Thank you for this detailed overview. With all due respect, our utilities in California are monopolies or have marginally competitive CCA counterparts that represent only 1/4 of our energy bill. Experience shows the CPUC hasn't worked to lower rates, but instead have allowed excessive increases. We have never experienced electricity prices falling over a long period of time, and there are no signs via the progression towards renewables that the supposedly cheaper cost of production from solar or wind are resulting in lower costs. Instead, the CCAs are able to express to us that under the market forces, they are seeing diminishing supply of the needed renewable sources which is driving the cost higher, not lower. In addition, the new infrastructure has most definitely been proven to be the plurality of our energy cost increases, as we pay not only for the new upgrades, and long term financing of it, but the forever maintenance of new transmission lines as well. We should use the learned experience of capitalism (utilities and MOUs are not building these plants, they are contracting energy PPAs with capitalists, who only build projects if the profits are high enough) to understand that energy rates are not dropping with volume. Rates are growing. Fossil fuels were cheap, and there is no getting around the fact that replacing them will cost more. I was a renewable energy advocate who worked with the CCAs for 4 years, and as much as I would love to agree with you, I feel strongly that this is not happening. It doesn't mean we don't do it. We must. But we shouldn't make predictions about lower pricing when we have no evidence that it will drop. The next phase we'll see challenge the plans of California's grid decarb is that CCAs will soon undergo a transition to account for their renewable sourcing not using annual accounting, but daily and hourly accounting, meaning they will not be able to buy twice as much solar in the summer when it is plentiful, nor will they be able to buy daytime solar and count that as renewable when they deliver fossil or imported electricity at night. It will be their responsibility to ensure that renewable is actually renewable at the time of delivery, thus making solar more expensive because it must all be accounted for real time. Are there any examples you've found where electricity cost in a non nationalized system got cheaper as the move to renewable reached high percentages of the mix? I know hydroelectric in PNW is cheaper, but I also understand new large hydro is both off the table, and not even expressed as viable renewable in California.

Hi! I’m a Digital Marketer & KZbin SEO expert. Your content is great but needs optimization. I can help with SEO-friendly titles, descriptions, and targeted keywords to boost your ranking.

