Did anyone imagine that by 2030 California would have most of its power storage in cars? So all the people on here that want to get rid of cars should chuck their air conditioners and heaters right now.
I don't know about that. Consider after a natural disaster, like Florida right now, or Texas last year. If every vehicle is low on energy (say, by trying to flee), and they are all trying at once to charge, that may overwhelm the grid. V2G only works assuming mass numbers of people aren't driving all at once, or trying to recharge their vehicles all at once.
The fail condition needs to be: What happens if 80% of EV owners are trying to charge their EVs to 80%, all at once?
V2G (among many other things) is an optimization. Past the point where you stop actually wasting inputs, optimization is the enemy of resiliency. It trades lower costs for an inability to handle extreme fluctuations.
If a civilization has already decided that adequate base-load supply is optional (which we apparently have…) — then at least making that inadequate Grid more resilient by adding more battery-to-grid capacity is an improvement.
I personally this that’s stupid, but old slobs like me have been out-voted by young bucks who evidently don’t mind freezing in the dark.
V2G is where customers can really unlock the value of their vehicle. A trial in the UK allowed some customers to earn £725/year (https://www.kaluza.com/case-studies/case-study-kaluza-enable...) through selling energy back to the grid - whilst this was the maximum amount V2G ultimately provided greater savings for all the customers involved.
This may be anecdotal but of my friends and coworkers who own an EV, it's a real draw to reduce your utility bill at home by charging at least 1-2 days in the office.
The suggestion to use more daytime charging is specific to California, since California's future energy trajectory is weighted toward more solar. A state like Texas which has more renewable energy output at night, from wind [1], wouldn't necessarily need more daytime charging. If California ends up installing more offshore wind than currently projected, that could also change the optimal charging strategy.
Thing to consider with current electric car range and median driving habits most people won't have to charge their car everyday either. If I had a Chevy Bolt I'd only need to charge it once a week at my rate of driving. An arrangement where Tuesday is my day to use the charger at work would be 'fine'
I'd say that plugging in a car should mean - charge it enough to get me to a hospital. Beyond that wait for the optimum charge time. However there should also be a screen that overrides this if you are going on a trip or something.
Yup, let the tech overlords plan your life for you for the greater good. Fuck that fishing trip - your energy company decided you’re not important enough to have a charged car.
Simple answer is just "congestion pricing". You want fast charging at peak hours, pay double. If not, set some price optimization. And set it to prioritize the first 30% of charge to never be stranded but always wait for cheaper power to fill to the top. If you've got a fishing trip, plan ahead or pay extra. That's just free markets.
The grid has no idea what you're doing with your power nor does it send different modes of electricity to different appliances. It would be the responsibility of the home or the vehicle being charged to modulate the amount of current (or type of current) they're pulling.
That already happens. PG&E charges differently at peak times in California, for example. People just pay for it anyway because they can’t plan their daily lives around the power company’s preferred times.
Cheaper electricity at night has been around for decades in some European countries.
My parents would regularly set the dishwasher to run at ~5am, and sometimes the washing machine. In the 1990s this used a timer plug. Nowadays these appliances have built-in delay-start functions.
I use delay-start to do the exact opposite - only run things in the middle of the day when the solar panels are generating the most power.
Though it's less ideal for the washing machine as you need somewhere to hang the clothes overnight so you can dry them the next day (unless it's peak summer where there's enough daylight/warmth to dry clothes even if you don't hang them out until 4pm or so).
Sure they can and anyone who is aware of it does. We do it in NYC and I save things like dishwasher and laundry for off-peak times. But things like car charging are unique because there may be a 12-hour window in which you need to do 4 hours of charging and the timing is very flexible and has diminishing returns if you don't have a lot of miles to cover any time soon.
An even more elegant option is to force every customer to adhere to variable rates that accurately reflect the real-time value of electricity.
I was on a wholesale program in Texas for about 2 years. Every 5 minutes my rate would change to reflect the wholesale pricing. There were certainly issues - winter 2021, but at the same time I was forced to conserve energy due to the economics.
Until we can actually store energy at grid scale across multiple days, I feel like consumers should pay what the real-time cost is. Right now, fixed rate electricity is effectively fraudulent.
