ML

1 in 5 electric vehicle owners in California switched back to gas because charging their cars is a hassle, new research shows

Recommended Posts

Here is a link to the article

Key passages are these.

Standard home outlets generally put out about 120 volts of power at what electric vehicle aficionados call "Level 1" charging, while the high-powered specialty connections offer 240 volts of power and are known as "Level 2." By comparison, Tesla's "Superchargers," which can fully charge its cars in a little over an hour, offer 480 volts of direct current. 

and

Roughly one in five plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) owners switched back to owning gas-powered cars, in large part because charging the batteries was a pain in the… trunk, the researchers found. 

Of those who switched, over 70% lacked access to Level 2 charging at home, and slightly fewer than that lacked Level 2 connections at their workplace.

"If you don't have a Level 2, it's almost impossible," said Tynan (one of the researchers), who has tested a wide range of makes and models of PEVs over the years for his research.   

The research also notes that consumers are reluctant to use public charging stations but does not suggest any reasons for this.. 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Here is a link to the article

Key passages are these.

Standard home outlets generally put out about 120 volts of power at what electric vehicle aficionados call "Level 1" charging, while the high-powered specialty connections offer 240 volts of power and are known as "Level 2." By comparison, Tesla's "Superchargers," which can fully charge its cars in a little over an hour, offer 480 volts of direct current. 

and

Roughly one in five plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) owners switched back to owning gas-powered cars, in large part because charging the batteries was a pain in the… trunk, the researchers found. 

Of those who switched, over 70% lacked access to Level 2 charging at home, and slightly fewer than that lacked Level 2 connections at their workplace.

"If you don't have a Level 2, it's almost impossible," said Tynan (one of the researchers), who has tested a wide range of makes and models of PEVs over the years for his research.   

The research also notes that consumers are reluctant to use public charging stations but does not suggest any reasons for this.. 

Sound like a Greenie to your very core! Fossil fuels are providing the 120/240 voltage needed and batteries are not yet viable as fossil fuels! Wake the fuck up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

Here is a link to the article

Key passages are these.

Standard home outlets generally put out about 120 volts of power at what electric vehicle aficionados call "Level 1" charging, while the high-powered specialty connections offer 240 volts of power and are known as "Level 2." By comparison, Tesla's "Superchargers," which can fully charge its cars in a little over an hour, offer 480 volts of direct current. 

and

Roughly one in five plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) owners switched back to owning gas-powered cars, in large part because charging the batteries was a pain in the… trunk, the researchers found. 

Of those who switched, over 70% lacked access to Level 2 charging at home, and slightly fewer than that lacked Level 2 connections at their workplace.

"If you don't have a Level 2, it's almost impossible," said Tynan (one of the researchers), who has tested a wide range of makes and models of PEVs over the years for his research.   

The research also notes that consumers are reluctant to use public charging stations but does not suggest any reasons for this.. 

There is nothing too special about level 2, most homes either have 240 volt it or it can easily be installed. The big need is to get it installed in apartment building parking garages, which is coming.

Consumers are reluctant to use public charging as you phrase it because the vast majority of EV owners today have level 2 at home and simply never need to use public charging stations. They wake up every morning with a full battery. But of course you have had this explained to you many, many times...

But the thing you are truly obfuscating is the 80% customer retention rate! That is a winner in any book! It should have ice makers quaking in their boots.

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Here is a link to the article

Key passages are these.

Standard home outlets generally put out about 120 volts of power at what electric vehicle aficionados call "Level 1" charging, while the high-powered specialty connections offer 240 volts of power and are known as "Level 2." By comparison, Tesla's "Superchargers," which can fully charge its cars in a little over an hour, offer 480 volts of direct current. 

and

Roughly one in five plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) owners switched back to owning gas-powered cars, in large part because charging the batteries was a pain in the… trunk, the researchers found. 

Of those who switched, over 70% lacked access to Level 2 charging at home, and slightly fewer than that lacked Level 2 connections at their workplace.

"If you don't have a Level 2, it's almost impossible," said Tynan (one of the researchers), who has tested a wide range of makes and models of PEVs over the years for his research.   

