We often hear politicians say "all vehicles in California should go electric." Many people too parrot this w/o much thought.
I agree that EVs drawing power from clean sources should be a major part of our future.
How realistic is it that ALL vehicles will go electric?
(Thread)
I agree that EVs drawing power from clean sources should be a major part of our future.
How realistic is it that ALL vehicles will go electric?
(Thread)
There are 26 million registered cars in California. dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads…
According to the same DMV statistics, that number (unfortunately!) increases by ~1.7% per year.
So let's say there will be about ~29m cars in CA by 2030.
According to the same DMV statistics, that number (unfortunately!) increases by ~1.7% per year.
So let's say there will be about ~29m cars in CA by 2030.
There are various estimates for the annual charging needs for EVs. (This is like the EV equivalent of Miles Per Gallon).
The Federal Highway Administration (and solar companies) estimate the annual need per EV is 4000 kWh.
news.energysage.com/how-many-panel…
The Federal Highway Administration (and solar companies) estimate the annual need per EV is 4000 kWh.
news.energysage.com/how-many-panel…
Thus, the additional annual power needs for CA, if we went all electric for our cars by 2030, would be:
4000 kWh x 29m
That results in 116 terawatt hours.
4000 kWh x 29m
That results in 116 terawatt hours.
(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%.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
(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.
Otherwise, well, you get #WILDFIRES.
In a state plagued by wildfires sparked by utility power poles, *can you imagine installing more T & D lines?*
Otherwise, well, you get #WILDFIRES.
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?
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.
Thank you for reading.
(end).
Thank you for reading.
(end).
And…Bloomberg just confirmed this thread!
California's Climate Fight May Send Its Power Demand Soaring 90% bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
California's Climate Fight May Send Its Power Demand Soaring 90% bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
