"Currently, there are 369,000 licensed electric cars in the state, and Gov. Jerry Brown wants to see that number rise a dozenfold to around 5 million by 2030. Some critics have expressed fear that this would overwhelm the electric grid. But a study by Next 10, a San Francisco-based think thank that promotes a rapid transition to electric vehicles, shows that adding 3.9 million electric cars in the state would only consume about 5 percent of the state’s current power generation. Next 10 researchers noted that a Chevrolet Bolt being driven 50 miles a day consumes around as much electricity as an air conditioner cooling a three-bedroom home for three hours."

I have nothing against electric cars...and will probably get one in the future but....read these words again:
"But a study by Next 10, a San Francisco-based think tank that promotes a rapid transition to electric vehicles, shows that adding 3.9 million electric cars in the state would only consume about 5 percent of the state’s current power generation."

or better yet...these words:
"a San Francisco-based think tank that promotes a rapid transition to electric vehicles,..."

Obviously...that is not unbiased data. That "think-tank" has an agenda...so I wouldn't take their research data seriously unless other UNBIASED researchers validate that data

If you like to lease a car, or switch it out every few years, electric might make sense at this point in time. My current car, a Toyota Camry, is 14 years old with about 184K miles on it. I require a car with longevity, and IMO most electric cars are not there yet.

A colleague of mine drove a Honda Insight. Her electric engine died under warranty, just short of 100K. What if it was out of warranty? At 100K, I am just getting started with my car. I have zero interest in a car that dies that early.

summer, you do realize that lots of gas-engine cars have their engines die before 100K miles, right?

And that because one person you know had an electric "engine" (there really isn't such a thing) crap out at 100k miles doesn't mean they all do, right?

Just checking :)

The biggest "issue" to longevity is actually the battery packs. Some companies (like Tesla) are trying to mitigate that issue with easily-swappable battery packs. If they all go that way, electric cars will likely last a LOT longer than gas-engine cars -- there's a whole lot less mechanically to go wrong.

Okay, I meant to say battery pack.

And I've never personally had a car crap out at less than 100K (mostly I've owned Hondas and Toyotas, both of which are known for their reliability and longevity.) My last car before the Camry was a Civic that was 21 years old when it died (I left a timing belt change off a little too long, but it was time, anyway.)

I still need electric vehicles or hybrids to be a whole lot more reliable before I will consider one. And the cost has to come down as well.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still need electric vehicles or hybrids to be a
> whole lot more reliable before I will consider
> one. And the cost has to come down as well.

They're actually MORE reliable already (cost of repairs and maintenance per year on existing electric vehicles averages about 1/4th the cost for gas-engine vehicles).

And they'll have more longevity if the battery packs become easily swappable :)

Cost will come down with higher production runs and better technology. Just like it did with gas-engined vehicles.

I like my gas-engined cars. But electric cars are already "better" in lots of ways, and it won't be long before they're "better" in all ways...

My favorite thing about electric is that they produce the same amount of power and torque at 1 rpm as at 20,000. So, hypothetically, you can basically do away with the transmission. It's one of the reason Diesel trains are actually electric trains. The diesel is just used to produce electricity.

I hope they do get better battery packs,and better ways to recycle old batteries.

Well, as always, Hie, for my next car, I will go with whatever my mechanic recommends. I pick top-notch mechanics and rely on their advice. I just don't anticipate having to get that next car anytime soon. ;)

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, as always, Hie, for my next car, I will go
> with whatever my mechanic recommends.

Hopefully you have a mechanic who isn't only looking out for his own self-interest. After all, those gas cars (I own two, so I'm in the same boat) produce much more income for mechanics than electric cars do...:)

Summer...I bought my Camry in 2000 when it was 2 years old, so hit the big 20 this year. I have 235500 miles on it. It opens with a key and has no remote at all. It doesn't have gps, bluetooth or any other bells and whistles but it gets me from point A to point B just fine and passes emmissions every year. I have maintained it well. No car payment since about 2002.

So, I am with you on getting on board with the electric cars. The next generation will probably all have them. I won't.

That's wonderful, Gemini! I'm hoping for 250-300k for mine. My very excellent mechanic has told me that I will get tired of the car long before my engine dies. I told him, "No, I won't." lol

I just switched from my faithful 2005 Dodge van, which I had intended to keep until I hit 300,000. I donated it to charity (because the salesman laughed hysterically when I asked how much it was worth as a trade in). It was still running great. Hie wanted to buy it from me when he saw it in February, but I said no deal, so he consoled himself with an okay looking new car, but I could tell he was just using it to mask his disappointment.

It had 264,583 miles on it.

It's true -- the van was *sweet.*
Reminded me of my teenage fantasies, where I imagined had a van and would entice non-mormon girls into the back...

Alas, the old dog wouldn't part with it. I would have painted unicorns and rainbows on the outside, and that scared him off!

I’m right there with you Summer. I’m 54 and on my 3rd car. I’ve had it 6 years. As a teacher, I can’t afford the luxury of buying a new car before the current car dies. I know you understand me.

>>I know you understand me.

Yup. ;) A new (meaning newer used car) would mean car payments for a number of years, and I simply don't see any compelling reason to do that when I have a perfectly reliable and cheap-to-run car sitting out in the parking lot.

5% is actually a lot for a grid that’s running near capacity and that 5% isn’t going to be spread out evenly. So I could see that being a problem. But isn’t California sunny? Solar charging stations should be popping up like In-N-Outs.

