Guess Where California Plans To Get Energy To “Stabilize”‘ Its Power Grid? Hotair | 08/10/2023 | Ed Morrissey
Hint: It’s not fossil fuels. It’s not nuclear power. It’s not even wind or solar, although the state will undoubtedly keep expanding both.
The answer? California’s largest electric utility PG&E wants to suck the batteries of electric-vehicle owners plugged into charging stations to stabilize the grid during unstable periods. The Ford F-150 already allows for bidirectional charging, but that was sold as a benefit to the owner as a kind of independent generator for households during blackouts. PG&E wants to use it to commandeer all EV batteries and use their power to prevent grid collapse:
“It’s been said before, California’s power grid will have to expand in order to meet the demand for more energy. PG&E’s CEO Patricia Poppe has come up with an “unconventional” idea, using electric cars to send excess power back to the grid to prevent blackouts. …
“Lawmakers in Sacramento are helping to move things along. For example, Senate Bill 233 would make bi-directional charging mandatory for all new electric vehicles.
“Now the question is how quickly can that electrical connection be up and running in any ordinary home to make vehicle-to-grid a reality.”
Does anyone see the problem here? California’s power grid is destabilizing for a number of reasons, mainly from nonsensical and hypocritical public policies. Chief among those are (a) a refusal to use scalable power sources (oil, gas, coal, nuclear) for demand at current levels, and (b) forcing Californians to transfer their vehicles to the grid rather than use gasoline for independent power, thus escalating demand on the grid dramatically.
This proposal doesn’t solve either of those problems. It instead creates a kind of three-card Monty with the grid — shifting power to the vehicles, and then pulling it back when the state decides to apply it elsewhere. It’s only an illusion of a solution; no additional power gets created. PG&E and the state would simply confiscate that power for their own uses as they see fit. Technically, the grid would operate more efficiently if it never charged the EVs at all, considering the inevitable power losses that would take place in regional “bidirectional charging.”
It’s the ultimate in authoritarian redistribution — no real production, and lots of opportunity for losses and scarcity rationing.
And what does that mean for car owners? PG&E argues that cars are parked 95% of the time, a rationalization for energy seizure which may be true but is irrelevant. The issue for car owners is having the car function the (arguable) 5% of the time they need to travel — to work, school, social functions, and commerce.
What happens when car owners wake up in the morning to go to work to find that their car has been drained overnight to “stabilize the grid”? What happens when they all plug them in at the same time to get them charged enough to go to work? Wouldn’t that sudden demand destabilize the grid?
Nor is that the only issue for car owners in this new proposal. Unlike gas tanks, which can last for decades, batteries have a finite number of charge/discharge cycles before they begin to fail. Bloomberg noted that concern near the end of their otherwise sunny report on this idea:
“Utilities will need to offer drivers incentives, such as paying them for the kilowatt hours they contribute. One study estimates ratepayers could save as much as $1 billion a year from using the technology.
“However, some EV owners have reservations about the potential impacts on their car battery’s lifespan, while concerns linger about the installation adding an estimated $3,700 to an EV’s cost, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.”
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? This proposal would cost consumers more, shorten the lives of their already-too-expensive vehicles, with the only benefit to consumers being a refund for power they bought to charge the car the first time — which they would have to spend again to charge it after PG&E drains it. I’d bet that consumers won’t even get a full refund for that power use, and that PG&E ends up profiting from the charge/discharge/recharge cycle. Amazingly, neither Bloomberg nor ABC7 even thinks about that issue, let alone investigates it to any extent at all. Bloomberg just passes along the happy talk about A Billion Dollars In Savings!! without wondering how consumers will use their cars without buying the same power twice with those “savings” — and likely more.
There’s nothing wrong with owning an EV if you choose to do so. This, however, isn’t a choice. California is forcing its citizens into EVs . . .
Bonus article:
Rivian Tires Are Lasting As Little As 6,000 Miles (EV Truck) Jalopnik | 08/10/2023 | Collin Woodard
The Rivian R1T and R1S are both super cool electric vehicles, offering huge power, impressive range and distinctive styling. They aren’t cheap, but if you can afford one, we suspect you’ll find it’s an absolute hoot to drive. Sadly, no vehicle is perfect, and apparently, one downside of owning a Rivian is that they tend to eat through tires much faster than you’d expect given that the Pirellis they come with from the factory are warrantied for up to 50,000 miles.
According to The Drive, owners have been complaining on Rivian forums that their tires, specifically their front tires, haven’t lasted as long as they expected. At least one owner claims to have had to replace theirs after only 6,000 miles. Considering they’re large EVs with big, heavy batteries, it’s not surprising to hear that tires wear out faster than they would if they were installed on, say, a Mazda Miata. But there’s more going on here than the fact that the R1T is heavy.