The research also notes that consumers are reluctant to use public charging stations but does not suggest any reasons for this.. 

Yep. If you do not have at least a 6 kW L2 charger (nominal 240 VAC 30 Amp circuit), you are going to be disappointed unless you are really dedicated to the EV concept and you are well organized. Those folks should not have switched to EVs and they made the right decision to switch back. As L2 chargers become more widely available to more homes (apartments, dorms, urban street parking, etc.) EVs will make sense for more people. Most people who can consistently charge at work will also be OK.  There are also a few EV fanatics who plan their lives around charging during 2-hour shopping or dining trips, but I cannot believe they will ever be a big percentage of drivers.

If you do have decent home charging, then a lot of people will find an EV to be a lot more convenient than an ICE almost all of the time. I have not had any normal maintenance except tires on my cars since 2014. I spend less than 10 seconds a day on refueling. By contrast, an ICE needs 10 minutes a week at the gas station and an oil change at least twice a year.

Eventually, someone may invent a viable EV technology that supports hyper-fast charging, but we aren't there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a possibility that will grow with time; it's a hassle unless you have your own charging point at home, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don’t have a convenience store  with the chargers it’s going to feel like wasted time after 5 min. Super chargers for 15 min would work if you can pee, get a drink and grab a taco or burger. Travel is actually better if timing charging and meals work. Then you can blow 45 min without losing time. 
One of the reasons I have more of a wait and see position on the expansion of EV’s is range and charging tech. We’ll see how the new Tesla battery stacks up next year and how long to deploy them in mass. Even with that it may take another breakthrough in battery tech to get ranges up and of course quicker charging. 
We know Tesla can use more expensive components to gain range but the price may take a few years for the cheapest cars to come down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Eventually, someone may invent a viable EV technology that supports hyper-fast charging, but we aren't there yet.

"Super fast charging" will require both high voltage AND extremely high currents.

A typical human would not be able to handle the size and mass of the required "plug", much less the liquid-cooled "cord".

If any defect occurs in the connection, stand back!

It is possible to increase the number of "plugs" and "cords" to reduce charging time.

"Battery swapping" could be the ultimate answer.  Particularly if they can get the battery down to the size of, say, a soda can.

 

Edited by turbguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, markslawson said:

Here is a link to the article

Key passages are these.

Standard home outlets generally put out about 120 volts of power at what electric vehicle aficionados call "Level 1" charging, while the high-powered specialty connections offer 240 volts of power and are known as "Level 2." By comparison, Tesla's "Superchargers," which can fully charge its cars in a little over an hour, offer 480 volts of direct current.

Referring to a 240VAC connection as a "high-powered specialty connection" is silly. A home with electrical appliances generally uses 240 VAC receptacles for the clothes dryer and the stove, and hard-wired 240 VAC for AC, and hot water heater. none of these appliances are nearly as expensive as an EV, but we pay for these connections anyway. The extra cost of a 30 Amp 240 VAC receptacle connection is a much lower percentage of the TCO of an EV than it is of a clothes dryer. The cost of a direct 60 Amp 240 VAC connection is a much lower percentage of the TCO of an EV than it is of a central AC unit or water heater.  The cost of the actual charger (not the electrical installation) is now below $300 for a basic unit, so the cost of the electrical circuit dominates the total cost.

I charge my Model Y at 6 kW from a 30 Amp 240VAC  circuit in the garage.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, turbguy said:

"Super fast charging" will require both high voltage AND extremely high currents.

A typical human would not be able to handle the size and mass of the required "plug", much less the liquid-cooled "cord".

If any defect occurs in the connection, stand back!

It is possible to increase the number of "plugs" and "cords" to reduce charging time.

"Battery swapping" could be the ultimate answer.  Particularly if they can get the battery down to the size of, say, a soda can.

 

Yep, it's not simple and I don't know the answer. Tesla superchargers currently operate at up to 250 kW. They use a liquid-cooled cable, so if you are hanging around a supercharger station, I guess you should indeed stand back. The industry standard SAE J1772  charger interface and the Tesla interface are very sensitive to any defect and will instantly switch off the power to the cable if it detects a fault. Note that any high-powered energy transfer has a potential for a problem. The hose from the pump to the car carrying gasoline is at least as dangerous as the supercharger connection.

