate my electric bill today, and my next question is always, well, how about in 5 years when PG&E changes the rates again and boots me off my existing rate plan? They never have an answer for that. I think ultimately, the solution is for city governments to take over the electric distribution system using eminent domain and operate it themselves. The two cities in this county that do that, Palo Alto and Santa Clara, have electricity rates that are 30-50% less than what PG&E charges.
 

Yippeekyaa

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
772
Reaction score
2,440
I don't see why there would be, unless the CAS is using LIDAR.

Solar is already required on all new construction. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/6740...al-ok-to-requiring-solar-panels-on-new-houses

Have you visited the Google campus? They have parking lots covered with solar panels and lined with EVSEs. They have solar panels on a lot of their buildings. But I'm pretty sure the cars consume more energy than the panels generate. Solar is at most around 1300 W/m^2, and solar panels are maybe 20-30% efficient. That means 260 W/m^2 of solar panels at the peak time of day, and less at all other times. To offset a 6.6 kW EVSE, you need around 25 m^2 of solar panels. And that's if the Sun is directly overhead on a cloudless day, which it never is outside of the tropics. And that only occurs at noon time. I'd say most of the time, you probably need at least 50 m^2 of solar panels just to offset one car that's charging.

The state can easily mandate that businesses or commercial buildings install EV charging equipment. The state can offer incentives and tax breaks for doing so. And since the state has control over electric rates through the public utilities commission, the state could further reduce electricity rates for businesses that install EV charging equipment (for their entire usage, not just the EV chargers) and jack up everyone else's rates as a penalty for not doing so.

Ah yes, I see you've found the link to the solar mandate. And you've also basically summarized why I don't really have an interest in putting solar on my own roof. Every year, I get people trying to install solar on my house and I always tell them that the day they get PG&E to put in writing that they will not change the electric rates, or at least the ratio of the cost per kWh at the peak time vs. offpeak, nor will they change the hours that are defined as peak vs. offpeak, then I will consider it. Because otherwise it's like being asked to commit to playing a game where the other party is allowed to change the rules in the middle of the game and I have no recourse if they change the rules. Every time they've made changes to the rate plans, they push the peak hours later and later (and screw over people with solar in the process). It used to be that 9am-3pm was peak, and now 5pm-8pm. Solar panels hardly produce any energy after 5pm, especially outside the months of May through August. They always try to sell me panels based on saying that they can eliminate my electric bill today, and my next question is always, well, how about in 5 years when PG&E changes the rates again and boots me off my existing rate plan? They never have an answer for that. I think ultimately, the solution is for city governments to take over the electric distribution system using eminent domain and operate it themselves. The two cities in this county that do that, Palo Alto and Santa Clara, have electricity rates that are 30-50% less than what PG&E charges.
Familiar with net metering? Some states including my home state have this as law. They dont care how much solar you put on your roof. But they will not pay you for the overage you produce from said panels. If you average 50kw a month usage and produce 100kw via solar, they will not pay you for the 50kw extra. They will happily take that extra energy that you subsidized from your wallet and not even give you a thank you in return while selling it to your neighbor. For those in net metering areas there are two options. Put up just enough solar so the annual usage vs production is zero or go full off grid wih a middle finger to the utility company.

back on topic with ev batteries. My 10 year old gen 3 prius has the original battery and zero issues. If it does have an issue the diy markets are ripe with low cost repair options. Plus there are third party rebuilders that will swap out the battery with a rebulit unit for under $2k and give a lifetime warranty. Mass market ev batteries will most likely go through a similar situation as the prius batteries.
 