I actually agree with you. I'm building a house (personally as in I am the one hammering in each nail) that is 100% off grid - probably only going to be using Gas and Diesel for the next few years also. But I do enjoy talking about tech and future EV technology.
EVs already have the capability to schedule charging around time-of-use electrical pricing and also a way to charge now regardless of price.
I suspect this capability will only improve over time up to an including the ability to dump power back into the grid from the battery if the electric co is willing the pay enough to make the battery wear worth it.
I thought that was already the standard? Most people here in Sweden I have talked to do like that. It first charges to some threshold and then automatically the rest when it is as cheap as possible.
You just configure a time in the morning you want it to be fully charged and the charger do the rest.
Edit, people with their own house and thereby their own charger.
Families who are not at home during the allotted time won’t be able to charge.
People charge at night because home charging is the only practical way to own an EV and most people work during the day.
Fix the charging situation first — but be aware that more convenient charging will induce more demand for EVs from apartment dwellers, which will increase demand for electricity overall.
The only real solution is to improve the power grid so that EV owners can charge whenever they want.
This doesn't work unless you pay them to charge at specific times. We tried it at my company, a large gas & electric company. Believe me, everyone is grappling with this issue in the industry and researching ways to identify EV charging and anticipate future EV purchases among customers.
"time of use" tariffs will be important to keep things balanced. People who want to minimize their power bill should have the option to pick the "time of use" pricing and shift some of their consumption off-peak. Others can choose to pay more for the convenience of not having to worry about all that stuff. How much more, that can be determined by market forces.
Higher electricity prices at night will hit the poor who will be driving older EVs with degraded batteries. They'll have to charge all night so that they can make your McMuffin at 7am. They will also have to drive from further away because we also can't get a handle on housing prices in this country.
Higher earners live closer to work. In addition to being able to afford the higher nighttime rates, their workplace may also offer charging as a perk. So you see, those with money form their opinions about electricity pricing schemes involving the invisible hand that has already been so kind to them.
Would a person with low income prefer A) having an option to lower the electricity bill or B) pay more because there is no such option, and more expensive power needs to be sourced from peaking power plants?
There are already day-ahead electricity markets with prices that vary throughout the day. You _already_ pay a premium over those variable prices, for the convenience of a fixed rate.
All I'm saying is that it would be good if consumers had the _option_ of eliminating some of that premium, in exchange for demand shifting.
This is all kind of theoretical. Low income people rent from landlords that will not install EV charging infrastructure unless the Federal Government pays for it.
So the correct answer is c) buy a 2005 Honda Civic.
EVs are going to screw low income people via Sky High Electricity prices.
Electricity will become an expensive commodity.
Look at prices in the UK and Europe. It's already starting to happen (but not because of EVs). Just wait till EVs become pervasive. All that demand for electricity.
What is happening in the UK and Europe right now is a preview of a future where fossil fuel supply is rapidly curtailed before alternatives are ready.
It's a cautionary tale about moving too fast in the right direction.
It's easy to say "stop oil now" and things like that, but the reality is that there is only so much suffering the population will take before they turn to right-wing populist politicians who promise to roll back the progress that has been made, or their governments bankrupt themselves by subsidizing the pain away. These changes need to be made gradually.
A lot of things about the switch to EVs will screw over low-income people, at least for a while.
The price floor for used EVs is going to be higher than the price floor for used gas cars. You won't be able to buy a $1000 hoopty EV with 200k miles on it because it will need several thousand dollars in replacement batteries to be drivable. Therefore the price floor will be the cost of replacement batteries.
At the same time, banning new gas car sales will drive up the value of older gas cars as people scramble to hoard them, resulting in price increases for used gas cars which will also hurt low-income people.
Here in Sweden a lot of people are switching to hourly pricing plans. I just made the switch myself. So far electricity is much cheaper at night though.
PG&E in California already offers multiple time-of-use pricing options, including one just for EVs.
They still can't keep the lights on during a heat wave because people run their air conditioners and are willing to pay the peak rates to do so. Imagine the same level of demand, but with mass EV adoption on top of it, as well as the state planning to ban gas appliances and shift all the load for cooking and heating onto the grid. That is the future we are headed toward.
Right now, EV ownership is largely restricted to homeowners who can install charging stations. Building more EV charging stations without beefing up the power grid, which will make it more practical for apartment dwellers to own electric cars, will result in even more demand for electricity at all times of the day.
