Washington State's 'Clean Cars 2030' Bill, ban sale of ICE vehicles

[redneck]

.

Off peak rates will cease to exist in the future when individuals and municipalities need to charge their vehicles overnight. The sun doesn’t shine at night and wind is usually reduced. Alternate power isn’t going to cut it. Base load power stations (fossil and nuke, not hydro) will have to make up the difference and they don’t run for free.

In my opinion, Electricity is going to become a lot more expensive in the future...

A lot more...




>

.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by redneck

Off peak rates will cease to exist in the future when individuals and municipalities need to charge their vehicles overnight. The sun doesn’t shine at night and wind is usually reduced. Alternate power isn’t going to cut it. Base load power stations (fossil and nuke, not hydro) will have to make up the difference and they don’t run for free.

In my opinion, Electricity is going to become a lot more expensive in the future...

A lot more...

Electricity at night is cheaper because supplying baseload is cheap. Baseload generators are utilized 90%+ of the time.

Peak generation is expensive because the generators are utilized 10% of the time. Having a very expensive thing only operate 10% of the time isn't efficient. If you purchased a car and only ever went on 1 trip, the cost of the trip was the whole price you paid for the car. The more the vehicle is utilized, the less each trip costs.

Bringing baseload demand up has the effect of reducing peak demand, or getting more utilization out of the generating capacity. This reduces cost. Flattening the power demand curve even by bringing baseload generation up, will be more cost effective.

If storage schemes can become cheap enough, we will eliminate peak generators altogether because the storage itself will become the supply for peak demand.

So you're right, we'll lose off-peak rates because it will be replaced by a low flat rate.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

Off peak rates will cease to exist in the future when individuals and municipalities need to charge their vehicles overnight. The sun doesn’t shine at night and wind is usually reduced. Alternate power isn’t going to cut it. Base load power stations (fossil and nuke, not hydro) will have to make up the difference and they don’t run for free.

In my opinion, Electricity is going to become a lot more expensive in the future...
.

Yes, if lots of EVs start charging at night that will fill in the power generation valley and flatten the curve. That is WAY cheaper than building out a charging network dependent on fast chargers where everyone fast charges their EV on the way home from work and makes our current very expensive peak rates spike even higher.

The more you fill the current valley the more current infrustructure is utilized and the less new peak generation, transmission, and distribution is needed.

That doesn't even factor in that fast charging degrades batteries faster as does deep discharges. It is better for battery life to slowly charge 30 miles of range every day than to fast charge 210 miles of range once a week.

Diesel for my Sportwagen cost $0.08 per mile
Electricity for my Spark EV cost $0.03 per mile

Electricity would have to get REALLY expensive before driving an ICE car was cheaper than an EV.

[redneck]

.

Well, it’s my opinion that it will be expensive.

And time will tell.

We all have a front row seat...





>

.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

Well, it’s my opinion that it will be expensive.

And time will tell.

We all have a front row seat...

My post was meant to describe my understanding of how things work and have it receive criticism where the theory was deficient or wrong.

I'm always looking for better explanations, so if you've got 'em, share 'em.

The trend for electricity pricing has been downward over time, and my expectation is for that trend to continue with some bumps along the way.

[Isaac Zachary]

There is the question of how are government agencies pay for roads if and when the tax for fossil fuels stops giving enough revenue. That may end up making electricity more expensive. But there's also some sort of plan to charge vehicle owner's directly on a per mile basis. Either way, we're already paying for these taxes. It's just that we will be paying for them some other way.

On another note, I understand that fossil fuels are also subsidized in the USA. If the subsidies were slowly cut and if government agencies were to little by little work towards taxing fuel as much as they possibly could I bet there would be a natural transition over to EV's without any need of a date that all vehicles sold would need to be EV's. The extra taxes from fossil fuels would also be a way to make enough revenue to pay for more electric grid upgrades. And why couldn't those subsidies be redirected towards electricity too?

[redpoint5]

JHS has brought up the fact that often road infrastructure is largely paid for by the general tax fund, with fuel taxes representing only a portion of the cost.

As he points out, Oregon has a goal to transition to tax per mile.

... as I'm always pointing out, infrastructure should entirely come from the general fund, because absolutely everyone depends on it for modern living, regardless of their personal use. Most everything should come from the general fund, and how to spend that money should be based on what the most important priorities are.

Reducing fossil fuel consumption shouldn't be arbitrarily approached, but a collaboration between economists, climate scientists, and security experts to set consumption targets and achieve them through gradually increasing taxation on fossil fuels. It directly addresses all relevant concerns in the most effective way while reducing corruption and inefficient market distortions.

