California May Push Uber And Lyft To Go Electric

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Electricity generated by coal is dropping.  Yay, renewables.  Actually making and then discarding the batteries themselves is the issue I am talking about and what I believe Keefe is referring to.

I understood, which is why I said, "except for the part..."

Yes, the battery technology needs to continue to improve, no question.

The law in question, or rather the possible law in the future, pertains to California.  On a good day (sunny, maybe a little windy too), California already generates over 2/3 of its power from renewables.  By the time the law would take effect in 2030 that number would presumably by quite a bit higher, and unless the last 30 years trend in coal suddenly reverses, the amount of coal-fired electricity will be even lower.

So claiming its a bad idea because it shifts power generation to dirty coal-fired plants is simply wrong.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

wonder what will happen when the Air Force puts lithium batteries in the A-10 Warthog?

Something will need to power their lights as they sit in the museum.

[muwarrior69]

The dirtiness of lithium is correct and an important factor.

Counterpoint on the reliance of a coal-dependent power grid, though - the grid would be the most efficient target to transition off fossil fuels. It hasn't happened yet largely due to lack of political will and the higher upfront costs of switching old infrastructure to handle renewables. But it would be a far more effective private-public partnership to transition the grid off coal, and then have as many energy consumers as possible feeding off a sustainable and renewable grid as compared to the weird combination we have now of a coal-fired grid with a smattering of electric cars and private homeowners putting solar panels on their houses.

What renewables? Certainly not wind or solar which are not available 24 hours a day. So far the only true and reliable 'green' energy is hydro. As of now there is no equivalent or better substitute that can generate the power that the modern world requires other than fossil fuels. If there were we would have switched long ago, like going from dirty gas lighting to clean electric lighting.

[jsglow]

I'm guessing you were using hyperbole for effect......

But it is still a silly thing to say about the world's 5th (and growing) largest economy. In the last couple years, it has passed France, Italy, and the UK.

California has 12% of the U.S. population but had 16% of U.S. job growth between 2012 and 2017. Its share of the national economy also grew from 12.8% to 14.2% over the same period.

People in southern states would be screwed if they ever lost the Federal tax dollars they receive from Cali.

I'll cite non partisan statistics as for whatever reason you chose not to comment directly on my limited statement:
 
http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

[jesmu84]

I understood, which is why I said, "except for the part..."

Yes, the battery technology needs to continue to improve, no question.

The law in question, or rather the possible law in the future, pertains to California.  On a good day (sunny, maybe a little windy too), California already generates over 2/3 of its power from renewables.  By the time the law would take effect in 2030 that number would presumably by quite a bit higher, and unless the last 30 years trend in coal suddenly reverses, the amount of coal-fired electricity will be even lower.

So claiming its a bad idea because it shifts power generation to dirty coal-fired plants is simply wrong.

Wait, what? That isn't the message put out by the executive branch

[WarriorDad]

It's nothing for the moment.  In less than 10 years there will only be two kinds of people left in California; the very wealthy and the very poor.  And if that's what they want, then fine.

They have a real problem out there.  Highest poverty rate in the nation (indexed for cost of living), but also the super rich. Middle class leaving.  They make claims like it is the 6th largest economy in the world, but it has been a top 10 GDP in the world for 40 years, regardless of who controlled the state.

[warriorchick]

They have a real problem out there.  Highest poverty rate in the nation (indexed for cost of living), but also the super rich. Middle class leaving.  They make claims like it is the 6th largest economy in the world, but it has been a top 10 GDP in the world for 40 years, regardless of who controlled the state.

It's the absolute worst state to be an employer by a wide margin. I worked for a company that was in the midst of a nationwide expansion, and California was the very last state we set up shop, and only because we wanted to be able to say we served all 50 states. Even then, we subcontracted whenever possible.

[WarriorDad]

Actually, the solar initiative makes economic sense, as well as environmental sense. It'll add about $10,000 to the cost of a home upfront, but save nearly $20,000 on utility costs over the home's first 30 years.
So, what's the problem?

Reports are saying cost of homes will be $25K to $30K more upfront. not $10K.  https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/

[WarriorDad]

Sounds similar to where we're headed as a nation. Wealth inequality

Those that become rich in this country, more often than not due to luck.  At least that is what a PBS article stated a few days ago.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/analysis-if-youre-rich-youre-more-lucky-than-smart-and-theres-math-to-prove-it

[jesmu84]

Those that become rich in this country, more often than not due to luck.  At least that is what a PBS article stated a few days ago.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/analysis-if-youre-rich-youre-more-lucky-than-smart-and-theres-math-to-prove-it

Eh. I'd say it's hard work combined with opportunity for those who actually come from nothing/little and end up very wealthy. Not everyone has that same opportunity. Perfect storm of situations/variables. Read "outliers" by malcolm gladwell.

