Not if there's no electricity.

Electricity bills here aren't pretty—typically ranging from a little under $100 to over $300 a month in our neighborhood—but the delta is what matters, and we can afford the extra $132 a year…which is a tiny percentage of the overall annual cost and will likely flip to a savings within 1-3 years because the trend with PG&E rates only goes one way.

What is laughably bad is the rate PG&E pays you for any excess electricity you generate against what it charges you for the same electricity…even at the lower rates.

Have I mentioned my love for PG&E?

Btw, I looked at generators of all kinds, from just enough to keep the refrigerator going to whole-house NG generators. The latter are, all in, less attractive than solar (at least here in CA) from a financial standpoint while the former present too many downsides for me between noise, fire hazard, storage, fuel storage, runs to a gas station (that may not have power to pump fuel), and emissions. To be sure: I am no solar expert. Just another longtime skeptic who was won over a few months ago.

Generating enough power isn’t the issue - overnight storage is. We frequently already generate a surplus amount of electricity during points in the day. In fact, our being ahead of schedule is a challenge;

“This oversupply of solar is occurring because California has added vast amounts of renewable-energy generation in recent years, mainly to meet policy mandates requiring half the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free sources by 2030. With additional generation coming online in the next few years, the state is on pace to reach that target a decade ahead of schedule.“

Good overview from MIT;

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/05/24...-climate-goals/

Can somebody post up a link to California’s plan to upgrade the grid, please. And I’m not talking generation, I’m talking transmission. They do grid shut downs in hot windy conditions because the lines and transformers get over taxed and start fires (especially in areas where they are not allowed to clear combustibles due to environmental reasons). Santa Ana’s happen every year. With a 15 year time line for a massive influx (edited) of electric vehicles state wide, there must be at least a 10 year plan for the grid. No?

P.s. I have questions about Lithium production and recycling too.

FYI: I’m not an EV hater. I like a lot a aspects and positives about them

I guess you forgot about the three or four days we had rolling blackouts statewide a few weeks back because of UNDERsupply...

I'm really enjoying this thread because people are engaging with the issue - whilst maintaining a healthy dose of scepticism. I'm learning too - I was very surprised to learn about California's power supply problems. I think most of the world has this rose tinted view of CA as a land of milk and honey where everything is perfect (I've been over a couple of times to my buddy in Long Beach - and it was perfect !) so the fact you lose electricity on a regular basis came as quite a shock.

I wish there was a 'like' button because there are so many thoughts and comments I agree with. And even @Superhawk996 - I totally get that an EV doesn't suit you ......yet. But only 5 years ago it wouldn't have suited me either so in another 5 years who knows what ranges will be possible. And just do the sums on what you spend on fuel doing those monster mileages (hats off to you) compared with what you could be spending if you had the full set of EV, solar power and battery storage.

There have been comments about reliability and repair costs - well it stands to reason that an engine bay containing effectively only has one moving part is going to be more reliable than one containing several hundred parts. Then consider that that one part just rotates in air whereas the 'several hundred' are spinning and reciprocating in an ever degrading bath of oil. No comparison is there ? You know that feeling when you've rebuilt an engine and with every revolution you're visualising every close tolerance, every adjustment and the pistons and valves hurtling towards each other at 5000ft/min ? All that disappears when you just have one big fat electric motor spinning away. It wasn't until I'd been driving a Leaf for a couple of weeks that I realised how relaxing it was because of the absence of that 'engine paranoia'. AND I can still hoof it away from the lights if the mood takes me (it does, a lot) without worrying that hard use shortens the life of the motor.

Sorry if I sound EVangelical (!) but it gets you that way. But don't worry - I'm still playing with these at the moment.


Click to view attachment


If anyone hasn't yet driven an EV - just give it a try. Even a family shopping trolley like a Leaf will surprise you with it's acceleration off the line. The smoothness and power delivery is really something else. Even if you don't want to buy one - just give it a go.

Finally, and this is more for fun and not really part of the mainstream EV future, someone linked to Lunaz Design, based near me at Silverstone GP circuit. Lunaz do phenomenally expensive conversions (£750,000 !!) to already expensive classics (Rolls Royce and Jag XK150) but there are now several companies in the UK who fit Leaf and Tesla drive trains to more attainable cars. One of the best - and most imaginative - is https://www.electricclassiccars.co.uk/ . Take a minute to enjoy what they do.