You can tinker with time-of-use rates all you want, but the only real solution is to have a much better power grid.
People talk about EVs putting power back into the grid. Frankly I think that's a pipe dream in the near future. Our power companies are barely competent enough to run the grid without causing forest fires -- they aren't going to be capable of implementing that at the kind of scale that would make a difference anytime soon.
That's pretty similar to this idea, which I already mentioned:
> People talk about EVs putting power back into the grid. Frankly I think that's a pipe dream in the near future. Our power companies are barely competent enough to run the grid without causing forest fires -- they aren't going to be capable of implementing that at the kind of scale that would make a difference anytime soon.
It's not realistic to expect a broken utility like PG&E to pull that off anytime soon. Most utilities in the United States are as bad as, or worse than, PG&E.
Another aspect of this, which I am going through myself with my own EV charger install at my new house, is that many homes need retrofitting to be able to charge an EV or install one of those batteries. I need my electrical panel replaced.
Every other house in my neighborhood was built at the same time by the same builder and is going to need a new panel too, if they haven't done it already -- and we aren't talking about old houses, these were built in the 1960s. For many homes, a charger or a battery will require $4k-6k of additional upgrades.
> many homes need retrofitting to be able to charge an EV
FWIW 1kW for 8 hours is ~50km which is enough for most daily drives
> I need my electrical panel replaced
How much is that, really? Panel itself cost nothing, just some labour which I take is very expensive. You are improving your house tho and cost is likely negligible compared to car cost.
FWIW it cost us ~$500 (eastern europe) to get 7kW charger purchased + installed. Which we never used cuz free municipal charger.
The building permit for the panel replacement is $750. Just the permit.
The panel install, including parts and labor, is around $4k. Add another $2k or so for the EV charger parts and labor.
To replace the panel, my electrical company must make a special appointment to disconnect my house from the grid and reconnect it later the same day. The earliest appointment they were able to offer was one month away.
There is no such thing as a cheap electrical panel upgrade, solar install, or battery install in the United States.
Yes, I am improving the house, and I would probably need a new panel eventually anyway, but this still goes to show that there is a lot more involved than some people might think.
The solution to this is going to be have customers enroll in smart charging. Keep your car connected to the smart charger when not in use and during times of excess power charge the car for a few cents per kw.
I'm trying not to be smug, but are you under the assumption that the delivery of physical forms of energy is simple? Distributing, on average, ~1.5B liters of gasoline, with different qualities/chemistries/regions/etc, every day in the US has immense amounts of complexity. Now do that for coal, natural gas, heating oil, etc.
Managing time of day for charging isn't a more complicated problem than any of those.
The way that power companies "communicate" about load is by slightly changing the frequency.
If the frequency is 60.5, then there's an abundance of energy on the grid and some less profitable generators can cut back or storage systems can charge. If the frequency is 59.5 then there's a lack of available power on the grid and other generators should go on line and unnecessary load should stop doing its thing (and if it has the ability, it could discharge instead).
Hopefully, the requirement to commute to work goes away for a large fraction of the population so that all that energy can be used for more productive things.
And further increase traffic problems and the continued blight of cities designed for cars? I can't see anything that encourages people to start driving to work as a good thing sorry.
Most of the forms of travel that are energy and space efficient are typically not time efficient due to inherent tradeoffs. Nothing saves time, space, and energy simultaneously like not commuting in the first place. To butcher an old phrase, "Think globally, live locally".
Universal-ish WFH dramatically undercuts the need for both energy and infrastructure (which also takes energy) and will allow us to scale back both dramatically (e.g., multi-lane roads), while saving lives and giving employees more life flexibility.
Advocates for public transportation (for environmental reasons, particularly) risk fighting the last war. They should shift focus to WFH instead. I really don't understand why Greens and Labor don't push for WFH mandates (for environmental and quality of life reasons, respectively). Probably too tied to the commercial real estate industry.
You seem to be replying to my original comment which I deleted on realising it didn't make sense in the context of the GP post about taking advantage of charging EVs at the office.
FWIW almost nobody in the downtown area (CBD) where I work drives there, it'd be crazy to try. Luckily for me it's a 15 minute bike ride (mostly bike paths) and there's good end-of-trip facilities.