Those that begin wealthy and stay wealthy are completely different. And fight and claw to stay that way, regardless of effects on the rest of society

[Pakuni]

Reports are saying cost of homes will be $25K to $30K more upfront. not $10K.  https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/

Whose reports? Odd that you chose to cite one article that appears to double to triple every other report's estimate. I mean, even Fox News has it at $10K.

The regulation will require all homes and apartments built after 2020 to have solar panels, adding an average of roughly $10,000 to construction costs for a single-family home.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/09/california-becomes-first-state-to-mandate-solar-panels-on-new-homes.html

Together with tough new efficiency standards for windows and insulation that the commission will consider Wednesday, the solar mandate could add $10,538 to the cost of building a house, by the agency’s own estimate. The extra expense would hit at a time when California is suffering a severe and deepening housing affordability crisis.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Solar-panels-on-homes-soon-could-be-required-in-12894398.php

Under the new requirements, builders must take one of two steps: make individual homes available with solar panels, or build a shared solar-power system serving a group of homes. In the case of rooftop panels, they can either be owned outright and rolled into the home price, or made available for lease on a monthly basis.
The requirement is expected to add $8,000 to $12,000 to the cost of a home.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/business/energy-environment/california-solar-power.html

For home builders, the mandatory addition of solar panels means added construction costs, perhaps as much as $10,000 per home, in the short term, according to one expert.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/californias-new-solar-energy-standards-how-it-could-affect-homeowners.html

While that’s a boost for the solar industry, critics warned that it will also drive up the cost of buying a house by almost $10,000.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-09/california-votes-to-require-rooftop-solar-power-on-new-homes

Some groups, however, are worried about the added expense of installing the panels. The commission calculates that it would cost approximately $9,500 per home.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/us/california-solar-panels-regulations-trnd/index.html

[#UnleashSean]

If people only knew...

Electric vehicles are the worst possible mode of power for transportation. Not only is the combustion moved to a coal fired power plant but the issues associated with the mining, transport, manufacture, and disposal of lithium are devastating to the environment.

theBabyDavid shakes his head at the smugness of Tesla drivers.

Not surprised that this particular jurisdiction would make such a collosal mistake.

The lacrosse bros shake their heads at your 1980s information. Coal is like 25 percent of electricity generation and dropping.

[chapman]

How about neither imposing regulations as to how homes are built, nor in attempt to bring back dying industries?  🤔

[WarriorDad]

Whose reports? Odd that you chose to cite one article that appears to double to triple every other report's estimate. I mean, even Fox News has it at $10K.

I could have chosen a hundred. 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/04/california-to-become-first-u-s-state-mandating-solar-on-new-homes/

https://archpaper.com/2018/05/california-require-new-homes-install-solar-panels/

http://fortune.com/2018/05/07/california-solar-mandate/

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/05/05/california-expected-to-mandate-solar-panels-for-new-homes.html

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/california-proposal-may-require-new-homes-to-come-with-solar-panels-050718.html

https://nypost.com/2018/05/05/california-expected-to-mandate-solar-panels-for-new-homes/

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/solar-panels-california-2020/

https://www.10news.com/news/california-set-to-mandate-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes



Hopefully a few proves the point, but there are easily a hundred articles that came up.

What is strange is the attack I sense from you.  I'm not against the idea, I only questioned your numbers on cost.  Many of the articles I saw said $25K, but also said up to $50K return, it still supports your claim that it is smart.   

The most interesting article is from Vox, who makes the claim it may not be a good idea because California has such a glut of solar power now that they can't offload to the market. They are having to pay people to take power rather than sell it. 

The case for and against.  The solar industry is loving it, someone is getting rich.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/5/15/17351236/california-rooftop-solar-pv-panels-mandate-energy-experts

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The lacrosse bros shake their heads at your 1980s information. Coal is like 25 percent of electricity generation and dropping.

Come now, he was quite an accomplished scientist in 1982.

[theBabyDavid]

Except the part about coal generation.  Coal produces ~30% of electricity today and dropping fast.  It was about 40% less than 5 years ago.

The burning of coal is indeed on the decline but is still a predominant fuel for power generation.

But the negative impact of electric vehicles is not limited to coal-fired power plants. In fact, the problem of lithium batteries is a nightmare without reasonable solution.

We are involved in the development of green dry cell storage systems with new inverter and transformer technology that is fabulous for static power generation but lacks lithium's capacity in mobile applications.

Lithium is very dangerous and unstable. The mining, processing, manufacture, and disposal of it is an ecological nightmare.

For those who fly on commercial aircraft I would be very, very concerned about lithium-powered devices being stored in the hold, much less in the overhead bin. 

[theBabyDavid]

Come now, he was quite an accomplished scientist in 1982.

Actually, our patents, capital raises, advanced energy projects, and bank accounts would disprove your dismissive post.

I am willing to bet my cut of the two raises ($75MM) we did this year would be more than you will make in a lifetime. 