Cheers cousins, Andrew

RE: CA power grid.

I read an article a couple days ago, didn't save it, but it stated iirc...

CA currently produces extra solar power, but no place to store it.

In 2035, there will be a 9.5% shortfall in capacity, because at the end of the day, while it's still hot, people are getting home from work, turning on A/C and plugging in their cars and drawing more than the grid is supplying. The proposed solution was to power the grid from the cars for a few hours then recharge in the wee hours.

In 2050, when most of the now 15 yo gas burners have been replaced with EV, the grid will be 25% under, but by then Tesla should have an affordable home battery, plus rooftop solar, meaning most of you will be off grid anyways.

Vegas is STILL 10f over normal this month and I'm paying an extra $600 this year for AC, so not only is solar on the todo list but off grid is starting to make sense $$.

FYI, the CA supply shortfall is so bad us in NV were told to cut back for a few of those hot afternoons.

duplicate

@andrewb

For a 2200 mile run (one way) that is about 100 gallons of gas at 22.0 MPG average which is very close to what I get running at 70-80 mph. So let's say gas is $3.00 / gallon (it's not). Gas has been a lot closer to $2.60/gallon average the last few years but is down right now due to COVID and perople not traveling much.

So we are at $300 each way in fuel cost. A plane ticket usually would run me $600 (coach) or $1200 (first class). So a round trip in a mid size SUV runs the same as Coach.

But. . . When I drive, the dog can come (saving kennel costs) and I can haul a bunch of gear one way or another depending on need.

So for two to three trips a year we're talking about $2k in costs, give or take. No way that is offset by tens of thousands of dollars for solar panels, battery storage, charging fees, higher upfront purchase cost for an EV, etc.

I also need to add that I live in climates that have no where near the number of sunny days my fellow teeners enjoy out in CA. I think this is part of what causes issues. Michigan has on average has between 30 - 75 sunny days a year. We get lots of lake effect cloud cover and snow. Places like Phoenix and CA are in the 200+ days per year range. Solar effectivity in MI is a fraction of CA.

CA Govt seems to assume the rest of the country should follow thier lead. Except, much of the rest of the country is nothing like CA either in terms of weather or population density.

As I eluded to in my previous comment Calif has the space to build all the solar and wind they want, the problem is how to store that energy. It would literally cost 100s of billions of dollars for that with our best case results being a couple days of storage. Of course solar is dependent on the sun shining. I just went through 2 weeks of rolling blackouts so that’s not a option until battery storage technology advances.

I had lunch with a SoCal Edison district chief last year and he stated that during off peak times Calif makes so much elec. that they put it back into the grid for other States to have for free as there is no way to store it and during peak periods we now have to buy Elec from other States with that problem being the transmission lines can not supply the demand Calif needs because we put huge limits on our natural gas powered plants and lobbied to shutdown, not buy Elec or bought out coal powered plants in neighboring states.

And how is Calif going to supply all the water desalination plants they want to build, those take enormous amounts of Elec.??

I grew up in Southern Calif and remember smog alert days, burning lungs as a kid and not being able to see Mt Baldy which was 45 miles away. Those days are gone mainly due to a agency called the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Love them or hate them they made Southern Calif a better place to live. Not so much for business though and every time we go to the gas pump with are summer and winter blend gasoline prices.

Read the article then comment please, seriously, it is of little value to the discussion to make ill informed statements that show you didn’t read what you are criticizing.

That isn’t what is being proposed

Here's your answer, use a Diesel genset to charge your car.

Click to view attachment

@andrewb , thanks for your inputs—really cool to have an international perspective in all this. Completely agree about the "relaxing" aspect of EVs, both for the occupants as well as everyone they pass—you can't realize this until you try an EV, and then spend a few days around them. As much as I love ICE, and that's a lot, thousands of explosions a minute x however many cars are going by creates a certain vibe. True, also, on number of moving parts. And don't forget not having to wait for the oil to warm up to get on with a bit of hooning. I'm still waiting for what I would term a truly fun EV. Taycan comes closest, but is both heavier and faster than I need to have fun. I'd like something more like the 500e but lower and with rear-drive—perhaps a bit more like a 356 or 901 or 914.

