I & I Editorial BoardThe Washington Post ran a lengthy article last week bemoaning the fact that AI (artificial intelligence) is sucking up so much power that it’s already straining the nation’s electric grid and is bad for the environment. Seriously? So, how will the grid be able to handle the millions of electric cars environmentalists want to force on the road? The answer might shock you.
The Post reports that:
“As the tech giants compete in a global AI arms race, a frenzy of data center construction is sweeping the country. Some computing campuses require as much energy as a modest-sized city, turning tech firms that promised to lead the way into a clean energy future into some of the world’s most insatiable guzzlers of power. Their projected energy needs are so huge, some worry whether there will be enough electricity to meet them from any source.”
The article quotes Tamara Kneese, a project director at Data & Society, saying “Coal plants are being reinvigorated because of the AI boom. This should be alarming to anyone who cares about the environment.”
Yet, at the same time, we keep being reassured that the power grid will have no problem handling the millions of “clean” electric cars that President Joe Biden and his climate-crisis pals want to force onto the market, each of which draws massive amounts of electricity off the grid as they recharge.
“A question that frequently comes up when discussing electric vehicles (EVs) is: ‘Can the grid handle it?’ The short answer is ‘yes,’” writes the left-leaning Consumer Reports in a typical article on the topic.
Really?
Stanford University researchers predicted that rapid EV adoption could increase peak net electricity demand 25% by 2035. Does anyone really believe we can build that much extra capacity in less than 11 years?
The Stanford study points out the challenge of supplying this much new energy will be greatly amplified because “uncontrolled charging has been shown to … cause transformer overloading, force early replacement of equipment, overload transmission lines, worsen power quality or require substation upgrades.”
That’s to say nothing of the fact that environmentalists are attacking every form of reliable energy, from oil and gas to hydroelectric to nuclear.
We are already seeing the strain this puts on the grid.
A couple of years ago, California had to beg EV owners not to charge their vehicles in the evening to avoid the risk of brownouts and blackouts during a heat wave. That was when a mere 2.5% of the cars on the road in California were electric and only a quarter of its power came from less-reliable wind and solar.
What happens when 22 million EVs are whizzing around California in 2045, the same year the state is supposed to have a zero-carbon grid? The Pacific Research Institute reckons the supply of electricity will fall 21% short of demand.
The rest of the country will face similar power gaps. And it won’t take long for begging to turn to forbidding owners to charge at certain times.
Nevertheless, EV advocates insist that massive EV adoption will be good for the electric grid because of something called “bidirectional charging.”
The idea behind “bidirectional charging” is that all these electric cars are just energy-storage units. So, if the grid gets overloaded, all you have to do is tap into this energy reserve rolling around on city streets.
“With careful planning and the right infrastructure, parked and plugged-in EVs could become mass power banks, stabilizing the electric grids of the future. In this way, we can think of EVs as big batteries on wheels, helping to make sure that there is always enough energy for everyone at any given time,” says one advocate.
In practical terms, what “bidirectional charging” means is that if you plug your car in at a time when the grid needs power, it will suck energy out of your car’s batteries. It would be like a gasoline pump turning into a siphon whenever Exxon decided demand for oil was too high.
A bill in California – the state where freedom goes to die – would require all EVs to be capable of bidirectional charging. “The batteries in an electric vehicle are very powerful. They are an asset that can power much more than just the vehicle,” says state Sen. Nancy Skinner.
Try to imagine this in the real world, when your car is viewed as a public asset. You plug your car in your garage overnight to prepare for a long trip, and wake up to find the battery nearly empty. But fear not. Surely AI will figure this all out, and the utility company will pay you back for any energy it reclaimed. Besides, you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that you’re car has served the greater good.
This might sound like a brilliant idea to elites who want greater control over our lives, but how do you think such a scheme would sit with owners?
There is an alternative. Stop trying to force electric cars on the market! You don’t need AI to figure that out.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Using these vague “policy violations,” Google is now threatening to demonetize us. It’s part of Big Tech’s effort to silence conservative voices.
The left is dominated by magical thinking. No discipline for children, no cash bail for criminals, no educational testing, no electrical generation….other than when the sun shines or the wind blows, no free speech for those who disagree with their narrative, no work required for able bodied welfare recipients, no prosecutions for Democrats (only for Republicans), no gas stove tops, no use of public lands for timber, mining or cattle. These folks aren’t “policy” advocates; they’re simply spoiled ignorant children.
The best answer I heard regarding this “electrification of everything” issue is that we need an energy policy that is “all of the above.”
The nation (and the world) can’t go with the idea of eliminating sources of energy just because of political reasons. Mothballing energy sources just because they don’t produce clean energy is going to cripple the nation for a long time. And most of the planners know this. So every solution they propose requires conservation under penalty of either excess-use taxes or rationing under government decree.
Neither of which are acceptable.
Is anyone actually surprised by this? The entire agenda requires the elimination of private transportation from cars to airplanes.We are being forced to surrender that in order to use public transportation. Not happening.
There will be energy lost every time energy is transferred between the car and the grid in either direction. The car that had its energy transferred to the grid will have to recharge. Even a highly efficient process will lose at least10% of the energy during each charge or discharge further stressing the grid. The lost energy is called heat, so if the whole purpose of the electric car is to reduce global warming this isn’t the way to do it. It is a waste of energy to cover up failed government policies.
The Left is farcical. Too bad we allowed them to wrest so much power from us.
Any time a politician or political party puts forth a solution that is predicated with the phrase, “With careful planning and the right infrastructure”, you can count on that solution leading to a much bigger problem than the condition that the solution is attempting to fix.
In a few years, my used Jeep will be worth more than I paid for it.