Study, work hard, identify opportunity, think outside the box, and innovate and society will reward you.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Actually, our patents, capital raises, advanced energy projects, and bank accounts would disprove your dismissive post.

I am willing to bet my cut of the two raises ($75MM) we did this year would be more than you will make in a lifetime. 

Study, work hard, identify opportunity, think outside the box, and innovate and society will reward you.

Dear lord keefe, I hope this is a long-play joke character you're doing as a prank

[rocket surgeon]

Actually, the solar initiative makes economic sense, as well as environmental sense. It'll add about $10,000 to the cost of a home upfront, but save nearly $20,000 on utility costs over the home's first 30 years.
So, what's the problem?

$10,000?  i'd like to see the numbers, but $10k sounds a little light.  i don't think $10k would get you a solar panel on an outhouse in california.  i have a nice, small system on my place outside of phoenix.  the previous owner had it installed but is leased from solar city.  he put it on about 4-5 years ago and it's actual cost was close to $30k. today in california?  i've got to think it could add $50k easy.  my concern is mandating ANYTHING.  give them incentives-fine.  but to mandate something, i.e. a tax-you get LESS of it.

once a solar system is in place, they are good.  when i'm using very little energy and/or when i'm gone and it's a nice sunny day, my meter actually goes backward as i'm sending energy back into the grid.  solar city buys it from me for about 0.20 per kWh; more as i get deeper into the lease.  they just replaced the original panels with a more efficient panel at no cost to me.  i am all in on more efficient.  is a win-win.

  last year, i produced over 8500 kWh, the previous year-over 8700 kWh.  will be very interesting to see how the new panels perform

[rocket surgeon]

Travel hurts Mother Earth. There should be no travel into California for business meetings allowed. It helps everyone & the technology is there to hold meetings with people in other places. Hopefully California bans travel for meetings

not to mention, i think MU82 might have been safer in cabo then he would have been in california, eyn'a?

[rocket surgeon]

Come now, he was quite an accomplished scientist in 1982.

  what might i ask is your expertise there doc?

[mu03eng]

The dirtiness of lithium is correct and an important factor.

Counterpoint on the reliance of a coal-dependent power grid, though - the grid would be the most efficient target to transition off fossil fuels. It hasn't happened yet largely due to lack of political will and the higher upfront costs of switching old infrastructure to handle renewables. But it would be a far more effective private-public partnership to transition the grid off coal, and then have as many energy consumers as possible feeding off a sustainable and renewable grid as compared to the weird combination we have now of a coal-fired grid with a smattering of electric cars and private homeowners putting solar panels on their houses.

It's really a question of which infrastructure we replace first, generation or transport. The grid is wildly inefficient and transmission losses alone are killers. Additionally, a big key to successful transition to renewable sources for PowerGen is an energy storage system. The benefit of any fossil based gen system is your ability to react to demand by increasing output in real time and conversely reduce output in low demand periods. Renewables don't have that luxury, we need to develop energy storage systems that allow the PowerGen system to be "disconnected" from the transportation/consumption side. The storage system should exist through out the transport system because that allows you to smooth the demand profile of the system (take the spikes and dips out of the demand profile). A lot of cost in the energy market is in demand, not consumption (you can fill the pool with water pretty cheaply but the cost comes with how fast you want to fill the pool)

[MUBurrow]

It's really a question of which infrastructure we replace first, generation or transport. The grid is wildly inefficient and transmission losses alone are killers. Additionally, a big key to successful transition to renewable sources for PowerGen is an energy storage system. The benefit of any fossil based gen system is your ability to react to demand by increasing output in real time and conversely reduce output in low demand periods. Renewables don't have that luxury, we need to develop energy storage systems that allow the PowerGen system to be "disconnected" from the transportation/consumption side. The storage system should exist through out the transport system because that allows you to smooth the demand profile of the system (take the spikes and dips out of the demand profile). A lot of cost in the energy market is in demand, not consumption (you can fill the pool with water pretty cheaply but the cost comes with how fast you want to fill the pool)

mu03eng smart smart smart. MUBurrow:

[theBabyDavid]

  what might i ask is your expertise there doc?

The man has 2 Forbes TOP 5 accounts, Rocket!! TWO!

Someone has to keep those Exxon filling station stalls stocked with arse wipe.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

  what might i ask is your expertise there doc?

Why, little old me? None, none whatsoever.

But, I don't attempt to portray myself as a supra-genius, a living god amongst mortals who should feel blessed when he deigns to pass his shadow over them.  Nor did I claim special accomplishment in a field only to have my theory disabused in a matter of moments.

Heck, as The Great and Powerful Keefe has revealed, I'm barely employable! My days are spent eking out a feeble existence toiling in the restrooms of gas stations.  I mean, I'm barely half a step up from a firefighter in his opinion for god's Keefe's sake!