Author Topic: tough future for California gas stations  (Read 2167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Richard230

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,018
  • Karma: 0
Reply #15 on: October 13, 2022, 02:30:39 pm
I think Cali's projected date of 2035 is a well intentioned pipe dream that is counting on the technology to be up to the task by then. Prior to that date the realization that it will take more time and that electric vehicles across the board are not the entire solution to every motorized need will sink in and you will see a mix of ICE and EV's on the road in that state in that not too distant future. The intension is good and California has led the way for the other 50 states in pollution control but it is going to take more time and not a legislative magic wand to have what will turn out to be a compromised goal than what is imagined now.

That is the problem with California legislators.  They just pass laws, or empower regulators to do it for them, and then hope that the new laws and regulations will change society into what they vision will be good for them. They don't worry about most of their constituents not having the money or desire to buy an electric vehicle and need a vehicle that will travel further in a shorter period of time than an EV and would prefer to continue to buy gas-powered vehicles. And this goes double for heavy-duty commercial trucks. I think there will be a need for both EVs and ICE-powered vehicles for many years past 2035.

What is worse is the way the state's legislators allow their regulators mandate that each city in the state build tens of thousands of new "affordable and low-cost" homes by a specific date otherwise they will have state grants withdrawn, be fined, or be sued in the courts. But they don't seem to understand that cities don't build homes, developers do and do so to make a profit. If private developers don't want to build these homes because they can't make any money doing so, then why should the cities and their taxpaying residents be punished? My feeling is that if the state wants to build new homes that cost more to build than they can be sold for, let them build it themselves.  Right now some regulators in the state is saying build homes anywhere, just build them and others are saying don't build on lands that are subject to wildfires (which is most of the state) or on public land (about 1/3 of the entire state). Both groups are threatening lawsuits if cities don't conform to their mandates.   >:(
2018 16.6 kWh Zero S, 2009 BMW F650GS, 2020 KTM Duke 390, 2002 Yamaha FZ1


Karl Childers

  • Ghost in the machine.
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,042
  • Karma: 1
Reply #16 on: October 13, 2022, 03:28:52 pm
What is worse is the way the state's legislators allow their regulators mandate that each city in the state build tens of thousands of new "affordable and low-cost" homes by a specific date otherwise they will have state grants withdrawn, be fined, or be sued in the courts. But they don't seem to understand that cities don't build homes, developers do and do so to make a profit. If private developers don't want to build these homes because they can't make any money doing so, then why should the cities and their taxpaying residents be punished? My feeling is that if the state wants to build new homes that cost more to build than they can be sold for, let them build it themselves.  Right now some regulators in the state is saying build homes anywhere, just build them and others are saying don't build on lands that are subject to wildfires (which is most of the state) or on public land (about 1/3 of the entire state). Both groups are threatening lawsuits if cities don't conform to their mandates.   >:(


That sounds like a real mess as well! Common sense and political agenda even for good causes are most often mutually exclusive.


GlennF

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,659
  • Karma: 0
Reply #17 on: October 14, 2022, 06:55:20 am


That sounds like a real mess as well! Common sense and political agenda even for good causes are most often mutually exclusive.

Yes well there are people that think an unrestricted government can be trusted to do the right thing rather than pursue personal interest and political gain and THEN there are people that believe unrestricted big corps can be trusted to do the right thing rather than pursue profit and personal gain.

Both camps are mad as cut snakes, running on ideology and hyperbole, and not in touch with reality in the slightest.


Richard230

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,018
  • Karma: 0
Reply #18 on: October 14, 2022, 09:41:23 pm
And now for some crazy news that I heard on the local radio news station today from an electrical grid expert:  He says that future large appliances, such as stoves, water heaters, furnaces, laundry machines, etc. will all be designed to turn off automatically when they are informed via the internet that California's electrical grid is under stress. That is bad enough, but what really got my attention was when he forecasted that the electrical utilities in California would one day be charging for power based upon the grid demand. The electrical rate would change hour-by-hour depending upon how much demand on the utility's transmission grid is being used by the utility's customers.  :o I hope I am not around to witness that rate plan go into effect. 
2018 16.6 kWh Zero S, 2009 BMW F650GS, 2020 KTM Duke 390, 2002 Yamaha FZ1


Karl Childers

  • Ghost in the machine.
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,042
  • Karma: 1
Reply #19 on: October 14, 2022, 11:52:09 pm
And some good news for me at least, my electrical co-op has achieved 100% daytime solar as promised and wait for it..... A healthy reduction in my monthly electrical bill!! Got to love it in this day and age when promises are kept and you get some bonus benefits on top of it! Our little co-op should be a model for the rest of the country at least for locations that have a fair amount of sunshine.