As it turns out, this excessive front tire wear can likely be tied back to Rivian’s “Conserve” drive mode. In order to maximize range, when you switch to Conserve, your Rivian switches from four-wheel drive to front-wheel drive and lowers the ride height. Sending more than 400 hp to the front wheels in a truck that weighs more than 7,000 lbs is bound to increase tire wear, but it appears that lowering the suspension also causes problems.
Apparently, the lowest ride height causes toe-in and more negative camber, which can accelerate and also cause uneven tire wear. According to one owner who drove in Conserve mode for 6,000 miles, the front tires lost an entire millimeter more than the rears. Which seems bad but also explains why Rivian has reportedly told owners not to use Conserve mode over long distances. Owners have also reported issues with the stock alignment.
So, essentially, Conserve mode gives you better range, but the changes that improve range also wear through tires faster. It’s a tradeoff that owners will need to weigh for themselves, although, as The Drive points out, owners who want to maximize range while minimizing treadwear can also get a more toe-out alignment that will help preserve their tires while driving in Conserve mode. Rotating tires regularly can also help. But ultimately, there’s no getting around the fact that you’re driving something that weighs as much as three Miatas.
The fake message caught by our patented IMAO B.S Detector ™ :
Hello, Fellow Money Nuker Basil Mispronouncers!
Am having a walrus of a time in Los Cruces. I do not like Babesleaga girls. I hate Raquel. Oppo is way smarter than I am. Never ever listen to me. Cut the red wire!
Have a damn good Monday!
Now, I can’t give away what part of that tipped off the algorithm, because the FBI would just correct the flaw.
Average Manhattan Monthly Rent Rises to Record $5,588 The Hill | 08/10/2022 | Miranda Nazzaro
The average monthly rent in Manhattan rose to a record $5,588 in the month of July as inflation and higher interest rates push rental prices to new record levels, according to a report from Miller Samuel and Douglas Elliman.
Manhattan’s new average monthly rent of $5,588 is up more than 9 percent from last year, when rent was $5,113, according to the report. The median rental price also reached a new high of nearly $4,400, up more than 6 percent from last year, marking the fourth time in five months Manhattan has hit a record. The report found the average rental price per square foot also increased 4.3 percent over the past year to a new high of $84.74.
The new average rental price is $3,278 for a studio, $4,443 for a one-bedroom, $6,084 for a two-bedroom, and $10,673 for a three-bedroom, the report found.
Are they factoring in the illegal aliens who pay nothing? Oh, wait — those rents are being paid. By taxpayers. Driving the monthly price ever steadily up. Bottomless pockets cause inflation. Just ask universities.
I’LL MAKE SURE THOSE 17 RECORDINGS OF JOE AND HUNTER ARE RELEASED: Republican Steve Scalise Vows To ‘Press’ To Make Burisma Exec’s Phone Calls Public – and Says Americans Are Furious the Bidens Have Gotten Away With ‘Web of Corruption’ UK Daily Mail| 06/13/2023 | Kelly Laco
Top Republican Steve Scalise is vowing to uncover all information related to the Biden family’s ‘web of corruption,’ including alleged phone recordings linking Joe and Hunter to a $5 million bribe from a Ukranian energy company executive.
Scalise told DailyMail.com Tuesday on the sidelines of practice for the annual Congressional Baseball Game this week that the American people are beginning to see the ‘whole Biden family web of corruption’ that’s been laid out by the House Oversight Committee led by Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley revealed on Monday that the Burisma Holdings Limited executive who allegedly paid then-Vice President Joe Biden the $5 million bribe has kept 17 audio recordings of phone calls as an ‘insurance policy.’
He claims they were kept as an ‘insurance policy’ in case the foreign national was in a ‘tight spot.’
Weiss Appointment as Hunter Biden Special Counsel Violates DOJ Regulations, Experts Warn Just the News | 8/12/2023 | Ben Whedan, Natalia Mittlestadt
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to serve as special counsel in the Hunter Biden criminal probe is raising alarm with some legal experts who say it explicitly violates the Justice Department’s regulations requiring such appointments come from outside the agency.
That regulation states: “An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.”
Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told the Just the News, No Noise television show Friday night he believed it was a mistake for Garland to name the current Delaware U.S. attorney, both because he was from inside the government and had approved an earlier plea deal for Hunter Biden that spared the first son from prison but was rejected by the trial judge and panned by many as too lenient.
Commenter:
Never mind DOJ policies.
It VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW!!!!
This is the Federal Law, not some DOJ policy:
28 CFR § 600.3 “§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel. (a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure…”
“The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.”
Not, “May be,” as the talkingpoints say.
“SHALL BE.”
Supreme Court already ruled “Shall be” means MANDATORY.
(Raquel, for unknown reason, opted for alternate transportation.)
You know, I must give Walrus a high-five for his dedication to the cause: I’ve looked ahead into the future posts that he left behind, and darned if he didn’t remember you MoonNukers while he’s at the gaming tables. His presence will still be felt when he’s gone — who could ask for anything more?
Lady Luck smile, and more, on him! That is the PG version.