Fossil fuel reduction needs binding buy-in from all major countries otherwise all it does is shift prosperity from places participating to places not participating. I hate to admit this, because world organizations are the most corrupt, dumbest, worst types of organizations. There is no other way to address a global problem except globally, unfortunately. Unilateral solutions are doomed to fail.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

JHS has brought up the fact that often road infrastructure is largely paid for by the general tax fund, with fuel taxes representing only a portion of the cost.

As he points out, Oregon has a goal to transition to tax per mile.

... as I'm always pointing out, infrastructure should entirely come from the general fund, because absolutely everyone depends on it for modern living, regardless of their personal use. Most everything should come from the general fund, and how to spend that money should be based on what the most important priorities are.

Reducing fossil fuel consumption shouldn't be arbitrarily approached, but a collaboration between economists, climate scientists, and security experts to set consumption targets and achieve them through gradually increasing taxation on fossil fuels. It directly addresses all relevant concerns in the most effective way while reducing corruption and inefficient market distortions.

Fossil fuel reduction needs binding buy-in from all major countries otherwise all it does is shift prosperity from places participating to places not participating. I hate to admit this, because world organizations are the most corrupt, dumbest, worst types of organizations. There is no other way to address a global problem except globally, unfortunately. Unilateral solutions are doomed to fail.

I agree with everything except the need to wait for buy-in from all major counties. First, because it is in our country's best interest to develop the technology that will power our futures. Second, because high income companies got to where we are today by buy burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. Not only did we create the majority of the problem but we have the most resources to try to fix the problem. It doesn't make sense to tell countries that are much poorer than we are that they need to contribute equally in carbon reductions. Especially when per capita their emission are much lower than the USA.

India produces 1.9 tons of CO2 per person
China produces 8 tons of CO2 per person
The USA produces 16.1 tons of CO2 per person.

It is disingenuous to try to blame India and China for CO2 emissions.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

I agree with everything except the need to wait for buy-in from all major counties. First, because it is in our country's best interest to develop the technology that will power our futures. Second, because high income companies got to where we are today by buy burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. Not only did we create the majority of the problem but we have the most resources to try to fix the problem. It doesn't make sense to tell countries that are much poorer than we are that they need to contribute equally in carbon reductions. Especially when per capita their emission are much lower than the USA.

India produces 1.9 tons of CO2 per person
China produces 8 tons of CO2 per person
The USA produces 16.1 tons of CO2 per person.

It is disingenuous to try to blame India and China for CO2 emissions.

As I propose my solution, I do so skeptical that we need to do anything at all about CO2 emissions. I merely present it as my best conception of how to address the problem as presented by some.

Mother Earth doesn't care who was most culpable of changing her outdoor thermostat, therefore collaboration is absolutely necessary to bringing about meaningful change.

Like nuclear disarmament, it would be foolish to expect others to follow our lead with no strings attached.

It isn't clear to me that per-capita emissions is the correct frame for the issue of CO2. Half of the equation is population. The US population is stagnant but for being the #1 immigrant nation by far. Why should India get a higher CO2 allowance just because they have a much, much higher birthrate? Maybe the CO2 allowance should be based on population density, with larger land area allowing for greater emissions to discourage gaming the system in a population arms race. I say this partly in jest, but also to say that per capita emissions isn't necessarily a good metric, especially in light of the fact that some nations have population decline (Japan).

I have never blamed China, India, or any country for CO2 emissions. It's a consequence of improving human well-being. Fossil fuel use and wealth are intractibly correlated for the time being.

In my mind, one of the most promising ways for the US to retain technological superiority while also reducing fossil fuel consumption is for the government to fund and promote next-gen nuclear technology. We need to dispel the FUD and NIMBY sentiments that the Communist Soviet Union inadvertently caused when their negligence caused the worst nuclear disaster in history.

[redneck]

.

“disingenuous”

Really...???

Using your Co2 numbers

China 1,397,897,720 people x 8 = 11,183,181,760 tons Co2 and increasing

India 1,339,330,514 people x 1.9 = 2,544,727,976.6 tons Co2 and stable (maybe)

USA 330,425,184 people x 16.1 = 5,319,845,462.4 tons Co2 and contracting

The USA is retiring coal plants.

China is building them.

https://www.reuters.com/article/chin...-idUSL4N2E20HS

China has nearly 250 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power now under development, more than the entire coal power capacity of the United States, a new study said on Thursday, casting doubt on the country’s commitments to cutting fossil fuel use.

And

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...s-in-the-2020s


But Hey, blaming China a̶n̶d̶ ̶I̶n̶d̶i̶a̶ is “disingenuous“.

China has a goal. World domination at any cost...





>

.