Not sure I'd call the outages here "regular," though I can't speak for all of CA. We were certainly affected by the 2019 "PSP" power outages, which were the result of a decision to cut power to avoid sparking the kind of fires that have wiped out whole towns. I think we dealt with 2-3 of those last year, but only one was prolonged (48 hours or so in our case). Some had it worse, and it was a truly surreal situation. Felt like failure on a massive level, and it was. In taking care of two elderly parents, one of whom needed an air mattress to avoid bedsores, you really saw the situation with clarity. And then there was everything else—the lost hours of work, tossing out the whole freezer (freezing slightly emptied water bottles was a pro tip that saved the contents of our fridge) and thinking about everyone else tossing the contents of their freezers, not to mention all of the grocery stores... The more recent blackouts (two of them?) were the result of the system not being able to keep up with demand in the afternoon/evening (usually hot weather, and everyone was running their A/C). So this has been limited to 2019-2020 around here at least, and the last time I remember dealing with this was a couple of months somewhere between 2000 and 2002. I was lucky to live next to a hospital at the time, and that meant no loss of power. But, even living here, I wouldn't call the outages "regular." It has, however, happened often enough that it's obvious we have to do something.

Really appreciate the inputs of others above. Yep, we've got to figure out some things—from storage to meeting peak demand to additional demands from desal plants to more EVs, etc—and, indeed, what works for CA or AZ or UT isn't going to work for MI or OH.

We're adding solar to our house because it's effectively free over the next 10 years and then saves us a lot of money for the 15-25 years after that. The battery is $8k~ out of pocket, but is a hedge against lost money in frozen food (minor) and our business (major). Home batteries seem like a way to deal with the peak usage issue, but I suspect there needs to be more incentive for widespread adoption. Don't love that, but starting to look at the cost of not doing it.

As for EV vs ICE cars/trucks, Superhawk makes a perfect argument for why a EV doesn't make sense for him right now. And, even in our current use case, I can't see replacing any more than 1 out of 3 cars with an EV. 914 stays put period, and I'd want to keep 1 of 2 "real cars" in gas because a) it's really fun to drive and b) I like the hedge from a safety and long trip standpoint. YMMV...

@tdskip

I read the article but hesitate to comment. It has some assertions which are flawed.

1st:
"In a normally functioning market . . . ."

I don't want to get politial here but suffice it to say that when CA government is deeply involved in regulation . . . picking winners and losers. That is not a normally functioning markert by economist's defintion. CA Gov't is introducing market distortions of it's own making.

2nd:
"A study published this week in Environmental Research Letters found that it could be far cheaper for California to rely on electric vehicles to balance out renewable power instead of expanding stationary storage with, for example, banks of batteries."

That is an intersting premise. Cheaper for CA but yet CA citizens bear the capital investment costs for the battery storage mechanism rather than CA or PG&E.

3rd:
"Still another possibility is shifting the timing of demand itself, by setting up programs to encourage residential or business customers to draw on electricity at different hours. That could include getting residents to charge electric vehicles in the middle of the day, instead of at night."

OK. So who pays for chargine the cars in the day while people are at work? Are all employers small and large going to be forced to provide "free" charging for employees while at work? And what prevents an EV owner from wakeing up and the EV is too low on charge to get to work becuase PG&E sucked too much juice overnight didn't leave enough range. Who manages that? Presumably the EV by regulating outflow but I'll bet CA has other thoughts on that.

The main point is really is that an 800+ word Tech Brief doens't provide full context or a very deep analysis of the true problems at hand.


This thread has been hugely intersting. I'll revert to your previous statement that minds are largely made up on one side or the other.

I'm a beliver in economics. Human Action (Ludwig Von Mises) is a lenghty treatise of how human beings find value in differnt tranastions based on their own personal need and beliefs. Your need is differnt that mine and as a result we find different values in the same thing.

When an EV as a sufficient value proposition to me I'll buy one. I suspect there are millions like me. People didn't immediately switch from horses to cars overnight. They did so when there was sufficient value to do so. It will be the same for EV's regardless of what CA may try to mandate.

Good morning and thank you for the reply.

Do you believe that the price of gasoline represents a normal functioning market and is absence government subsidies?

Picking and choosing what part of the economics you choose to reference is a touch dubious, no?

@tdskip

Short answer No. However, EV's are hardly a normal functioning market when US taxpayers were forced to subsidize $7500 of a $100K Tesla.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. People react to the economic realities in front of them. Gas / oil costs are surely not full, true costs inclusive of Military and foreign policy interventions. Regardless I'm forced to bear those "hidden" costs one way or another via Federal Taxation, budget defecits, and deflation of my dollars of which I have no choice. Much the same where CA residents will be forced to bear hidden costs they can't control.