Either really big plugs or battery swapping would require specialized robots. That is a simple engineering problem, and I speculate that the system would be about the same cost as a big modern gasoline pump.

The problem with charging lies deep down at the cell level. Given infinite wattage, you still cannot charge an individual Lithium-ion cell from 0 to 100% any faster than you can charge your cell phone.  If my 75 kWh battery could handle it, I could charge in 18 minutes at 250 kW, But the battery cannot. If batteries were dirt cheap, I could have a grossly oversized battery that was partitioned into several partitions. I would only charge the partitions that were in the fast-charging state of charge (10% to 60%) and use a 1 MW charger to get about 300 miles of range in 4.5 minutes, then drive on down the road another 300 miles. Brute-force partitioning: use two partitions of 75 kW each, doubling the cost of the battery.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yep, it's not simple and I don't know the answer. Tesla superchargers currently operate at up to 250 kW. They use a liquid-cooled cable, so if you are hanging around a supercharger station, I guess you should indeed stand back. The industry standard SAE J1772  charger interface and the Tesla interface are very sensitive to any defect and will instantly switch off the power to the cable if it detects a fault. Note that any high-powered energy transfer has a potential for a problem. The hose from the pump to the car carrying gasoline is at least as dangerous as the supercharger connection.

Either really big plugs or battery swapping would require specialized robots. That is a simple engineering problem, and I speculate that the system would be about the same cost as a big modern gasoline pump.

The problem with charging lies deep down at the cell level. Given infinite wattage, you still cannot charge an individual Lithium-ion cell from 0 to 100% any faster than you can charge your cell phone.  If my 75 kWh battery could handle it, I could charge in 18 minutes at 250 kW, But the battery cannot. If batteries were dirt cheap, I could have a grossly oversized battery that was partitioned into several partitions. I would only charge the partitions that were in the fast-charging state of charge (10% to 60%) and use a 1 MW charger to get about 300 miles of range in 4.5 minutes, then drive on down the road another 300 miles. Brute-force partitioning: use two partitions of 75 kW each, doubling the cost of the battery.

 

Yup, there's real concrete issues to resolve with "super fast charging".

And you ain't gonna get  250 KW charger installed in your garage.

That said, EV's have very distinct advantages.

One friend owns a model S out here.  He has nothing but smiles.  On a recent 130 mile round trip from Laramie to Longmont, CO.  He said he had his hand on the wheel for about 4-5 minutes.  His wife (a passenger) prefers the autopilot to his driving!  He expects that Tesla's tech will make things much easier as they both age.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Yup, there's real concrete issues to resolve with "super fast charging".

And you ain't gonna get  250 KW charger installed in your garage.

That said, EV's have very distinct advantages.

One friend owns a model S out here.  He has nothing but smiles.  On a recent 130 mile round trip from Laramie to Longmont, CO.  He said he had his hand on the wheel for about 4-5 minutes.  His wife (a passenger) prefers the autopilot to his driving!  He expects that Tesla's tech will make things much easier as they both age.

We do not want and do not need more than 6 kW at home, because the car is there overnight. We only need 250 kW or better during a pit stop on a long trip. If you frequently drive on a long trip from home on the day after returning from a long trip, you can install a 12 kW charger on a 60 Amp circuit, but you are living a strange lifestyle.

I really, really need to quit being a control freak and learn to use autopilot. the Model Y is so smooth, stable, and quiet that I end up going far to fast at the speed of the fast traffic, which is more than 80 mph on the freeways. I should be doing about 70, both for safety and to improve range.

For those of you who don't know Tesla's strange terminology, "autopilot" is slightly enhanced speed control with lane following and radar following distance control. It is available standard in all Teslas. They cal the fancy stuff "full self-driving" and ti costs a whole bunch more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

We do not want and do not need more than 6 kW at home, because the car is there overnight. We only need 250 kW or better during a pit stop on a long trip. If you frequently drive on a long trip from home on the day after returning from a long trip, you can install a 12 kW charger on a 60 Amp circuit, but you are living a strange lifestyle.