Yes, I was replying to your original comment, which was deleted by the time I posted it. I decided to post on your new comment just to save the thought, which was new to me.
Universal WFH put more stress on the power grid in California during the lockdowns than was normally the case, because everyone was running their heat and AC more often than normal. The result was rolling blackouts.
So, the solution to "the solution" is to allow the government to control more of the market? Who will enforce this? What will the penalties be?
Or, do we just raise power prices for everyone and then give them a break if they allow a third party device to restrict their power usage? Seems like a great way to subsidize "the solution" on the backs of people who can't afford a new EV of their own.
Also.. when are there times of "excess power?" The grid operator tracks demand and then orders power from stations, or it doesn't. There is "excess capacity" but that's set against not running the plant at all, so I'm not sure there's some "free lunch" to be had here.
The grid does and will increasingly curtail renewables. If they had a demand queue of customer cars to send that power to, they do that instead of curtailing it.
This is not a penalty situation, it is an enticement. Smart charge rates of 4 cents instead of 20 cents a kw/h. People will voluntarily do this to save themselves money.
> The grid does and will increasingly curtail renewables. If they had a demand queue of customer cars to send that power to, they do that instead of curtailing it.
And you're going to have those renewables available at night, when this charging is expected to take place and be straining the grid?
> This is not a penalty situation, it is an enticement. Smart charge rates of 4 cents instead of 20 cents a kw/h. People will voluntarily do this to save themselves money.
So where does that 16c/kWh come from? Subsidies? From taxes? So again, everyone has to pay to benefit a small group of consumers who can afford the product in the first place?
I think you are misunderstanding curtailments. It's when renewables are producing more power than what is needed and they are shut off or throttled. For the power producers getting 4 cents is better than getting 0 cents. Everyone involved in the transaction is better off. Customers get cheap power to charge their cars, and power producers get to sell energy that they otherwise couldn't. No one is subsidizing anything, the system is just more efficient.
I got the new Pixel phone, and this morning I woke up to 20% battery even though it was plugged in all night. It turns out that it ships with a smart charging feature that checks you morning alarm time and waits till a few hours before to initiate charging. It is a cool feature designed to increase the lifespan of your battery, but I can't make use of it. My alarm is a fail-safe and I almost always wake up an hour or so beforehand.
Life is unpredictable, and I have had emergency 2 AM phone calls that lead to situations where 20% battery is not sufficient. I don't have an electric vehicle yet, but my concern with smart charging would be finding myself in another situation where I need to drive to the nearest trauma center (2 hrs away) in the middle of the night and my battery is dead.
When I worked at Kaluza our smart charging solution allowed you to set a minimum % that your EV would always charge to, prior to any smart charging taking place. So as soon as you plugged in it would charge to the minimum value you set.
That was the first thing I checked when I investigated this feature on my phone. Annoyingly it is an "AI driven smart feature" that is not adjustable. I would love it if it charged to 75% right away and then waited till the morning to finish.
That is a silly statement, as absurd as saying electricity itself is a dead end. The fact of the matter is EVs and electrified vehicles in general are the best answer we've got for the future of consumer mobility. Nothing else really competes long term.
There are many current challenges that prevent people from choosing an EV or against rapid majority adoption. We also have to consider that alternative methods of taxation (how to pay for roads) and the eventual reduction in tax incentives are problems that still need to be solved.
I'm also looking forward to the EVs that come out 1-2 decades from now with batteries that should have 4x+ density and/or half the cost. The biggest downer for me is all the damn tech that comes with them currently. If cost can come down, then I hope I can get one with less tech. Or that conversion kit will be common.
> We also have to consider that alternative methods of taxation (how to pay for roads) and the eventual reduction in tax incentives are problems that still need to be solved.
Are roads really payed from gas taxes? Everywhere? I perhaps naively assumed all the taxes go into a big bucket which is used to pay for all kinds of things, including roads.
Somehow even relatively poor countries manage to have good roads. We will save elsewhere. Most of the taxes go into the social bucket in most countries (retirement, social security, health, education) anyway.
"Are roads really payed from gas taxes? Everywhere?"
Fuel taxes are quite common. In some areas they do make up a large component of the road funding. Finding a replacement for them is a major issue.
"Somehow even relatively poor countries manage to have good roads. We will save elsewhere. Most of the taxes go into the social bucket in most countries (retirement, social security, health, education) anyway."