Humans will still make the decisions that are most valued to them given their present econmomic state and the moment in which they have to decide.

Is an ice cream cone more valuable in July or December? In either case, it's the same ice cream cone. Here in MI, people value the ice cream cone more in July. So much so that many ice cream stands close for the winter because it's not economically viable for them to remain open all winter. Maybe not the same in San Diego with beautiful weather year round?

That doesn’t come anywhere near to representing the full market cost of gasoline use.

So - once more with feeling - it is a touch dubious to make assertions based on “economics” while not actually using the real economics.

Here is the thing gentlemen - physics and math don’t care about your personal beliefs or personal ideology. They are what they are - ignore the reality they represent and you are choosing to self inflect bad outcomes on yourself, and worse, future generations.

It is what it is.

Ok, we get it. Big bad oil and their subsidies. This is getting very close to politics.

^ Reminds me: EVs, solar, batteries, etc and subsidies around them are one discussion, fires we've been having in the west are another.

If we could wave a wand and everyone had battery backup (and solar) on their homes, or even most of us and then the rest benefitted from micro grids, that might solve the transmission-line-sparked fires that have caused some to lose their homes, and some far more than that. But it won't fix fires started by trailer wheels, lightning, arson, etc. Still, it's worth pursuing from a standpoint of the fires it can prevent, emissions, and resiliency. It's a step, and a good one.

Forest management is another, and it looks like they've been working on plans to do prescribed burns of 2,000,000 acres a year, and now have those plans ratified (downside is it'll take ten years to get to where we should be).

But one of the other things CA (and OR and WA?) need is to reconsider all of the people who apply for, and get, special waivers to build houses in places that were ruled too dangerous due to frequency of fire. There's a part of me that says, it's a free country and they can do what they like and take their chances—but there's another part of me that asks why firefighters and everyone's tax dollars should be put at risk as a result of their choice when those tax dollars (and life and limb, in the case of firefighters) could be better applied elsewhere. How many more acres burn while firefighters fight to protect each and every structure that should have never been allowed? Don't know what the answer is there, but I do know I'd rather see my tax dollars applied to things that have benefits for everyone.

^ I don't think anyone on this forum wants to see gasoline go away. Unless they've got an electric 914 (which isn't an idea I am interested in). And I'm under no illusion that electricity companies (whether solar or anything else) are any better than oil companies. Right now, PG&E ain't looking good in that comparo…and I am sure some crows will come home to roost in the solar and wind power industries, from waste to blades that have to be buried, etc.

But a discussion about EVs and solving a legitimate problem—together—doesn't have to be political, and I've been really impressed by this thread as a shining example of that.

I think we are both saying nearly the same thing. No?

Full market cost of EV's, mining of Lithium, Cobalt, and the other toxic brew that make up a Li-ion battery are not easily known across their life cycle.

I apologize if it appeared to be veering off into politics and/or deep economic analyis of the true cost of ice cream cones.

Likewise, I was largely agreeing with previous position that minds are made up until we have different economic realities to chosse from (either free market or mandated).

^^^^^
No, that is getting very close to politics.

Well, I think the point is that many are choosing non-economic reality to support their desire to avoid change and disruption away from the current (ha) approach to meeting energy needs.

Which is why I mentioned earlier that all serious analyses of a 100% zero emission energy future currently includes nuclear (the third rail of zero emissions). You either have to solve the storage problem, or build in enough balancing power generation capacity to compensate for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

We should also be asking if 100% zero emissions makes sense at this point. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates we need to reduce global 2010 CO2 emissions levels 45% by 2030 and reach NET Zero by 2050 to keep the global temperature delta to 1.5 degrees C. Going to absolute zero emissions has unintended consequences. Right now, the only zero emissions sources that can provide balancing power at scale are hydro and nuclear. Of course hydro is devastating to river ecosystems and nuclear presents problems with waste storage and recycling. The current favorite balancing power technology is natural gas which is well-suited since natural gas generators can be spun up and down easily efficiently to offset renewal supply. I don't remember what the percentage of energy supply that needs to come from balancing power, but it's easy to see that a system where most power is from zero emissions sources and a small percent from a lesser polluter like natural gas, we still have a system getting us to those IPCC targets.

