Conductive Farces

More Clownshow Energy Absurdities from the Land of Fruits and Nuts.

“These are not serious people. Really.” -

environMENTAL

Inductive charging, or otherwise more commonly known as wireless charging went from being a niche feature in niche products to a feature in flagship smartphones ten years ago (often with the requirement to purchase a separate battery cover or case) to then being ubiquitous on all but the cheapest smartphones by the early 2020s.

In the same decade three other products saw a rise in sales: Bluetooth ear buds, smartwatches, and portable battery packs. The charging case for many wireless ear buds, like their smartphone counterparts, came with the standard micro-USB (and later USB-C) or Apple’s Lightning along with wireless charging capability. Smartwatches such as Apple’s Watch product use a proprietary wireless charging system that incorporated a magnet to aid in placement and maintenance of the connection. Third party accessory makers added magnets in the cases and charging pads and in 2020 Apple re-purposed the Magsafe brand as a their magnet-lined wireless charging system plus back of the phone accessory platform. A handful of portable battery packs now include wireless charging capabilities too but typically only for charging other devices and not the battery pack itself.

It was Samsung who later thought to use the smartphones themselves with ever increasing battery capacity with wireless portable power pack functionality. Samsung have released almost as many smartphone models as there are grains of sand in the universe but somewhere around the S10 generation, they introduced Wireless Powershare, their brand name for reverse wireless charging allowing any other Qi-compatible product, Samsung or not, to be charged by placing it on the back of a Wireless Powershare equipped smartphone.

This means that if your green bubble (no iMessage) friend happens to have one of these smartphones (donor) and you’re running down on your luck with your phone’s battery (recipient), a quick boost is as easy as placing the two phone backs on one another.

The main tradeoff of course neither user can actively use their devices. That means no TikTok cancer, no selfies, no shitposting to Notes!

Wireless charging tends to be much slower than wired charging too. It obviously drops the donor phone’s battery level, perhaps creating a problem for the user down the line especially if they need that juice to call and Uber to use their flashlight to fish for their keys. Many smartphone cases block some or all of the signal making charging even slower or completely non functional unless the phones are removed from the cases.

The reversible trait for some though may be practical and desirable. An owner of a Samsung smartphone with this capability can not only charge another phone but they could charge Samsung’s smart watch product (no Apple Watch, which requires aniPhone to use anyways) and a variety of ear buds including Samsung’s and Apple’s. Some Apple iPhone users have desired for similar functionality and there have even been rumors over the past few year future iPhone models will add the functionality.

And that’s just how the market works. Oftentimes a manufacturer will introduce something out-of-the-blue themselves and other times customers will demand it. The manufacturers who can mix and match both at the right place and in the right time are in for a treat on their cash flow statements; as are the customers, satisfied with additional value in their purchase despite the thinner wallet.

In other cases, governments will step in and demand changes themselves. This recently happened in the European Union where they’ve demanded all smartphones in the future use USB-C for charging, including Apple. With or without the petulant demands of these busy bodies (despite the rare fact it’s for a good cause - to reduce e-waste) most smartphone manufacturers were already there anyways. Apple were already rumored to switch to USB-C in upcoming phones or simply kill off the charging port itself and go full wireless. Many laptops (including most of Apple’s), tablets (including too most of Apple’s), cameras, e-readers, etc have already been using the port for at least half a decade.

Some electric cars (EVs) have a similar niche feature to Samsung’s reversible wireless charging and there’s of course one government insisting on mandating a related charging capability. That feature is bidirectional charging.

As as simultaneous spoiler alert. This is going into Progressive Pig Iron territory.

The concept is interesting for sure. Instead of only being able to charge one’s EV via the grid (and/or via an in-home solar or battery system), the EV’s battery could be used to feed electricity back to feed the home.

Or to feed the grid itself.

Well, perhaps, not “or”

“And.”

And to feed the grid itself.

California Senate Bill 233, if passed and signed into law, would require all new EVs sold in the state by model year 2027 to be equipped with bidirectional charging reports Gabriela Aoun Angueira of energy illiteracy apologist website, Grist, who’ve channeled the inner LA Times, claiming such a bill in a praiseworthy tone saying it “could help make EVs a blackout solution.”

Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill in the State Senate, of course of the Imbecile side of the Uniparty and “representing” the Easy Bay, asserts,

"The Golden State sees this technology as a massive benefit because EVs' battery packs could be used to help assist the already troubled power grid, as well as be used to charge homes in the event of blackouts. "EVs are energy storage on wheels. Why waste that battery, given how few miles most people use the vehicle in any given day? But we need to make it as easy as possible."

As if she and her propagandists are apparently deputized to speak for all Californians.

Angueira of Grist opens her piece with the story of a Hayward-based Chris Bowe, who happens to own an F-150 Lightning - one of the more expensive EVs - and among the few existing EV models that already feature feature bidirectional charging. The power went out in his home last fall but was able to keep the lights on to the amazement of his neighbors.

Ford of course touts this feature heavily in their marketing as can be seen by this poser version of Mike Rowe randomly using an electric chainsaw in his driveway. Apparently the entire home, by no means a tiny home, is powered, by the F-150 Lightning itself. Not only are all the lights in the home turned on but so are the fancy headlights on the truck.

| Ford Motor Company

Christian Seabaugh of Motortrend Magazine reported that to fully use this bi-directional charging feature as intended and marketed by Ford requires the purchase of Ford’s Charge Station Pro product (which also includes Level II charging) for $1650 plus an additional $9,400 for a Home Integration System, plus upgrades to the wiring and electrical panel in his 1950’s home totaling $18,000. Just like an EV’s range, mileage may vary of course depending on several variables. Each person’s home, provided they actually own one, likely varies, as does labor cost, and building code requirements in given areas. Seabaugh noted instead if the high upfront cost, if they wanted to power items during a blackout, they’d just use the AC sockets available in the truck akin to a generator - something that could of course be obtained for far less money (and are selling like hot cakes already in the state) but this would trigger both the Holy Greta and the Imbecile Class running the state due to their direct use of fossil fuels.

Hopefully Chris Bowe nor Fake Mike Roe have Noble Climate-Friendly induction stoves | Unknown

Ford, by the way, as reported by

Robert Bryce

is losing money for every EV it sells. Not only are taxpayers subsidizing all the tax credits provided to the whole EV scheme in general but other Ford customers are subsidizing the company's EV gamble.

Angueira notes, “Climate events and growing power demand increasingly stress the state’s energy supplies,” citing public power shutoffs to prevent wildfires, storms, and high electrical demand from running air conditioners during heat waves occasionally forcing blackouts as all reasons to “strengthen” the grid with such a proposal. Surprisingly enough Angueira even admits the increasing use of diesel generators in the state yet miss the mark on the use of natural gas which provides not just peaking power during these events but also is the primary backup source for all the state’s renewable energy.

Cited is Kurt Johnson of The Climate Center likely an Anti-Industry Industry organization interviewed for her piece blabbered, “When the grid is stressed, wouldn’t it be great if instead of firing polluting fossil fuel peaker plants typically located in disadvantaged communities, we were using our electric vehicles?” This is a statement based of course in a profound misunderstanding of how “the grid” even works, let alone the insanity of the fantasy that everybody and their mother, rich or poor, black or white, is going to have bi-directional charging EVs attached to the grid at such a time. Those damned plants, regardless of where they are are already using fossil fuels anyways.

Johnson continues, “Even the smallest commonly available EV battery is a multiday energy storage asset for everybody. A Nissan Leaf can run your house for days.” 

The synthesis of fiat “green” energy ideology and woke ideology create a black hole of anti-intellect.

A 2011 Extreme Tech article headlined in the typical clickbaity fashion that a Nissan Leaf could power “your house for a day or two,” followed by an immediate sub-headline: one day really meant a home in the United States and the two days one in Japan. They kind of sort of did some calculations, figuring out the average daily power consumption in US and Japanese homes (A very specific 29 kWh per day and range of 10-12 kWh per day for the Japan) and then divided those figures by the capacity of the car’s battery, which at the time was 24 kWh.

Math isn’t our strong suit, but we’re pretty sure that 24 divided by 29 is less than one, not equal or greater.

