Joe Guttenbeil (Sept. 8 letter to the editor) expresses concern about the ability of the California electrical grid to support the transition to 100% electric vehicles, given the difficulty of the grid in meeting peak demand requirements during the recent heat wave. His concern is understandable, but the changeover to electric vehicles will be taking place over the next 15 to 20 years and, with good planning, the generation capacity of the grid can grow to meet that demand. A simple calculation shows that to replace the current fleet of gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs will require an additional 116,000 gigawatt-hours of annual power generation (350 billion vehicle-miles per year multiplied by 0.33 kWh per mile for EV propulsion). This is an increase of 42% over the current level of 278,000 gigawatt-hours generated in California per year. While this is certainly challenging, it is manageable over the next two decades.
Mr. Guttenbeil is also concerned that the additional power generation requirements will result in more fossil fuel consumption. However, nearly all new generation sources added to the California grid in the coming years will be renewables, primarily wind and solar.
The biggest future threat to California’s having sufficient grid capacity to meet electrical demand will be the increased frequency and duration of triple-digit heat waves due to global warming. California’s transition to electric vehicles powered by renewable energy is an essential contribution, as part of many other national and international efforts, to the coming battle to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
Mr. Steele - without storage "nearly all new generation sources added to the California grid in the coming years will be renewables, primarily wind and solar" will leave us literally in the dark. We were fortunate that conventional sources could be scheduled by the CAISO to avoid that disaster of last week. We have a very long way to go with storage as current technology seems to rely on lithium-based batteries. The lithium mines cannot possibly produce the required volumes if one considers that each EV contains 1,000 pounds of Lithium-Ion which needed 10,000 pounds of raw material. As most amateur energy experts, you also conflate production with demand. Yes, renewables provided a significant amount of electricity but that only represented 5% of the electric demand on average. The other 95% came from conventional sources. The CAISO has all of that information in exquisite detail on its website.
Another letter that ignores where the sausage is made. Mr. Steele - if you’re saying it’s going to be from more natural gas plants or more imports, then I’m with you. If you’re saying it’ll be from solar or wind, please comment on Edward Ring’s article https://californiaglobe.com/articles/examining-californias-renewable-energy-plan/ where he provides his take on a Stanford University professors report regarding making the sausage.
I’m not sure CA folks want 10,000 square miles of land covered with windmills and 15,000 square miles of ocean covered with windmills. And let’s not get started with what happens to the hazardous wasted when solar panels end their useful life. Ship the waste to China? The ocean? The moon?
Green energy's biggest problem is that the cost of batteries to store he amount of power on the grid would cost trillions. Also the materials in batteries mostly come from counties that don’t like us and they could shut us off anytime. We need a basic break though in battery physics to bring us affordable batteries. But a realistic alternative is available to us today. Power from solar and wind can easily make hydrogen which can be stored to make electricity when the sun and wind are “unavailable”. Hydrogen can power generators like as natural gas does, but with no emissions. Germany, Saudi Arabia and many other countries are pursuing this. But strangely California politicians in Sacramento are avoiding the idea like the plague - what are they afraid of?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(3) comments
Mr. Steele - without storage "nearly all new generation sources added to the California grid in the coming years will be renewables, primarily wind and solar" will leave us literally in the dark. We were fortunate that conventional sources could be scheduled by the CAISO to avoid that disaster of last week. We have a very long way to go with storage as current technology seems to rely on lithium-based batteries. The lithium mines cannot possibly produce the required volumes if one considers that each EV contains 1,000 pounds of Lithium-Ion which needed 10,000 pounds of raw material. As most amateur energy experts, you also conflate production with demand. Yes, renewables provided a significant amount of electricity but that only represented 5% of the electric demand on average. The other 95% came from conventional sources. The CAISO has all of that information in exquisite detail on its website.
Another letter that ignores where the sausage is made. Mr. Steele - if you’re saying it’s going to be from more natural gas plants or more imports, then I’m with you. If you’re saying it’ll be from solar or wind, please comment on Edward Ring’s article https://californiaglobe.com/articles/examining-californias-renewable-energy-plan/ where he provides his take on a Stanford University professors report regarding making the sausage.
I’m not sure CA folks want 10,000 square miles of land covered with windmills and 15,000 square miles of ocean covered with windmills. And let’s not get started with what happens to the hazardous wasted when solar panels end their useful life. Ship the waste to China? The ocean? The moon?
Green energy's biggest problem is that the cost of batteries to store he amount of power on the grid would cost trillions. Also the materials in batteries mostly come from counties that don’t like us and they could shut us off anytime. We need a basic break though in battery physics to bring us affordable batteries. But a realistic alternative is available to us today. Power from solar and wind can easily make hydrogen which can be stored to make electricity when the sun and wind are “unavailable”. Hydrogen can power generators like as natural gas does, but with no emissions. Germany, Saudi Arabia and many other countries are pursuing this. But strangely California politicians in Sacramento are avoiding the idea like the plague - what are they afraid of?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.