The other option is to develop storage capacity but as we inch toward zero emissions Nirvana, the cost benefit ratio begins to decline. For example, one storage technology being seriously considered is to create large reservoirs fitted with hydro turbines and pumping the reservoirs full of water with renewable energy and recovering the energy as hydro for balancing. That adds the environmental burdens of hydro or ground water extraction on top of those imposed by renewables. Are those kinds of costs worth taking a handful of natural gas plants offline?

Although I generally applaud California's leadership on our move to cleaner energy, they have made some big mistakes IMO. Years ago I worked on a project evaluating a proposed high voltage transmission line that would have piped renewal wind energy from Montana and Idaho to Las Vegas and California. My job was to find route alternatives that minimized impacts on wildlife. During the project, California passed their revised Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) which included a requirement that the majority of power needed to be generated inside the state. That immediately knocked out a major customer for the energy the line was intended to supply. That still seems wrong to me since this is a global problem and carbon atoms don't respect state boundaries. It shouldn't matter where the energy is produced as long as we are reduce global net emissions. CA's revised RPS forced Bonneville Power, who was going to buy the power, to recalculate the business model and they withdrew their commitment to the project. The project died due to the changing economic reality but when the press release was published, the owners of the project blamed problems with sage grouse for the failure. That pissed me off because I had found a route that would have almost zero impact on sage grouse but what the heck, let's just blame those f'ing treehuggers and their wildlife.

Sorry for the long post. It's all just to say, "it's complicated." I will end to say that we can't let these problems and challenges stand in the way of progress. There are no perfect solutions and there never will be. Every solution will present new challenges (like how to fund highway maintenance). What we need to ask ourselves is whether the net balance of costs and benefits of solutions being implemented move us the direction we need to go. Right now, I think they do. Still plenty of challenges ahead and we may not be moving fast enough, but we are making progress.

Well put. Just insure your roofing will withstand the test of time before you screw the panels down. The true costs of the car, the array, energy recovery and storage (just components) and the labor $ involved to get there is a bit staggering. I looked into solar. The ROI was pathetic. Given our latitude, weather, shorter daily sunlight hours and lack of direct light in the winter, it made no sense at all. The route we took is a bit different. New R-38 in the attic, R-27 under the floors and new windows to replace the aluminum framed single panes (15 of them. Some REALLY large). New efficient HW tank too. All in sub $20k. The ROI started day 1 with lower electricity bills. Rolling drafts in the house were eliminated, floors were warmer and the house stays 15* cooler (NO AC) in high summer. ALL electric house, no gas on my street (that would mean a HUGE white/blue tank in my yard) and the bill runs $50 total in the summer and sub $200 in the winter. Comfort is high on my priority list. Then there's keeping the panels clean. No thanks.

^ Agree on nuclear, the stupidity of the move that killed your project, Brent. We can count on more of that, and hope for more wins than losses—even if only a few.

As for nuclear, there have been some interesting developments of late:

…nuclear energy could soon receive yet another shot in the arm that might significantly improve its standing in the eyes of the public: Substituting thorium for dangerous uranium in nuclear reactors… Thorium is now being billed as the great green hope of clean energy production, producing less waste and more energy than uranium. Thorium is meltdown-proof, has no weapons-grade by-products, and can even consume legacy plutonium stockpiles.

https://safehaven.com/commodities/energy/Th...clear-Boom.html


NASA has unlocked nuclear fusion on a tiny scale, with a phenomenon called lattice confinement fusion that takes place in the narrow channels between atoms... What results is a Goldilocks effect that’s neither supercooled nor superheated, but where atoms reach fusion-level energy… With atoms packed so densely within the atomic lattice of another element, the required energy to induce fusion goes way, way down… NASA says, this is an important first step and one that offers an alternative to the spectacular scale of major tokamak and stellarator projects around the world. Even the smallest magnetic confinement fusion reactors require sun-hot fusion temperatures that have continued to create logistical problems.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/en...nfiment-fusion/

Will be curious to see where these go…if anywhere.

That isn’t what is being proposed.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, unfortunate to be sure that project didn’t proceed.

^ Your route sounds smart. I get the crappy one-pane aluminum windows up to about the bay area, and they make sense south of here, but it's hard for me to get my head around their use in the northern climes. We were going to address our windows, but have decided it makes more sense to film them for about $3-4k and install solar with battery backup. Film plus battery plus electrical work should be well under $15k all in, with the solar array being no cost out of pocket. Well, $11 a month.