This doesn't make any sense and lacks factual support. How do the poor countries pay for the roads, and which counties are these? What are we saving and where? The majority of current taxes going to social programs has no relevance to this discussion. If we're eliminating a current tax and having the same service costs (or more due to increased weight), a new one will need to take it's place.
Well for me who hasn't owned a car for 25 years I'm going to be quite annoyed that I have to pay higher electricity prices because of EVs. It's bad enough that I have to breath in their exhaust etc.
Don't be daft. They certainly have their problems, but calling them a dead end is hyperbole.
Sure, there are grid issues. There are resource issues(Li, Ni, Co, Al, Cu, rare earths) with both temporary and long-term shortages combined with geopolitical issues. But overall EVs are more efficient and will win in the long run.
Should we be more focused on hybrids right now? Yes. But, in the long run, electric wins(along with mass transit, walking, biking, etc).
I think most people overestimate the distance they really need. I have not charged at a public charger for months. Charging at home is so convenient, I never want to go back to the hassle with gas.
And for the occasional road trip, superchargers are fine.
Hybrids don't really need anymore focus than they have had for multiple decades now. It's a fully mature technology that isn't going to advance much in performance, efficiency, or cost no mater how much attention it gets. If it fits your needs great, buy one, if not but whatever does.
Plug-in hybrids have a benefit over BEVs in that they require fewer batteries. You can build 10 PHEVs with the batteries in one BEV. If Lithium production doesn't ramp up quickly enough, PHEVs should get more focus.
Additionally, PHEVs have unlimited range like ICE while using less fuel so they are good for people who frequently need more range than a BEV can provide.
This. I opted not to continue my EV lease when it ran out. Planning on getting a PHEV in a few months after prices ease a bit more. Right now, PHEVs are more appropriate for many. Also, FWIW, my wife hated the EV charging situation and prefers the familiar concept of getting gas at a gas station vs hunting for an open charger and waiting around for a charge.
I agree. BEVs are more expensive than ICE, does not have greater range than ICE, are charging much slowly than ICE, I don't need any dumb application to get fuel into an ICE and with surging electricity prices does not even make economical sense to own BEV.
BEVs are currently more expensive than ICE but BEVs will be less expensive in less than 10 years as the technology continue to improve. ICE technology doesn't have much room left to improve after 100 years so it's impressive that BEVs will surpass ICE so quickly.
BEV is limited by availability of raw materials. Copper, Lithium. It is actually predicted that there will be shortage of batteries for following decade, thanks to lack of available lithium and subsequent processing capacities and shortage of copper thanks to fact that we already maxed out output of current copper mines.
So there is no reason for BEV to be cheaper, more less it will keep being expensive or will get even more expensive than it is today.
I am so tired of misinformation like this. I know they use the "may" get-out-of-jail-free card in the title, but no, nighttime EV charging will not overburden the grid by 2035, as the article purports, because "the grid" (?) will look dramatically different in 13 years. Plus, networked software solutions are already baked into EVs for time of day charging; as such, its a solved problem unworthy of a headline. The additional load will require new investment, but thats core to the business of providing power. If they can't adapt over a decade with software solutions helping them along, EVs aren't the problem...
The actual report from NREL (1) linked to the article is far more informative and interesting and eludes that clickbait headline, but still makes ham-fisted assumptions that make the whole report a little goofy. To list a few:
- "Absent systemic changes in customer behavior" (you mean no changes except mass customer purchasing of EVs? what's the point of assuming nothing changes)
- Slide 18 shows, for high EV adoption with no charging logic, effectively, "everyone definitely plugs in their EVs at 9pm because thats when TOU kicks in", while also showing "Almost nobody charges at work during the day". Most people will plug in whenever they get home. With WFH, that is basically any random time of the day. Also, they acknowledge people respond to TOU, but dont acknowledge that TOU can change?
- "At-work charging makes up a small portion of total EV charging, so the system benefits are likely to be small" (are they really assuming no changes here over a decade? I would love to charge at work but my office building has no services. These will become commonplace over time. Is this really their
EDIT: this is fun! here's the actual model from the NREL report! This launches a virtual machine, which might take a minute to boot up. Once the model has opened, click on ‘Cell > Run All’ to initialize the script’
> "the grid" (?) will look dramatically different in 13 years.