AzCal Retred

  • Chennai Wrencher
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,148
  • Karma: 0
  • a journey of a thousand li starts under one's feet
Reply #20 on: October 15, 2022, 01:31:23 am
"what really got my attention was when he forecasted that the electrical utilities in California would one day be charging for power based upon the grid demand."

That's the general basis of "Time-of-Use" scheduling. It all comes from Legislators that are Pol-Sci majors getting their info from the Utilities directly vs. using their own sources. Utility sources always bias response to benefit themselves, SHOCKING I know...

The electronic meters in use can disconnect your house from the grid remotely. They talk to the mothership regularly, and are fully aware of power flow and power factor.

When I traveled thru Orygun & Worshington there were very few solar arrays - their electrical rates from Bonneville Power Administration were so low there was no point to it. They're a Federal organization and DON'T HAVE a rapacious Board of Directors harvesting their ratepayers for more coats of yacht varnish.

SCE, PGE, SDGE all need to be "municipalized" or Federalized. There is zero benefit to subsidizing private corporate boards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Power_Administration
A trifecta of Pre-Unit Bullets: a Red Deluxe 500, a Green Standard 500, and a Black ES 350.


GlennF

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,659
  • Karma: 0
Reply #21 on: October 15, 2022, 06:59:06 am
he forecasted that the electrical utilities in California would one day be charging for power based upon the grid demand. The electrical rate would change hour-by-hour depending upon how much demand on the utility's transmission grid is being used by the utility's customers.

Had that here for a long while, though it is optional and also not available to all consumers, depends on your retailer.  For most people it works out cheaper than fixed tariffs.  This is the pricing from my provider:





The other thing that is taking off here is large commercial battery banks that are not connected to any solar or other electrical generator. They just buy electricity at cheap times of day (mainly the middle of the day) when there is surplus power on the grid and sell it back a few hours later when it is priced at a premium.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2022, 07:08:31 am by GlennF »


Richard230

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,018
  • Karma: 0
Reply #22 on: October 15, 2022, 02:19:11 pm
My complaint about the hourly rate change plan is that the consumer would never know what the rate is going to be at any given time and could not plan their electrical power use accordingly. Right now I have two rates that are based upon the time of day. An "off-peak" rate of 42.5 cents per kWh, between 10pm and 4pm, and a "peak" rate charged between 4pm and 10pm of 48.5 cents per kWh. Not a lot of difference between the two rates and therefore not a lot of incentive for PG&E customers to really cut back on electrical consumption during peak hours. It seems more like a feelgood gimmick to me. But if the rate changed every hour, how would anyone know what that rate is, especially with a company like PG&E who seems to feel that the customers are a bunch of suckers?

And that idea of having large home electrical appliances cut off by themselves when they are informed that the electrical grid is stressed also sounds like a bad idea to me as you might be washing laundry, cooking dinner, cooling your home, etc. when the appliance shuts down without warning. It might sound like a good idea for the electrical grid, but not such a good idea for the individual consumer. I would much prefer that the electrical grid be built to accommodate projected usage, rather than making the customer take the hit for the lack of sufficient infrastructure due to poor planning and lack of will to spend the funds to beef up the grid.
2018 16.6 kWh Zero S, 2009 BMW F650GS, 2020 KTM Duke 390, 2002 Yamaha FZ1


GlennF

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,659
  • Karma: 0
Reply #23 on: October 17, 2022, 12:16:34 am
I would much prefer that the electrical grid be built to accommodate projected usage, rather than making the customer take the hit for the lack of sufficient infrastructure due to poor planning and lack of will to spend the funds to beef up the grid.

The problem is, if you have sufficient infrastructure to cover any possible peak demand you end up spending billions on infrastructure that just sits around unused and is only used for maybe one day a year.  In many cases the extra infrastructure needed to cover those once a year "what if" scenarios can add 10% or 20 % to the capital cost and maintenance of a grid, which eventually must be passed on to the consumer.