Did have our roofer do a bit of desconstructive research on our 3yo roof system, and he'll be working with the solar company to double-check/address the footings where they're screwed in. Don't love putting holes in a roof system, but there are others. Solar and (at some point) car costs are only palatable for us against monthly electricity bills and lease for an ICE car and loss of its associated fuel costs—where they end up near net zero. The home battery is a raw cost, but one I am open to after looking at what we lost in food over 48 hours (minor) plus risk in terms of our ability to do business (major) and to a lesser degree comfort and peace of mind (hard to define). Now add perfect storm of hot weather, smokey skies, AQI in the 300s (or 400s or 500s…) with no ability to open windows and no ability to run air filtration (much less A/C). That $8k battery starts looking pretty reasonable, and eliminates the cost of adding a second one down the road.

Just a couple responses. Agree that 100% zero emissions isn't what is being proposed, but it is being used as a target by some government entities and many NGOs active in the field. Such purist targets (while laudable) are not always helpful. Sure, we should strive for a zero emissions future, but let's first focus on hitting IPCC targets to at least minimize the impacts of the climate crisis (it's too late to avoid them).

As for the project, I'm ambivalent. I was a third party consultant so didn't have a dog in the fight. The reasons the project failed were dumb, but I did worry about its impact on our wildlife had it moved forward. The transmission line would have had minimal impact but the proliferation of wind farms with inadequate siting guidelines it would have spurred was troublesome.

It's interesting. I was invited to speak at a Renewable Northwest Project board meeting in Oregon around that time. RNP is a consortium of industry and NGOs working to combat climate change and promote renewables. When issues of impacts on birds and bats were raised, I could see the room divided into two camps. One camp sounded to me exactly like the fossil fuel energy sector by denying and downplaying the issue while advocating for a business as usual plan. The other half understood and were genuinely concerned about the issue and committed to finding solutions. There ARE solutions to these things but it requires commitment and a "can do" approach to make them happen. I'll also confess that "Big Solar" might worry me the most. Solar distributed on roof tops and within developed landscapes is fantastic. Solar sprawled across thousands of acres of Mojave Desert is not so goo. The danger is that they ride in with white hats as the saviors of the world while they are destroying the very things we are hoping to protect. Complicated.

In 1963, when our house was built, the aluminum frame w/storm sliders were pretty high tech. 2 20" box fans fitted with MERV13 filters for the 'can't open windows the due to smoke days'. The large, round, brown circles on the filters told the tale. Full disclosure, our electricity rates are rediculously low. Carry over from the Rural Electrification Program days. 'Elmhurst Power' buys directly from Boneville Power Admin. I hope to never have to buy another new vehicle.

Here in central Canada they're looking into hydrogen because Quebec has a huge sheetload of hydro electric over capacity and the gas pipeline infrastructure (NG) is mostly there.

^ Thank you for such good and informative posts, Brent.

And cannot agree more: What is needed is a can do attitude on this. We can make things better for our future, and the one we leave behind. Increasingly, my take on the issues of energy (and water) are arguably of a magnitude on par with WWII in this much: It's worth mobilizing—and doing so can create a lot of jobs.

As for solar farms, whether photovoltaic or otherwise, what could possibly go wrong? These are simultaneously cool (technically) and creepy AF…

That may happen in California but from this xPat's view, that Nanny State regulation will never happen in Arizona. Gun Laws are a clear indication of regulation bandwidth.
Arizona gun laws are among the most tolerant in the nation. Any sane law-abiding citizen can carry a handgun in most places — concealed or open — without a license or permit. Arizona conceal carry permits are mainly used to help Arizona residents who want to carry in other states, or to ease the purchase of a handgun. For those who travel short distances outside the state, one could find much stricter regulations depending on which way they go. Head West from Arizona and you’ll find California – where regulations are much tighter than Arizona gun laws. Most notable differences include that California requires many firearms to be registered. New residents of the state are given a 60-day window in which they much register their handguns. All sales of firearms — even private sales at gun shows — have to go through a licensed gun dealer. Open carry, which is legal under Arizona gun laws, has been banned in California. It is legal for gun owners to keep their handguns at home or at their own business. Unlike Arizona, the state does not have a constitutional provision to protect the right to bear arms

I think I will run out and buy some buck-98 a gallon fuel and do some plinking in the desert after a brisk ride out there in my 914.