I really, really need to quit being a control freak and learn to use autopilot. the Model Y is so smooth, stable, and quiet that I end up going far to fast at the speed of the fast traffic, which is more than 80 mph on the freeways. I should be doing about 70, both for safety and to improve range.

For those of you who don't know Tesla's strange terminology, "autopilot" is slightly enhanced speed control with lane following and radar following distance control. It is available standard in all Teslas. They cal the fancy stuff "full self-driving" and ti costs a whole bunch more.

I agree that a stage 2 charger would be adequate for a very large fraction of the public.  It would solve 99% of my "passenger" needs. I just require more utility and capability then Tesla currently offers.

Conservatively driven, my Canyon has a range of over 700 miles.

The Tahoe is more comfortable on long trips, anyhow...

Edited by turbguy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I agree that a stage 2 charger would be adequate for a very large fraction of the public.  It would solve 99% of my needs. 

The Tahoe is more comfortable on long trips, anyhow...

For the <1% that need to more than 12 kW*8 = 100 kWh in eight hours, or (say) they think they need 50 kWh in the four hours between midnight and 4 AM, there is a solution already, but it's a bit pricey: add a $4000 home DC charger and a home battery. I know of no such use case.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only comment on the many responses above is to repeat my earlier observation that putting a large number of cars on the road anywhere will require a lot of thought and planning, by both government and even individuals. Not only do you need the right charging equipment at home, you need plenty of charging points everywhere (like Norway) and an electrical grid strong enough to maintain power to all those cars (again like Norway). Few states or countries meet those requirements or even given any indication hat they understand the problems involved, or the eye-watering costs. Instead the policy approach is "like, hey, guys, EVs have to make up 50 per cent of new car sales by 2030" (or whatever) "penalties if it doesn't happen", and then wonder why there are problems.     

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, markslawson said:

My only comment on the many responses above is to repeat my earlier observation that putting a large number of cars on the road anywhere will require a lot of thought and planning, by both government and even individuals. Not only do you need the right charging equipment at home, you need plenty of charging points everywhere (like Norway) and an electrical grid strong enough to maintain power to all those cars (again like Norway). Few states or countries meet those requirements or even given any indication hat they understand the problems involved, or the eye-watering costs. Instead the policy approach is "like, hey, guys, EVs have to make up 50 per cent of new car sales by 2030" (or whatever) "penalties if it doesn't happen", and then wonder why there are problems.     

To a first approximation, we need one home charger and one at-work charger for each EV: that's at most $2000 added to the cost of an EV. We also need perhaps one long-trip supercharging station (maybe $50,000) for every 50 EVs: that's another $1000 per EV. I'm being very generous here. I base this on the Tesla ratio. That adds a total of $3000 per EV, less than 10% of the cost of an average EV in 2030. The average ICE in 2021 in the US is more than $40,000.

This is for private vehicles. The numbers are a bit different for commercial vehicles.

For electrical infrastructure, we did the math on an earlier thread and came up with an incremental load of about 10 kWh per day per capita (not per driver or per car), split at 5 kWh for private vehicles and 5 kWh for commercial vehicles, after all ICEs are replaced by EVs. For California, that's 400 GWh/day at 100% penetration.  At 10% penetration in 2030, that's 40 GWh/day or less than 2 GW new generation and maybe 1 GW batteries for peaking. You then have to add another 2 GW generation plus 1 GW storage every to years or so until we reach 100% penetration. You don't need much incremental distribution infrastructure because the vast bulk of EV charging is done off-peak.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, turbguy said:

"Battery swapping" could be the ultimate answer.  Particularly if they can get the battery down to the size of, say, a soda can.

 

I think these BaaS (battery as a service) business models are interesting:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33670482/nio-swappable-batteries-lease/

If it's easy to switch ad hoc, get a smaller battery for every day use, "lease" (rent) a bigger one for longer trips, or perhaps just swap them in a gas station like place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the poor saps without a $50k solar installation will pay to “fuel” their ev in California. 
My monthly PG@E bill ranges around $400 just for a warm shower and not to live by candle light with myself and the lady in the home. 
For the luxury of AC, that pushes the bill to $850+, without the planned rate hike coming. 
So, how much does it cost to “fuel” an EV for the person driving 12-15k miles per year? 
 