Elon Musk famously said in a 2016 documentary, "Before the Flood" that all the world needs to do is build 100 Gigafactories. "that would make the United States?" "No the whole world." Sounds great. Solar is great, wind is great, and storage is a great way to solve intermittency. But spot the flaws in this 3 minute exchange. Elon assumes that his single Gigafactory can get the resources it needs to produce its grid storage batteries, so 99 other gigafactories can also go and procure the same indefinitely, because batteries last 1000-3000 full cycles and need replacing every 8-12 year depending on top SoC, thermal management, and DoD. His hallmark 1st principles thinking has a blind spot, in not understanding the lessons learned about real time contention for resources, and long term access to those limited resources. He's short term thinking and incorrectly extrapolating the Xanadu solution. DiCaprio is relieved, the future is saved, on paper. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKDUfqeKesdpgpI Would it surprise you to know that more than anyone else in the world, Tesla has repeated that flawed thinking in automobile and semi design? They ignored efficiency and resource constraints, but focused instead on personal gratification, what would a millionaire man who owned and wrecked a McLaren F1 want to drive? A high performance, uncompromising range EV, that's what. While Elon poked fun at dorky little EVs of the past that had terrible performance, didn't look good and couldn't go very far, Nissan was producing the Leaf, which set the standard for all EV policy papers for a decade. Policy folks want to paint a best case scenario for their pitch, so of course you choose the 24kWh dorky car with 4 mile/kWh efficiency. It's exhibiting relatively low increase in embodied carbon (CO2e for production) and really great efficiency for a car. About 1 year later the Model S lands, with far lower efficiency, and much greater embodied carbon from 40 kWh (actually software disabled 60kWh in my 2013) and 85kWh batteries. From that point on, Tesla was fixated on maximizing range with huge packs, never smaller than 57 kWh but often 90 and even 100 kWh, which forced the rest of the EV industry to abandon 80-110 mile range cars, and compete with Tesla building what is now an average of over 80kWh batteries per car. Tesla, in its effort to quickly bolster adoption, radically upset the sustainability of the EV, fundamentally increasing contention for the battery resource, by using too much in each unit. In later years, Tesla recognized that their efficiency from pure induction motors was industry trailing, and they moved to PMS Motors. On the face of it, Tesla moved the consumer to electric. But it did so at the compromise away from what was a more sustainable car. To be clear, the Leaf was a flawed design, as was were all low range EVs if they pushed their drivers to use maximum DoD every day. This stressed cells too much leading to early cell degradation. But if the formula for a lasting car is to massively overbuild the battery, policy folks were responsible to sound the alarm. Your own Dr. Kendall did sound that alarm, but the industry never heard her conclusions. This all happened again in 2019, when Tesla announced a $40,000 Cybertruck, which wouldn't land for 4-5 more years. Ford, already excited about the idea of their best selling vehicle the Ford F-150 becoming an EV, announced theirs would also be cheap and capable. GM followed suit. Rivian hadn't launched officially yet, but were far into their dev. cycle already and they promised a lower price than they could afford to build it at. All of these trucks either underdelivered on specs or at least on price, all moving prices much higher. So what happened? Musk had already been preaching in the public for several years that $100/kWh pack pricing would be available by "next year". The industry took him at his word and everyone assumed Wright's Law is in play in battery production, so Musk was correct and pack level pricing would plummet in the several years it would take for them to finish production. In Ford and GM's case, and Ram eventually, they didn't even bother to streamline the vehicles, instead relying on big batteries to make the inefficient truck design work (unless towing). We all know that the Cybertruck was a Musk fetish and not a stab at efficient truck design. In the end, the true forces of battery pack cost are many. We went from Lithium Triangle brine sourced lithium to spodumene (10x higher emitting) mining. Battery demand grew insanely in China with their successful 5 year plans, NEVs, and massive new Chinese adoption of motor vehicles in general. LG Chem showed the world that you need to account for the possibility of FULL VEHICLE battery pack recalls, an event that could have bankrupted them or any EV manufacturer on the hook to foot the bill of such a recall. Lithium batteries continue to be funneled into the growing world of global grid storage, ignoring the bottlenecks we'll see over and over with various battery components as these competing industries rollercoaster their demands. Please, please, please, do not fall prey to the future battery promises of slashed costs. There is no evidence that must happen given the uncertainty of demand, supply, environmental delays, and ultimately emissions regulation on the well to wheel of battery and EV production. Wrights Law and Moore's Law do not necessarily apply to battery pack production.

Thinking about the parallel between EV adoption's short term viability and natural gas as a bridge fuel, I'm reminded of the day that this Frontline documentary came out. I was working for Sierra Club as staff as a regional advocate for sustainable transportation, renewable energy, and CCE. Watching Sierra Club's former leader, Carl Pope, held up as an example of someone who advocated for the retirement of coal, with the tacit accepting of substitution with natural gas power plants made me extremely anxious. That's because I could see Sierra Club repeating this mistake advocating for unsustainable EV adoption. I drafted an internal team email about this concern, but was lambasted by a manager about attacking the good work of EV advocates, and how this would make them feel. Folks this can't be about our best short term intentions. We're guiding the solutions that policy makers rely on. We can't be short term thinkers who live with regret that we hadn't carefully considered the long term trajectory of our chosen solution. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iGm4gH2nqJp5b7Msi=lV-I_y6Y_DiWq4aK

Ms. Monahan, Elon Musk is painting himself as a principle champion in the effort to get China to adopt California EV credit trading policy. That seems ridiculous, and I wondered if you remembered history that way, given you were in the heart of that work? No need to refute him outright, but a measured response would be helpful.