Assuming you wish to avoid that there are only two options, load shedding which these days is political suicide as people no longer accept occasional blackouts as "normal" and whatever party is in opposition will have a field day going on about "reliable electricity" or somehow managing demand.


Richard230

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,018
  • Karma: 0
Reply #24 on: October 17, 2022, 01:31:15 am
Managing demand is going to be tough when electric vehicles finally take over from ICE vehicles and everyone wants to charge up at the same time during the day. Right now California's grid is not up to the task of accommodating the current demand during the summer when A/C units are operating at full blast and needs the help of natural gas backup plants to be turned on to pick up the slack. Plus, the state's single atomic power plant supplies a significant amount of California's power and it is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2025, unless the federal government relents and renews its operating license which will expire that year. Add to that EV charging and the grid still needs to be upgraded due to the amount of time and money that it will take to accommodate the future demand. Better to upgrade the grid over a period of years, rather than have a summer when things blow up and the politicians try to bite off more than they and the state's budget can chew all at once.
2018 16.6 kWh Zero S, 2009 BMW F650GS, 2020 KTM Duke 390, 2002 Yamaha FZ1


AzCal Retred

  • Chennai Wrencher
  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,148
  • Karma: 0
  • a journey of a thousand li starts under one's feet
Reply #25 on: October 17, 2022, 01:42:28 am
In the '60's the Utilities carried "15% spinning reserve", where system load always had another 15% capacity sitting there ready to plough in. SCE now has maybe 5%, PG&E 10% for sure. The shortages come from penny-pinching by private utilities optimizing profit, cutting VERY close to the bone. Public/Government utilities like SMUD, BPA, Bureau of Reclamation, etc. don't have a mandate to maximize profit extraction, just a continuity of service mandate. If money goes back into the process, the power supply and service continuity get better. There is NO REASON to publicly support a thick layer of private capitalists that aren't adding product value, just extracting "surplus" money.

My friend was quoted $20,000 to underground a 100' stretch of powerline on her local property by PG&E. In Sacramento, for a virtually identical job, SMUD merely considers it a service they provide for free to ratepayers. SMUD didn't have to extort money to feed a rapacious Private Board of Directors. Utility base rates in SMUD territory are under 1/2 of what I routinely pay.
A trifecta of Pre-Unit Bullets: a Red Deluxe 500, a Green Standard 500, and a Black ES 350.


Richard230

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,018
  • Karma: 0
Reply #26 on: October 17, 2022, 02:37:19 pm
In the '60's the Utilities carried "15% spinning reserve", where system load always had another 15% capacity sitting there ready to plough in. SCE now has maybe 5%, PG&E 10% for sure. The shortages come from penny-pinching by private utilities optimizing profit, cutting VERY close to the bone. Public/Government utilities like SMUD, BPA, Bureau of Reclamation, etc. don't have a mandate to maximize profit extraction, just a continuity of service mandate. If money goes back into the process, the power supply and service continuity get better. There is NO REASON to publicly support a thick layer of private capitalists that aren't adding product value, just extracting "surplus" money.

My friend was quoted $20,000 to underground a 100' stretch of powerline on her local property by PG&E. In Sacramento, for a virtually identical job, SMUD merely considers it a service they provide for free to ratepayers. SMUD didn't have to extort money to feed a rapacious Private Board of Directors. Utility base rates in SMUD territory are under 1/2 of what I routinely pay.

My daughter recently had her home's overhead electrical service line, which dated back to when the home was built in 1955, upgraded from a 100 amp service to a 200 amp service. She had to hire a local electrician to install a new electrical panel and arrange with PG&E to replace the overhead service that came off of the utility pole directly across the street with a new one. It took over a month for PG&E to schedule the work. The cost to install the new electrical panel, which my son-in-law purchased via eBay and wasn't supplied by the electrician, was $6,500. I am not sure how much of that cost was PG&E's fee to replace the old service line with a new one, but I bet it was a good chunk of the cost as the electrician only spent about 8 hours to complete the work over a period of two days - a month apart.
2018 16.6 kWh Zero S, 2009 BMW F650GS, 2020 KTM Duke 390, 2002 Yamaha FZ1


Arschloch

  • Grand Gearhead
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,757
  • Karma: 0
  • ...all is lost
Reply #27 on: October 17, 2022, 09:57:01 pm
Who would wonder. On the bright side if you work in California for the high tech industry and ideally have no clue what exactly you're doing 6.5k$ sure is peanuts.  ;)