I'm not so sure about that. Montana is considered to have some of the most lenient gun laws in the country AND is a coal producing state. Yet, we have some pretty progressive renewable energy policies. When I travel around the state, I like to tune in to AM talk radio to get a pulse of what is happening on the fringe. It's hilarious because the Preppers and Hippies are much more alike than they think. Both sides obsess about the same things. Living off the grid, growing non-GMO organic foods, and collecting rainwater. Between the rants on how the left or right is destroying this country, that's the bulk of the conversation. Back to the government though. I think we see renewable energy as an untapped natural resource and business opportunity more than anything.

I agree though that neither of our libertarian leaning states will approach it the way California does. That simply will not fly.

Hey fellas. Let's keep the discussion going....energy. Some interesting views and ideas about EV's and energy....regulation is different than laws Forrest.

BTW Forrest what rock have you been under out in the "Territory" in AZ?

Just closed on a house in Prescott. Looking forward to driving the P car out there.

Still have our CA property though.

My view of the EV's is that the grid will have to be capable for it to happen....and the only way that will happen is if it is a national effort....so inevitably it comes down to the political will.

When California deregulated it's energy we all know what happened and that is why Sacramento is unlikely to go along with it from any other state. CA has more solar power than it can use. That is not true of every state the nation. But why not have a cooperative for the benefit if CA has a surplus? Why not if other jobs are developed in the process?

BTW...when we bought our house in AZ my new neighbor...also an Ex pat said something that struck me. He said "California is a good place to be from".

No gun regulation talk please.

Boy let's hope so. We ecologists have been pleading for more prescribed burning for over 50 years now. The way fire suppression for the US Forest Service is funded is absolutely stupid. Suppression funds are appropriated annually based on the 10-year rolling average of what it has cost to fight past fires. Of course, increasing frequency and intensity of fire means they overspend the allocation so funds are diverted from other USFS programs like prescribed burning and thinning. Less prescribed burning and thinning means more fire to fight the next year so the cycle continues and the problem gets worse. The Obama administration introduced a plan to move fire fighting budgets to FEMA so it would get paid for like any other natural disaster and not impact fire prevention programs. Congress did their usual "do nothing" though so nothing changed.

Hello,

here in Germany we are quickly moving towards the risk of heavy blackouts in the years ahead. From originally 17 nuclear power plants there are only 6 left by now. They are scheduled to cease operation by the end of 2022. The "green" party has done a whole lot of damage to not only our economy but also to our environment. The plants could run for many more years without sacrificing safety. Instead, they become demolished. Slowly people are beginning to question if this is the right way to go or if nuclear should be considered helpful to reduce emissions.

An interesing site (mostly in german):


https://nuklearia.de/nuklearia-introduction...nglish-readers/

(If this post is not appropriate, please delete, thank you.)

Arno

^ Thanks for this, Arno.

The rush to accept either narrative for complicated questions is faulty. As much as I have come around on EVs (I was wholly against them years ago), there are still tough questions that have to be dealt with, places they don't make sense, etc.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/202...s/#26df5b6650bd

And nuclear IS part of the discussion if we're going to get serious about "clean" energy. It more or less has to be.

I'm sorry @76-914 but this is bulls###. Electric vehicles are NOT going to magically make it possible for me to get a date.

But some of us understand that oil is a finite resource.
It's not a question of "if" but a question of "when". We *will* run out of crude oil.

You can argue all day if this is going to happen during our lifetime or the next or ... but as a society we need to adapt and be ready when that day comes.

I love driving my 914 just as much as the next guy and i also love the fact that some really smart people are trying to get us away from a finite energy source and replace it with something sustainable.

When we reach that point in the future we will have come full circle. I'll explain. When my Dad was a young man he was bragging to his dad how he could take his date to a parking spot since he had a car. His Dad replied, "Son, when as was a young man returning from the dance in town we'd tie the reins to the the wagon and climb in the back because the horse knew the way home."

Well it's not going to be in CA since we are shutting down the last plant here. A safe and functional plant that had many years of service life left. Besides providing a lot of electricity to the area it also provided a lot of tax dollars to the local economy and schools, plus a lot of jobs that will now be lost.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-diab...0111-story.html

The mandate would be better overall if he had limited co2 output. Basically take new super-sized DD vehicles off the roads.

