On Sat, 22 May 2021 18:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 8:11:16 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2021 11:38:27 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/22/2021 10:19 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

With CA forcing people into EVs they have to support them. Same as gas
stations grew over the past 100 years.

CA has pretty much tapped out their hydro potential. They import power
from the PNW but the Seattle granola heads will need to plug their
Teslas in too.

https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...ar-power-plant

Diablo is going off line and I doubt they will ever allow another
nuclear plant to be built in the state.

Solar is producing about 20% of their requirements so they'd better pave
the Mojave with panels. The residential mandate will drive up the cost
of their already unaffordable housing.

Wind power generation is currently less than 10%.
The only reason CA can do that much is they're using the rest of the
SW to stabilize the grid. Much about 10-15% and the grid will be
unstable.
I've got an idea. Bicycles, lots and lots of bicycles.
It's going to take a *LOT* of them to generate that kind of power.

BTW, TANSTAAFL. You have to feed people too, and that's rather
inefficient.

The California Air Resources Board just passed a rule requiring EVs
account for 90% of ride sharing miles by 2030.
https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2021/05/california-just-passed-a-new-environmental-mandate-that-could-ruin-uber/

California wants to put ridesharing (all gig jobs) out of business.
This is just another means to that end. A range of a few hundred
miles per day puts a real crimp in a driver's income.

So much for the lower income people picking up a few extra dollars with their existing buggys.

What do Democrats car about lower income people?