I don't think so. It takes forever for anything to get built in this country. I have zero confidence the grid will improve fast enough to make mass EV adoption practical in many parts of the US. During the intervening period we will see higher energy bills, rolling blackouts, and rationing.
I mean, if our governments and utility companies were good at building this sort of thing, then why are the power grids in such a poor state today?
In the last few years my city Memphis demolished its primary coal plant and replaced it with several advanced combined cycle gas plants. TVA, which serves Memphis, is a reasonably middle of the road power provider. In the last few years in my Texas businesses we've started buying wind-only energy at commercial scale, which is cheaper but requires A certain demand use curve for low rates. Solar will continue rapid installation. EV charging will become more distributed.
These are significant changes and have happened in the last 10 yrs. The grid can continue to make major changes. Nothing I've said is particularly wild or opinionated.
The article and the report make a very plain fallacy of assuming a millions of EVs get dumped on the grid at the same time with no other material changes. It's just not a helpful discussion or presented conclusion/headline. Bold claims extrapolated from sparse data. Reminds me of the peak oil articles way back when, media sought to cast an image of cars stranded on apocalyptic interstates.
> "the grid" (?) will look dramatically different in 13 years
That feels dramatically optimistic.
The California Camp Fire was started by PG&E transmission lines about a 100 years old that were not being maintained. That is the rate of change and maintenance on the electrical infrastructure.
Now, sure, EVs are shaking up the electrical grid needs so perhaps the future will see faster evolution than a 100 year cycle. But dramatically different in 13 years? I don't think so.
I would put PG&E at the bottom end of providers, at least based on headlines and the attitude of people here on HN. Exacerbated issues there are unique to California’s social climate, complicated by California’s environmental regulation and the standoff relationship between that power provider and the citizens it serves. Further more, if im reading the previous linked report correctly, energy demand has largely plateaued across the market since 2005 as energy efficiency has take a priority, led lighting, and other innovations. Back in 2005, I recall reports that our energy demands would double in the next 10 years as engineers and economists gleefully showed straight line projections. Peak oil, etc. Its just foolish to think the energy market is going to remain static over the next 10-15 years.
But more broadly, the grid is evolving whether a Utility embraces it or not. On a residential basis, I have an EV and a backup generator. Software and policy are the primary inhibitors that prevent me from feeding a few kws back into the grid. But even if I never get to feed back into the grid, if the grid is insufficient, I can always kick on my gen to provide the power I need. That private generator is part of the grid, part of the network. Who is to say utilities or even EV supercharging stations don’t start installing large generators on site to shave demand. New Grid interconnects are possible between regions. These can be massive thousand mile deals or they can be across a river.
People love to complain about their power utilities, and there have been some dramatic shortcomings in recent years across the country, but waving away the opportunity to adapt is a curious approach to me, especially for the HN crowd.
109 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 173 ms ] threadhttps://www.teslarati.com/tesla-unlocks-vehicle-to-grid-abil...
The fail condition needs to be: What happens if 80% of EV owners are trying to charge their EVs to 80%, all at once?
I personally this that’s stupid, but old slobs like me have been out-voted by young bucks who evidently don’t mind freezing in the dark.
You mean authoritarian technocrats.
"Charging infrastructure access and operation to reduce the grid impacts of deep electric vehicle adoption"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01105-7
The suggestion to use more daytime charging is specific to California, since California's future energy trajectory is weighted toward more solar. A state like Texas which has more renewable energy output at night, from wind [1], wouldn't necessarily need more daytime charging. If California ends up installing more offshore wind than currently projected, that could also change the optimal charging strategy.
[1] https://www.vaultelectricity.com/what-is-the-impact-of-wind-...
My parents would regularly set the dishwasher to run at ~5am, and sometimes the washing machine. In the 1990s this used a timer plug. Nowadays these appliances have built-in delay-start functions.
I was on a wholesale program in Texas for about 2 years. Every 5 minutes my rate would change to reflect the wholesale pricing. There were certainly issues - winter 2021, but at the same time I was forced to conserve energy due to the economics.
Until we can actually store energy at grid scale across multiple days, I feel like consumers should pay what the real-time cost is. Right now, fixed rate electricity is effectively fraudulent.