We’re also not electrical engineers either, but we’re pretty sure that there is at least a 20 percent loss or so due to converting the chemical energy stored in the battery into electrical energy required by the electric devices. Things like instantaneous power -the initial startup “jolt” required for most loads is also missing as is continuous power - the amount a source can actually provide steadily over a period of time from Extreme Tech’s Good Will Hunting level analyses.

The 2023 Nissan Leaf models include either a 40 kWh or 60 kWh battery, changing things more in favor of Team Clowncar Energy.

There is, of course, more to Johnson’s absurdities.

He then goes off both the state’s mandate for 2035, which is to require all new vehicles sold in the state to be EVs along with an unsourced projection of their growth in the state to claim that by 2030, the state’s EV fleet will be able to provide 80 GW. EV battery sizes vary across the market as does the charge level of each one in any given time and each battery’s battery health but reality is optional to the fiat people. How he arrived at any such figures if devout of any type of logic. How fast or slow that 80 GW could be dispatched, and at what cost to the various in-home and grid upgrades he fails to mention too.

Continuing:

“Plugging in a fraction of them would quickly surpass the capacity of the state’s largest power plant, the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which can provide up to 2.3 gigawatts,” Angueira herself steps in to inform the reader.

Other parts of the Grist article, to her credit, does discuss some of these side effects. She mentions and links to a letter to the Senate from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, who oppose the bill. In what comes off as a reply or “debunk” replying to the Alliance’s concerns about battery health cite that, at least in Nissan’s case for the Leaf, bidirectional charging is taken into account in the battery warranty.

The letter itself is far more blunt:

Bidirectional charging impacts the electric vehicle battery. The recent passage of ARB’s Advanced Clean Cars 2 affects the battery warranty rules for all EVs sold in the state of California. For model years 2026-2030, batteries must meet 70% state-of-health at 8 years or 100,000 miles; and for model years 2031 and beyond, the batteries must meet 75% state-of-health. The regulations currently do not take into account any bidirectional charging which can have significant impact on a battery.

and:

This bill would introduce an equity concern for the second, third, etc. vehicle owners who may not have as much expected capacity due to V2G battery aging. With used car buyers often purchasing older, high mileage vehicles no longer under warranty, the additional strain of bidirectional charging by previous owners may significantly reduce the battery’s capabilities resulting in early and expensive battery replacement.

Angueira too notes the cost to retrofit a home, citing Ford’s product as being $5,000 - different from what was cited in the MotorTrend article, plus “the cost of an electrician to install it.”

That’s too, where over halfway into the article, they circle back to Chris Bowe, who like Christian Seabaugh of Motortrend did not install Ford’s special product due to its high cost. He just uses a manual switch to his panel where one can connect a standard generator.

Johnson, with a slight redemption on the batshit insanity he said earlier in the article too admitted, “We’re not even effectively interconnecting stationary batteries, much less mobile batteries,” and lamented the lack of a pricing system for these pig iron power users to sell their energy back into the grid. But as typical with ideologues, “it’s a start” mentality reins supreme, “If the vehicles themselves don’t have the bidirectional capacity, which is the point of the bill, then none of that opportunity can be realized. So it all starts with the vehicles,” he writes.

Truth be told, Skinner’s bill is really this: admitting the clowns running the show in Sacramento have failed to provide the legal framework and huevos for a stable and reliable grid.

EV manufacturers get practically billions per year in free advertising from the small, yet vocal group of owners, often of the Coastal Elite, and often energy illiterate themselves but who tend to be heavy evangelists for the products. If there’s a particular model that currently doesn’t feature by-directional charging (Tesla is rumored to add it in 2025) then manufacturers will likely add it without the need for the parasites in Sacramento to write a silly law for Dear Abuser to sign. EVs and pig iron power are largely status symbols for the Coastal Elites to flaunt amongst each other and to expert control over normal people.

Here’s spicy fact to close: these people don’t give a damned about the planet or whatever marginalized identity they choose to place on a pedestal.

The sooner regular Californians will wake up to these facts, the more the state will return to civilization and prosperity.