Siting Pumped Hydro (Water) Storage was always assumed to be dependent on rivers, thus the assumption that the cost and environmental impacts are too great compared to battery storage. But fundamentally, the siting of PWS is dependent on two grade levels with an altitude difference only. You can site them anywhere, build a sea water pipeline (or desal the water first) and you have closed system which can be replenished with new sea water, thus eliminating the need for a river and eliminating the worry of multiyear drought. So California, for example, could get busy with siting new double reservoir PWS systems anywhere we have open land and the appropriate height differential. They could also serve as part of our water challenge solutions, making desal a necessity, rather than painting it as a high cost freshwater alternative to two main water sources. We just need to make the long term investments in PWS, which show honest parity of efficiency with the EIA's survey with batteries(79% vs. 82% respectively). PWS is still the global norm for good reason. If you build it, your great grandchildren will benefit from the same project, whereas batteries will have needed replacement every 12 years. BTW, there is no 1, 2, or 4 hour short duration lithium battery challenge. Any chemical battery can be managed to discharge more slowly and that system amended with more volume to meet your needed storage demand. Alternatively, you discharge in a sequence. The industry needs to stop speaking about batteries as if they don't understand this, because it makes them sound uneducated when they repeat this untruth. That said, lithium batteries are most suitable for transportation because of their unequalled energy density. Given the bottlenecks and ultimately limited resources we have to build lithium batteries, of all chemistries, they should never have been squandered on the grid. I believe we should recognize that in a sustainable system, chemical battery systems are for micromobility, electric pantograph steel rail mass transit is for mid to long distance, and the full sized EV car/SUV/pickup is a thing we cannot sustain. I say this because we are deficit spending emissions today, though we artificially created 2030 and 2050 targets for tracking to zero emissions. The embodied carbon on EVs today ranges from 17-39 tons CO2e per vehicle using BMW's i5 and Rivian's R1T repectively. No fully disclosed LCA shows a smaller number than that, and the full decarbonization pathway for mining and industry to build cars is dacades away from fruition. This is a timing issue and ultimately an earth impact problem. We cannot possibly perpetually build cars and a circular economy for cars, still leaves them as the #1 energy inefficient way to move ourselves, in what will be an impossibly austere future. Full decarbonization is the hardest thing we've ever faced, so we need to get real about a California household tripling its power demands if it goes from gas water and space heating plus two ICE vehicles, to heat pumps an a 3 row EV SUV, and an EV pickup truck. Our EVs are bloating with no efficiency standard, and we're undoing the whole effort by ignoring the LCA of motor vehicles in general. They're unsustainable. Lazard and the battery industry lied to us about the superior efficiency of battery storage. Here is the EIA's reported data: www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46756

The reason the government does not acknowledge people who say they are natives indigenous because they lied to people and told them they are natives and paid them our money. When they are the descendants of Kristopher Columbus, they are Spainards, they are Latins.

Thanks for making this public! Hi Lew and Sydney.

Thanks for this, very informative

Hello, I am studing EE and NEE in Chile and I need some reference to what depend EE, why they vary temporal and spacially, how emissions and concentrations are measured and how they impact on dispersion in Air Quality Models. Please help me

Great communication skills!

How to conduct or do comparative analysis of rural infrastructure and mobility of three region?

This video is messed up. Literally. The slideshow & speaker remained minimized in the upper right hand corner while the bulk of the screen shows a repeating "screen saver" slideshow of transit maps that are not apart of the presentation and appear to have been a pre-show filler or maybe apart of the speakers book? Either way, not being able to see the speaker or the slides is very disappointing.

Thank you.

Is there a link that could be provided to this presentation? I can't seem to find it on the website. Thank you.

*PromoSM* 😳

Won't a fed bank accounts plus a CBDC take care of a lot of these problems while reducing operating costs?