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
13,650
Location
Saratoga, CA
Familiar with net metering? Some states including my home state have this as law. They dont care how much solar you put on your roof. But they will not pay you for the overage you produce from said panels. If you average 50kw a month usage and produce 100kw via solar, they will not pay you for the 50kw extra. They will happily take that extra energy that you subsidized from your wallet and not even give you a thank you in return while selling it to your neighbor. For those in net metering areas there are two options. Put up just enough solar so the annual usage vs production is zero or go full off grid wih a middle finger to the utility company.
Yep, those are called NEM plans. CA requires them to pay you at the same price you'd be paying them. PG&E's NEM-1 plans (closed to new customers as of 3-4 years ago) basically allow you to use the grid as a 100% efficient battery, if you select the tiered (non Time Of Use) plan. Also, NEM-1 customers are paid exactly what they would be paying for the energy at any given time. NEM-2 requires you to be on a Time Of Use plan, and there are additional Non-Bypassable Charges (NBCs) which are essentially about 1-2 cents/kWh that you pay when you take energy from the grid, but aren't paid back when you feed energy back to the grid. Once a year, they do what's called a True-Up, where they tally all of your contributions to the grid as well as energy taken from the grid, and figure out who owes who. If you are a net generator and you have a net negative balance, then you get paid. But the big thing is that even NEM-1 customers aren't guaranteed that the tiered plan will continue to exist for the entire term of their contract; if the entire rate plan ceases to exist, then they won't be able to use the grid as a 100% efficient battery anymore.

Not paying you for negative credits is BS though. Sounds like some people need to b**ch to your state legislature and make them change the law.
back on topic with ev batteries. My 10 year old gen 3 prius has the original battery and zero issues. If it does have an issue the diy markets are ripe with low cost repair options. Plus there are third party rebuilders that will swap out the battery with a rebulit unit for under $2k and give a lifetime warranty. Mass market ev batteries will most likely go through a similar situation as the prius batteries.
Yeah well, as I mentioned before, (non-plugin) HEV batteries rarely ever have issues because the computer tries to always keep them between 40-70% or something similar. While they are put through extremely high current and power levels compared to their capacity, they're generally designed for that, and they don't need to be very high energy/volume because they're so small (in both storage capacity and physical size). HEV batteries are also not too expensive to replace when they do die. BEV batteries are large enough that they go through so few cycles and have such a low depth-of-discharge that they should last the life of the car. PHEVs kind of occupy a middle ground, with larger and more expensive batteries that are stressed through a lot of cycles.
 

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
I don't see why there would be, unless the CAS is using LIDAR.

Solar is already required on all new construction. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/6740...al-ok-to-requiring-solar-panels-on-new-houses

Have you visited the Google campus? They have parking lots covered with solar panels and lined with EVSEs. They have solar panels on a lot of their buildings. But I'm pretty sure the cars consume more energy than the panels generate. Solar is at most around 1300 W/m^2, and solar panels are maybe 20-30% efficient. That means 260 W/m^2 of solar panels at the peak time of day, and less at all other times. To offset a 6.6 kW EVSE, you need around 25 m^2 of solar panels. And that's if the Sun is directly overhead on a cloudless day, which it never is outside of the tropics. And that only occurs at noon time. I'd say most of the time, you probably need at least 50 m^2 of solar panels just to offset one car that's charging.

The state can easily mandate that businesses or commercial buildings install EV charging equipment. The state can offer incentives and tax breaks for doing so. And since the state has control over electric rates through the public utilities commission, the state could further reduce electricity rates for businesses that install EV charging equipment (for their entire usage, not just the EV chargers) and jack up everyone else's rates as a penalty for not doing so.

Ah yes, I see you've found the link to the solar mandate. And you've also basically summarized why I don't really have an interest in putting solar on my own roof. Every year, I get people trying to install solar on my house and I always tell them that the day they get PG&E to put in writing that they will not change the electric rates, or at least the ratio of the cost per kWh at the peak time vs. offpeak, nor will they change the hours that are defined as peak vs. offpeak, then I will consider it. Because otherwise it's like being asked to commit to playing a game where the other party is allowed to change the rules in the middle of the game and I have no recourse if they change the rules. Every time they've made changes to the rate plans, they push the peak hours later and later (and screw over people with solar in the process). It used to be that 9am-3pm was peak, and now 5pm-8pm. Solar panels hardly produce any energy after 5pm, especially outside the months of May through August. They always try to sell me panels based on saying that they can eliminate my electric bill today, and my next question is always, well, how about in 5 years when PG&E changes the rates again and boots me off my existing rate plan? They never have an answer for that. I think ultimately, the solution is for city governments to take over the electric distribution system using eminent domain and operate it themselves. The two cities in this county that do that, Palo Alto and Santa Clara, have electricity rates that are 30-50% less than what PG&E charges.
Not a big fan of making government bigger. Having said that, water, power and fuel are things that should be under the thumb of government. But if they're going to do it for electricity, they'll need to take control of both generation and delivery of power, otherwise we'll be in another Enron situation where they shut off in-state production to force purchasing from the spot markets without passing the increase along to the consumers. Well, not directly anyway, since the taxpayer is also the consumer.
 