2019 GMC Sierra C10 2WD 5.3L - 232,325 sold
543 g/m

2019 Ford Escape FWD 2.5L - 241,387sold
370 g/m

Regular Progress -----

2020 GMC Sierra 2WD 5.3L
448 g/m

2020 Ford Escape FWD 2.5L
220 g/m

2020 Ford Escape FWD PHEV (Hybrid)
77 g/m

In this context Hybrids are a viable solution already in production and not dependent on optimistic tech advances.


Then we have the size/weight and engine factors, which also have been improving.

2007 Toyota Camry base - 473,108 sold
189.2" x 71.7" 3307 lbs
2.4L 158 hp 161 tq
21/30 ave 24 mpg
370 g/m

2020 Toyota Camry base (336,978 sold in 2019)
192" x 72.4" 3241 lbs
2.5L 203 hp 184 tq
29/41 ave 34 mpg
264 g/m

The EV mandate is the worst possible solution to a global issue. Likely the most expensive choice too. It also doesn't change the fact that China is the global pollution leader.

Every body run out and get an ev such b.s


If they really gave 2 s#its about the enviroment
They woud have long long ago . made it so every new gasoline car had 4 cylinders or less. No more suburbans
No more ram trucks . etc

And i know this is such common sense . but definitely wrong crowd here. ( including me )

But you wanna reduce gas consumption . make it a 50mph speed limit and strictly enforce it .

Every assclown out their driving 70,75,80 + is wasting a ton of gas . just to cut off some bigrig slam on thier brakes and pretend they get places 2 mins faster. And that their racecar drivers .




from Georgia where the men are men and the sheep are nervous

Which is greater political suicide.. introducing a goal of Zero Emissions (electric, hydrogen etc) or slap on say a $3/gal gas tax.. That would as above, drive consumer choices for better efficiency AND allow those who can afford it, to enjoy that latest Hellcat hemi! (and it would also pay for road maintenance and other issues.. I bet if gas was $6-9/gallon you might not make the same choices you do today.

But lets not let this get political.

I like the idea of electric.. so long as its not my only car... at least not till I'm really old.

So you'll stop beating your wife and kids as soon as China does?

What?

Poor analogy on so many levels.

It's more like that walked dog that poops in my yard when half a dozen feral cats do it almost daily. Ain't going to change the situation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/1...oxide-emitters/

"The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country."

"China is therefore the single most important country when it comes to curbing carbon dioxide emissions."

^ Problem with the above—and this is nothing political but rather plain fact—is each country's contribution to pollution since, say, the industrial revolution.

Or, say, 1968.

It's measurable, and it's undeniable. And the U.S. was a hot mess until we wisened up. In that regard, we were way ahead. Were being a key point. But we were also the gross polluter, so we should be leading here. And pushing that lead.

Bigger takeaway, for me anyway, is that we're all in it together. Whether it's pollution that travels by air or sea (see: CA smoke in NYC, or Japanese nuclear waste or plastic trash up and down our coast), it really doesn't matter. What matters is figuring out smart ways forward.

Doing nothing isn't a strategy. Nor is saying we can't have an impact so why bother? Perhaps we can't, but I'm not down with going out like that. Things looked dire with the Dustbowl, but solutions were found (even if they may be, in some ways, coming back to bite us), and things looked bad with a giant hole in the ozone. Things looked bad in LA, and here in SF, back in the 1950s-1970s. Changes were made, with big impacts. The air cleared, and house prices—and the economies in general—thrived.

We can do this.

Nope on many levels. The target is to reduce total global emissions rather than a contest of which mega polluter reduces pollution the most. Sure, China is a problem and needs to be held accountable, but the US was the #1 CO2 emitter not long ago and we are still the second worst offender. By your metric, a country that was net zero when Kyoto was signed would be worse than the US today because they didn't cut their zero emissions even more.

We can probably all agree that China sucks, but I think we can do better than to just suck a little less than China. That doesn't smell like American exceptionalism to me. Honestly, I think a big reason the world hasn't nailed China's ass to the wall is because the US would have to have our own asses nailed too and other countries aren't going to risk poking the bear like that.

Finally, let's just review those numbers. The IPCC says we need to reduce global emissions by 45% by 2030 to hold change to 1.5C. A 25% reduction holds change to 2C so there is still value in doing as much as we possible can. China produces 27% of emissions. To say that nothing will change if China doesn't change is not factual. There is enough headroom to even meet the 45% target without China's help at least in theory. Sure, it makes it a helluva lot harder but isn't an excuse for the rest of the world to surrender.

Like Pete said, we're all in this together.