Before everyone hops on the bandwagon. Electric cars are not the clean alternative you think. To consider, Electric cars have a waste product called ozone. Funny thing about ozone. Its a form of oxygen and is a pollutant, but it also is a needed protector for ultraviolet light which can kill you.All in all you get to live a better life then with the old carbon type fuels.
Hydrogen cars. Other than blowing up, enough of them will literally flood the earth. after many many many years. We live in a great time.

> Hydrogen cars. Other than blowing up, enough
> of them will literally flood the earth. after
> many many many years. We live in a great time.
>


I have this sort of fantasy involving H₂O... When you combine oxygen & hydrogen, using a flame, they form H₂O, which because of the heat, comes out of the exhaust in gaseous form (except when you first start up, just like gasoline engines, which also dribble out H₂O when they first start up...)

Now, what if a catalyst were found that when water passed over it, forced the H₂O to separate into the component elements? Obviously, such a catalyst would be a very dangerous substance because if you tossed a bar of this catalyst into the ocean...

But aside from that peculiar threat, you might have a mostly closed perpetual energy system! Cool, huh?! (Except for the threat it would pose. Especially with humans always convinced that we can handle such threats, or at least kick them on down the road for future generations to deal with.)

Catalysts don't change the energy requirements of a reaction, just the speed at which it occurs. It takes energy to break down water. It also takes energy to break down CO2. Both of those reactions are precisely what plants do when they photosynthesize sugars (which are hydrocarbons) from CO2 and H2O.

A friend sent me a youtube video of a pickup truck that ran by "burning water". It actually did. It had an electrolysis unit in the truck bed. They neglected to mention that the electrolysis required more energy than you get from burning the resulting hydrogen, and that it would be more efficient to just use that energy to run the truck in the first place.

There is no free lunch.

But ... but ... but what about cold fusion ?

Wear mittens!

EXON46 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before everyone hops on the bandwagon. Electric
> cars are not the clean alternative you think. To
> consider, Electric cars have a waste product
> called ozone.

But...electric cars produce no waste products. Including ozone.

Ozone (well, technically two other pollutants that result in surface-level ozone when they interact with sunlight) IS produced by some electrical generating plants, which are used to charge electric cars...but that's not the cars producing ozone. It's the generating plants. The ones producing ozone (indirectly) are the ones running off coal and natural gas. Charging from wind-generated power (at night), or solar-generated power (during the day) produces no pollutants of any kind.

What republikcons conveniently leave out is that it is way easier to control emissions from a power plant than it is from a vehicle.

Ozone production from electric cars? I have never heard of that in relation to commercially available electric cars, which run 3 phase induction motors
Some diy convertion kits use brush motors, the arcing of the brushes will produce ozone in small amounts. There would be bee few of these on the road.
Was this ozone issue raised by the fossil fuel lobby?
one of the main reasons electric cars are so reliable is that there are very few parts to wear out, only bearings and a simple reduction gear set, much much simpler than an internal combustion engine

I don't claim to know how Cali's electricity is generated;

we here in the PNW luckily have lots of (renewable) hydro-power, but I know there's at least one coal-burning plant at Centralia, WA. It takes 1 or 2 coal trains a day to fuel it.
One of the plants switched to natural gas, I'm not sure about the remaining one(s) fate. The owners promised to discontinue coal burning in the (near) future.

I'm guessing that Cali (relatively close to coal sources) depends a lot on coal burning; a few years ago, there was a dust-up because California companies wanted the coal burnt in Utah & power sent to Cali over transmission lines; but
Utah (way I heard it) said NO THANKS!


I'm guessing solar for small charging stations won't be economical in Cali, but IDK

easy-peasy gander at CA's electricity production, courtesy of Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California#/media/File:California_Electricity_Generation_Sources_Pie_Chart.svg


ETA: Wiki says CA has one remaining coal-burning plant, located in San Bernardino County (the nation's largest county!)

And it says that the peak demand for power occurred back in the summer of 2006. Despite continued population growth since then, that record still stands.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2018 11:58PM by elderolddog.

pray tell where / how does Cali get Most of its electricity?

From wires!!

elderolddog linked to the graph (above).
About half comes from natural gas fired plants.
Hydro about 15%, solar and nuclear both about 10%, and wind/geothermal both about 7%. Coal is less than 3%.

The solar figure also doesn't include "distributed" solar generation (all those rooftop installations on houses/businesses/schools). If those were included, solar would go up to about 18%.

>I'm guessing that Cali (relatively close to coal sources) depends a lot on coal burning; a few years ago, there was a dust-up because California companies wanted the coal burnt >in Utah & power sent to Cali over transmission lines; but
>Utah (way I heard it) said NO THANKS!

Utah is very unhappy that California won't buy coal generated electricity from Utah.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2018-02-12/utah-moves-to-sue-california-over-fee-on-coal-power

Coal (even 'Clean Coal', ha ha) is in trouble all over, perhaps excepting China.

Few people living in Utah want to breathe dirty air so Califorians can have electricty...

Anyway, one posters statement is that Cali's need for electricity is declining so how's That going to help Utah??.

For the most part, electric energy is not a power source. It's a power carrier. Solar electric power is a very small percentage of the overall electric energy that is produced. For the most part, electric cars run on coal and other fossile fuels and some nuclear energy. But they don't do anything positive for the environment. It still might be good to get one for other reasons. But environmental conservation is not one of them.

There is a valid arguement that by putting a water electrolysis device on an internal combustion engine to supplement roughly three percent of the fuel with hydrogen might offer a net positive energy gain as a small amount of hydrogen will more fully burn the gasoline. But with much more hydrogen than that, the increased drag on the alternator to supply electricity to the water electrolysis device, causes more energy losses than what is contributed from resulting hydrogen production contributing to engine torque.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2018 08:53AM by azsteve.