And, we know they are going to tax the piss out of any “fuel” so now the .gov gets to tax ALL of your energy usage! Not just your gasoline. How intelligent those fools are, and how quickly the rest of the fools follow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The narrative on this is to get the Mass Population buy these shit cars so that it can help finance the infrastructure needed to go on mass scale! Now there depending on the U.S. Government to let every taxpayer pay for this in some form, Americans are not going to drop their cars and in mass buy EV! 
 

the other subject not talked about is the millions of job loss that will result to the supply chain for engine’s production. They are pushing EV to quick and it will bite them in the ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.mo said:

I wonder what the poor saps without a $50k solar installation will pay to “fuel” their ev in California. 
My monthly PG@E bill ranges around $400 just for a warm shower and not to live by candle light with myself and the lady in the home. 
For the luxury of AC, that pushes the bill to $850+, without the planned rate hike coming. 
So, how much does it cost to “fuel” an EV for the person driving 12-15k miles per year? 
 

And, we know they are going to tax the piss out of any “fuel” so now the .gov gets to tax ALL of your energy usage! Not just your gasoline. How intelligent those fools are, and how quickly the rest of the fools follow. 

PG&E customers with an EV can use the EV2 tariff. This is a time-of-use tariff,. Off-peak is midnight all the way around to 3:00PM. During this time, all of your electricity is $0.18/ kWh. "shoulder" is 3:00-4:00 PM and 9:00PM to midnight. Peak is 4:00PM to 9:00 PM. summer peak rates are very high, about $0.50/kWh.  I never charge my EV at home except off-peak, so I'm paying $0.18/kWh, which is about $0.05 per mile.

The average California private vehicle is driven a little more than 13,000 miles per year, so the electricity will cost $650/yr. The current average cost of regular gasoline in California is $3.90/gallon. At 40 mi/gal, an ICE driver will spend  $1267.50 per year.

Yes, the state will need to make up the fuel tax revenue. California is already adding an extra fixed per-year tax on each EV. This is just as bad as trying to depend on the fuel tax to highway funding. The best approach would be to tax based on mileage and vehicle weight independent of type of propulsion.

The state already taxes your electricity consumption both directly and indirectly. The money to run the sate has to come from somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RichieRich216 said:

The narrative on this is to get the Mass Population buy these shit cars so that it can help finance the infrastructure needed to go on mass scale! Now there depending on the U.S. Government to let every taxpayer pay for this in some form, Americans are not going to drop their cars and in mass buy EV! 
 

the other subject not talked about is the millions of job loss that will result to the supply chain for engine’s production. They are pushing EV to quick and it will bite them in the ass.

I don't understand your argument. Who are the "they", and how does pushing EVs help finance the infrastructure? The infrastructure for EVs consists of home charging stations, workplace charging stations, long-trip charging stations, and added electrical generation and storage. The first three categories are  not currently paid for by the government and do not need to be, as demonstrated by Tesla. added generation and storage can be built by existing electricity providers. Additional electricity distribution infrastructure is mostly not needed, since the overwhelming majority of EV energy is consumed during off-peak.

Yes, jobs will be lost. That's because an EV is a much simpler machine than an ICE, so the amount of labor is much less. by 2025, an EV will cost less than an ICE. During any major technological transition, there are winners and losers. This has been true since before the beginning of civilization, and has been glaringly obvious since the beginning of the industrial revolution. While the supply chain is perhaps the most obvious loser, there are far more people in the fuel distribution and service segments. Whoever "they" are, "they" need to be thinking about a whole lot of job transitions. This is on top of the (relatively tiny number) of coal miners and coal plant operators, and oil industry workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Car manufacturers, since they need to plan ahead a decade or more into the future, have already planned ahead, for example, se GM: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/business/gm-zero-emission-vehicles.html

I'd say auto parts companies overall are going through somewhat of a renaissance because change creates a lot of opportunities, it's just different parts. ICE was kind of at the zenith of its development. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I don't understand your argument. Who are the "they", and how does pushing EVs help finance the infrastructure? The infrastructure for EVs consists of home charging stations, workplace charging stations, long-trip charging stations, and added electrical generation and storage. The first three categories are  not currently paid for by the government and do not need to be, as demonstrated by Tesla. added generation and storage can be built by existing electricity providers. Additional electricity distribution infrastructure is mostly not needed, since the overwhelming majority of EV energy is consumed during off-peak.