Thanks for making these seminars publicly available. It's helpful and I found this topic to be particularly interesting. I'd love to see the study repeated with e-bike characteristics in mind. As noted, some e-bikes are pint-sized, but many exceed the rack weight of 55 lb. limit on our bus racks. Transit agency reminds us that pulling the battery can reduce the weight, and we can carry that on. I think a critical question to try to dig into is this: The Netherlands has decided that transporting bikes on transit (except outside of commute times in limited volume) is forbidden, because it's just not feasible to move everyone and their bike. That assumption was made under the Dutch paradigm of cheap ubiquitous bikes, initially resulted in beater bikes at your work transit destination locked up all weekend, and ultimately resulted in the most massive bike share in the world, OV Fiets. This model assumes massive parking structures and massive bike count redundancy at train stations, which is arguably more trouble than actually devising transit that can haul all the bikes. The Dutch made these decisions with two early but maybe wrong assumptions, I believe: 1) not everyone will have to travel under the bike/train bike/tram paradigm. 2) bikes are worth a max. of $250 and you don't care about long range travel at your destination (ie no need for higher performance e-bike) What if those assumptions are wrong? What if everyone is traveling with micromobility + transit + micromobility on the other end for everything? In a car free world dominated by rail, not buses (because catanary not battery), long range e-bikes/e-trikes become the norm and our existing road structure is free and safe for their use. Rightsizing your e-bike for your needs (some will need much more assist than others or higher speed access) makes sense, and that cripples the OV Fiets paradigm. I know San Jose had a bike train that went from curiosity, to boon, to chaos from overuse rather quickly. The insight from that experiment was that people did NOT want to leave their expensive bike parked at a transit center all day and did not want to lose their personal bike's features on those critical last miles. But what if transit was carefully designed for 1 to 1 person to bike capacity with room for larger compact cargo bikes and trikes? Would boarding be too slow, or require moving the train once during boarding?

Thank you for presenting a great lecture and uploading this seminar. I have learned a lot of things from the lecture. Specifically, I was very inspired and motivated by the vision and research approaches of Professor Atiyya Shaw. Again, thanks for uploading such a great lecture. Hope to hear more from Professor Atiyya Shaw and UC Davis

ｐｒｏｍｏｓｍ

💞 p̾r̾o̾m̾o̾s̾m̾

Thanks for this wonderful lecture

There is nothing happier in this life if you're living healthy without any disease,I can say now I will be leaving happier because my only problem with Hsv 2 had been solved permanently I'm so grateful to; Dr Oseghale Sunday Herbal Home..

Very interesting information! It is important for people to learn and understand EV technologies and how EV charging and EV charging infrastructures work if we want people to comfortably make the switch to EVs.🚗 ⚡️

Very wonderful lecture, I am interested to understand in details concerning driving behaviours vs. vehicle emissions.

Excellent summary. Thanks

UC. good evening~ Super.cool !all the best!=))

This tool will be so useful in transportation analysis! I wonder though, could something similar be created to include walking, cycling, and transit numbers? It would make transportation analysis more accessible to residents and show increased network capacity when planning more sustainably.

Love the research topic. That's quite a number of businesses plotted. :) Well done.

Great 👍

Well explained. Thank you for sharing

asp8q vyn.fyi

EPA needs a cork to shove up their ass

Thanks a lot

This was super informative thank you

Tanks madam

How will this impact the development of Synthetic fuels? Efuel?

This is what happens when you have an academic who doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation. If you added some lanes in some rural areas would more people drive? nope. In Seattle for example (where 40% of people commute by bus) when they added 10% lanes at the SAME TIME the population went up 14% guess what the volume went up 10% as well. Most people don't drive more just because it is faster and denser development closer to the city drives up the cost of housing which forces people to drive even longer distances. The cost of driving has to be balanced against the desire to own a single family home. Restricting traffic drives up the cost of housing and is a hidden tax on people.

Tesla provides Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) to its customers then Tesla is a winner on renewable fuel credit game. If Tesla holds back on V2G then Tesla has lost the game. IMO the Tesla company or its solar roof power wall divisions will never allow V2G. V2G will kill expensive solar expensive power wall expensive what Tesla calls inverter modules.

Does anyone have an email address for Dr. Shelley Francis? I'm with 350 Madison, in Madison WI, and we'd like to invite her to speak to us. I'm having trouble connecting with her! Thanks for any help. Sincerely, Tanace Matthiesen.