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
13,650
Location
Saratoga, CA
Not a big fan of making government bigger. Having said that, water, power and fuel are things that should be under the thumb of government. But if they're going to do it for electricity, they'll need to take control of both generation and delivery of power, otherwise we'll be in another Enron situation where they shut off in-state production to force purchasing from the spot markets without passing the increase along to the consumers. Well, not directly anyway, since the taxpayer is also the consumer.
It was always dumb to put public utilities in the hands of investor-owned utilities with fiduciary duties to their shareholders, IMHO.

And making sure market players operate in the best interests of society is quite literally one of the roles of government. Free markets are very good at making sure that individual market participants operate in their own best interests. Take monopolies for example: all companies would love to have them, and all companies run by rational people would leverage one monopoly to gain another when possible. But that's not in the best interests of society overall, so we need government to make it unlawful to do that. It's also rational that someone toward the end of his career should falsify financial statements to gain as much out of the company while he can, but that's also not in the best interests of society. Etc. With respect to electricity, the government can and should adjust pricing to give people economic incentives to do the right thing (tax undesirable behavior and give credits for desirable behavior), then let the market do its thing within that framework.
 
Last edited:

Fireball

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
381
Reaction score
549
...to do the right thing (tax undesirable behavior and give credits for desirable behavior), then let the market do its thing within that framework.
I was with you right up until this point. The problem with this is the "right" thing changes with the political winds. You can equate it with California's constantly changing net metering laws, where what was the right thing to do yesterday (NEM1) is a big screwing today (NEM2), and being forced to stand in line for an even bigger screwing tomorrow (NEM3 + CSM.) If this sort of thing is going to be codified, then it needs to only be done through voter approved measures and not legislated measures. Otherwise you aren't going to know from one year to the next what the "right" thing to do is and that's going to cost everyone a ton.
Post automatically merged:

Took a look at doing this to my wife's VW Squareback I am restoring until I saw the cost of the Tesla batteries required to power it.
Yeah, not cheap but if this aluminum battery thing takes off in the next year or two, and I think it will since lithium is hard enough to find in good times and these times are not good, then we may see battery costs come down by 75 percent while each cell's capacity goes up by a factor of 3. This would cut battery costs to 5-10 percent of what they are now for an equal range battery pack without the need to spend hours recharging. I'm already changing the plan for the truck I'm working on, setting it up to run a high powered gasoline engine now but able to easily swap to an electric drivetrain when it makes sense to.
 
Last edited:

STS-134

Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
13,650
Location
Saratoga, CA
I was with you right up until this point. The problem with this is the "right" thing changes with the political winds.
And it should constantly change, just as the right direction to sail or fly changes based on what people on the bridge or in the cockpit are seeing. Continual course correction is necessary to make sure you don't crash and should be based on new data coming in.
You can equate it with California's constantly changing net metering laws, where what was the right thing to do yesterday (NEM1) is a big screwing today (NEM2), and being forced to stand in line for an even bigger screwing tomorrow (NEM3 + CSM.)
The problem wasn't the introduction of NEM2 and NEM3. It was not giving people who committed to solar grandfathered NEM rules (which is currently done for 15-20 years) *and* grandfathered rate plans as far as time of day and the ratio of peak to off-peak. But that's an implementation issue, not an issue with the concept of incentives.

In any case, the results of the incentives that were given can be seen in the data (this as of 2018):

EV+emissions+MPG+equivalent.png

If this sort of thing is going to be codified, then it needs to only be done through voter approved measures and not legislated measures. Otherwise you aren't going to know from one year to the next what the "right" thing to do is and that's going to cost everyone a ton.
Yikes. The last thing I want to have is to have the voters directly approving every single action of the PUC. That's why we elect representatives to oversee the PUC that oversees the rates. If a ship had every crew member vote on which direction to sail, it wouldn't be able to effectively operate.
 
Last edited:

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
96,578
Messages
1,469,649
Members
24,773
Latest member
downhiller2010
Top