Yes, jobs will be lost. That's because an EV is a much simpler machine than an ICE, so the amount of labor is much less. by 2025, an EV will cost less than an ICE. During any major technological transition, there are winners and losers. This has been true since before the beginning of civilization, and has been glaringly obvious since the beginning of the industrial revolution. While the supply chain is perhaps the most obvious loser, there are far more people in the fuel distribution and service segments. Whoever "they" are, "they" need to be thinking about a whole lot of job transitions. This is on top of the (relatively tiny number) of coal miners and coal plant operators, and oil industry workers.

Check out the home prices for a 220 volt charge station, majority of homes in the United States can’t handle an additional breaker for 220 which By the way if you want to drive any length using there 110 Volt charger they “Suggest” an overnight charge. Lastly CA have proven it can’t sustain its own grid without importing electricity from other states WHICH is supplied by fossil fuels! They “EV Maker’s” need either an Everybody on board to drive the costs down or Big Brother to force the change through taxation. The EV’s are counting on A FREE LUNCH for infrastructure pure and simple!

You could take the top 3 U.S. Billionaires total worth and would not come close to the cost of the infrastructure $$$$ needed to do away with gas/diesels engines. Then they have to address the minimum 1.5 million people put out of work in auto supply chain because it won’t be replaced by EV supply chain, that data lies in the fact that every EV manufacturer is using several times more robotic manufacturing equipment. This is just the biggest CLIMATE CHANGE BULLSHIT HOAX ever played by Multi National Corporation’s!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, RichieRich216 said:

Check out the home prices for a 220 volt charge station, majority of homes in the United States can’t handle an additional breaker for 220 which By the way if you want to drive any length using there 110 Volt charger they “Suggest” an overnight charge. Lastly CA have proven it can’t sustain its own grid without importing electricity from other states WHICH is supplied by fossil fuels! They “EV Maker’s” need either an Everybody on board to drive the costs down or Big Brother to force the change through taxation. The EV’s are counting on A FREE LUNCH for infrastructure pure and simple!

You could take the top 3 U.S. Billionaires total worth and would not come close to the cost of the infrastructure $$$$ needed to do away with gas/diesels engines. Then they have to address the minimum 1.5 million people put out of work in auto supply chain because it won’t be replaced by EV supply chain, that data lies in the fact that every EV manufacturer is using several times more robotic manufacturing equipment. This is just the biggest CLIMATE CHANGE BULLSHIT HOAX ever played by Multi National Corporation’s!

Only 1/3 of California imports are fossil fuels and that number is dropping fast. But of course you can't be bothered to actually research the correct number when you can just make stuff up.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Only 1/3 of California imports are fossil fuels and that number is dropping fast. But of course you can't be bothered to actually research the correct number when you can just make stuff up.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation

So CA has rolling Black out why? With all that energy of only 1/3….

CA has become a Shit Show and that’s why mass exodus of the population, Except your really really cool people that can’t be bothered with real issues!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, RichieRich216 said:

So CA has rolling Black out why? With all that energy of only 1/3….

CA has become a Shit Show and that’s why mass exodus of the population, Except your really really cool people that can’t be bothered with real issues!

The shit show is Texas' unweatherized natural gas and insufficient import capacity because they are too special for that. Then they called another warning in April. Now there are warnings of more possible blackouts this summer...

California rolling blackouts lasted less than two hours and affected less than 10% of the population. Amidst our huge transition we had a minor shortage under extreme conditions. It has already been fixed. We won't have any rolling blackouts this summer.

"As noted earlier, CAISO called two successive 500 MW blocks of controlled load shed on August 14 for a total of one hour and one 500 MW block of controlled load shed on August 15 for 20 minutes."

http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Final-Root-Cause-Analysis-Mid-August-2020-Extreme-Heat-Wave.pdf

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.