1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere/GHGs, makes the earth cooler than it would be without that atmosphere like that reflective panel set behind the windshield. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth would become much like the Moon and Mercury, a barren rock with a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree. 2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating/delaying/intercepting, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires "extra" energy which according to RGHE theory comes from 3) the terrestrial surface radiating that "extra" energy as a LWIR ideal black body which 4) cannot happen because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules and as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science: principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/ 1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change. Version 1.0 033021

Extraordinarily explained .

Between 2/24/21 and 12/9/20 CDC logged 1,038,084 deaths from ALL causes, 3,163 per million. During the same period CDC logged 217,382 deaths involving C-19, 662 per million. 65-74 accounted for 21.8% at 3,286 per million. 75-84 accounted for 28.9% at 8,363 per million. 85+ accounted for 31.8% at 22,914 per million. 30% of C-19 deaths are among those 85+, 2% of the population. 32.4% of C-19 deaths occurred in nursing homes, hospice or residence. To date 388,352, 81.1%, of ALL C-19 deaths are among those 65+, 16% of the population. 85.7% of the C-19 CASES are among those UNDER 65. 81.1% of DEATHS are among those OVER 65. Japan has the highest percentage of 65+, 27%, yet still under 8,000 deaths, 60.5 per million. What do they know/do the rest of the world does not? C-19 is not a problem for the young and healthy herd. Mother Nature and her buddy Grim Reaper are just doing their jobs, culling the herd of the too many, too old, too sick warehoused too close together as Medicare/Medicaid cash cows in poorly run (BLUE) contagious lethal elder care facilities. If C-19 is mostly killing off old sick people why are super-legislator Chancellor comrade Biden, his squad of t*&ts, Fauci, their minions and our elected morons suspending civil liberties, due process, bankrupting the country with lockdowns, distancing and masked clown shows? And the lying, fact free, fake news MSM left-wing coup de’tat propaganda machine has betrayed its responsibility to democracy and an informed public. Version 1.0 022721 UC Davis

1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere like that reflective panel set on the dash. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth becomes much like the moon, a barren rock with a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree. 2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating/delaying/intercepting, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires "extra" energy which according to RGHE theory it gets from 3) the terrestrial surface radiating that "extra" energy as a near ideal .95 emissivity black body which 4) it cannot do because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules. 1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change. All science backed up by experiment, the gold standard of classical science. www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K Version 1.0 022721

1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere like that reflective panel set on the dash. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth becomes much like the moon, a barren rock with a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree. 2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating/delaying/intercepting, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires "extra" energy which according to RGHE theory it gets from 3) the terrestrial surface radiating that "extra" energy as a near ideal .95 emissivity black body which 4) it cannot do because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules. 1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change. All science backed up by experiment, the gold standard of classical science. www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K version 1.0 022721 UC Davis

Is it fair to think that most people will move directly into EV ownership given the questions that most Americans have about this technology, its durability, and especially around range anxiety? (This is especially true the further you get from the city center.) Would shared use programs, such as car sharing, with EVs and supported with public charging options be a lower-risk option to allow consumers to "try before you buy" and to become more comfortable with the technology and the use cases that are applicable to each person? Are there other options outside of personal ownership that could also help to accelerate the adoption of EVs while also reducing emissions through incentives around reducing VMT, etc.?

great so clear.. make another video, please..

great, thanks

1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere like that reflective panel set on the dash. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth becomes much like the moon, a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree. 2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating/delaying, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires "extra" energy which it gets from 3) the terrestrial surface radiating that "extra" energy as a near ideal .95 emissivity black body which 4) it cannot do because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules. 1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change. All science backed up by experiment, the gold standard of classical science. www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K version 1.0 020221 CU

I think it is a very naive presentation if you think that by comparing the prices of shares (Tesla vs. Exxon) you can say something about the expected success of a possible upcoming energy transition. And not knowing what OECD means doesn't add to her credibility. Not really a successful presentation I think.