(I should note now that if what I've heard is correct, CA really *needed* about 262 tWh last year and produced 260 tWh, hence the brownouts. But let's just use the smaller figure.)
Our entire grid -- all power infrastructure that we've erected in California, since the time of Thomas Edison -- generated 260 tWh last year.
To electrify our cars by 2030, this capacity would need to increase by 45%.
1.45 times the power plants in poor communities
1.45 times the transmission lines
1.45 times the distribution lines
and 1.45 times power poles, assuming we don't underground the lines at great cost. (See below for more on this).
The same DMV report I cited indicates that there are ~10m OTHER vehicles in CA. Those are trucks, forklifts, delivery vans, etc.
I don't have estimates for how many miles such vehicles drive. For delivery vans in our Amazon economy, it's probably a lot. For forklifts, much less.
But suffice to say the power needs of heavy trucks, forklifts working all day, and endlessly-in-motion delivery vans will be vast. My ballpark guesstimates indicate another 110-205 tWh.
If you're keeping track at home, this means we would need to DOUBLE our power generation and grid to electrify our vehicles.
You read that right: we'd need to erect, rapidamente, as much power infrastructure as we've put online since 1877.
How much would this cost, you ask? The federal government indicates that construction costs just for power plants is about $1 per kW, in 2018. eia.gov/electricity/ge… Similar papers I've seen from the NRDC back this up.
So if we need another ~260 terrawatts of capacity, the cost would be about $260 trillion.
Or, about $6.5m per ratepayer, in the next 9-10 years.
This subway/cycling lover jokes that it may be easier offering people $50,000 per year to just ride a damn bike.
Can I guarantee that all components of my equation are dead on? No.
This is designed to be like the Drake Equation, except for EV adoption. You can fiddle with the inputs, generating different outputs.
However, I believe the overall conclusion will remain the same.
To electrify even 50% of our vehicles, would require VAST investment, and tons of new power sources and infrastructure.
And now, let's figure in, and calculate the push to electrify stoves and water heaters too.
(Just kidding.)
(But you get my point).
Recall in an earlier part of the thread we agreed that undergrounding utility poles is expensive. That must be added to the cost.
In a state plagued by wildfires sparked by utility power poles, *can you imagine installing more T & D lines?*
So.... next time a politician (or anyone else) demagogues on this issue, or tells you that we're putting our eggs in this basket, you'd be right to ask some questions:
How much capacity is needed?
How will be build it?
How much will it cost?
What are the ramifications?
Then, you may bust out the Equation that appears in this thread. Because, yeah, math.
I post this not to dissuade anyone from dreaming, but to force an honest discussion with people who tend to discuss issues in shorthand and slogans.
This is a thread about bureaucracy in the city of Los Angeles.
In 2006-2007, there were some very high-profile car crashes in a quiet residential neighborhood. Death; destruction. Cars crashing into houses because of excessive speed on small, two-lane residential street. @lacbc@hoffbeatenpath
In 2008, locals formed a non-profit for street safety and beautification.
One idea was to put a traffic circle ⭕️ (roundabout) at the intersection that causes the most problems.
Refreshingly, the locals didn’t want to ask the city for $$. They would raise the funds themselves.