I suspect this capability will only improve over time up to an including the ability to dump power back into the grid from the battery if the electric co is willing the pay enough to make the battery wear worth it.
You just configure a time in the morning you want it to be fully charged and the charger do the rest.
Edit, people with their own house and thereby their own charger.
People charge at night because home charging is the only practical way to own an EV and most people work during the day.
Fix the charging situation first — but be aware that more convenient charging will induce more demand for EVs from apartment dwellers, which will increase demand for electricity overall.
The only real solution is to improve the power grid so that EV owners can charge whenever they want.
Higher earners live closer to work. In addition to being able to afford the higher nighttime rates, their workplace may also offer charging as a perk. So you see, those with money form their opinions about electricity pricing schemes involving the invisible hand that has already been so kind to them.
There are already day-ahead electricity markets with prices that vary throughout the day. You _already_ pay a premium over those variable prices, for the convenience of a fixed rate. All I'm saying is that it would be good if consumers had the _option_ of eliminating some of that premium, in exchange for demand shifting.
So the correct answer is c) buy a 2005 Honda Civic.
Electricity will become an expensive commodity.
Look at prices in the UK and Europe. It's already starting to happen (but not because of EVs). Just wait till EVs become pervasive. All that demand for electricity.
It's a cautionary tale about moving too fast in the right direction.
It's easy to say "stop oil now" and things like that, but the reality is that there is only so much suffering the population will take before they turn to right-wing populist politicians who promise to roll back the progress that has been made, or their governments bankrupt themselves by subsidizing the pain away. These changes need to be made gradually.
Or not at all. Not everyone believes as you do.
The price floor for used EVs is going to be higher than the price floor for used gas cars. You won't be able to buy a $1000 hoopty EV with 200k miles on it because it will need several thousand dollars in replacement batteries to be drivable. Therefore the price floor will be the cost of replacement batteries.
At the same time, banning new gas car sales will drive up the value of older gas cars as people scramble to hoard them, resulting in price increases for used gas cars which will also hurt low-income people.
They still can't keep the lights on during a heat wave because people run their air conditioners and are willing to pay the peak rates to do so. Imagine the same level of demand, but with mass EV adoption on top of it, as well as the state planning to ban gas appliances and shift all the load for cooking and heating onto the grid. That is the future we are headed toward.
Right now, EV ownership is largely restricted to homeowners who can install charging stations. Building more EV charging stations without beefing up the power grid, which will make it more practical for apartment dwellers to own electric cars, will result in even more demand for electricity at all times of the day.
You can tinker with time-of-use rates all you want, but the only real solution is to have a much better power grid.
People talk about EVs putting power back into the grid. Frankly I think that's a pipe dream in the near future. Our power companies are barely competent enough to run the grid without causing forest fires -- they aren't going to be capable of implementing that at the kind of scale that would make a difference anytime soon.
how about $1000 (10kwh @ EV prices) battery or so at every household?
> People talk about EVs putting power back into the grid. Frankly I think that's a pipe dream in the near future. Our power companies are barely competent enough to run the grid without causing forest fires -- they aren't going to be capable of implementing that at the kind of scale that would make a difference anytime soon.
It's not realistic to expect a broken utility like PG&E to pull that off anytime soon. Most utilities in the United States are as bad as, or worse than, PG&E.
Another aspect of this, which I am going through myself with my own EV charger install at my new house, is that many homes need retrofitting to be able to charge an EV or install one of those batteries. I need my electrical panel replaced.
Every other house in my neighborhood was built at the same time by the same builder and is going to need a new panel too, if they haven't done it already -- and we aren't talking about old houses, these were built in the 1960s. For many homes, a charger or a battery will require $4k-6k of additional upgrades.
FWIW 1kW for 8 hours is ~50km which is enough for most daily drives
> I need my electrical panel replaced
How much is that, really? Panel itself cost nothing, just some labour which I take is very expensive. You are improving your house tho and cost is likely negligible compared to car cost.
FWIW it cost us ~$500 (eastern europe) to get 7kW charger purchased + installed. Which we never used cuz free municipal charger.
The panel install, including parts and labor, is around $4k. Add another $2k or so for the EV charger parts and labor.
To replace the panel, my electrical company must make a special appointment to disconnect my house from the grid and reconnect it later the same day. The earliest appointment they were able to offer was one month away.
There is no such thing as a cheap electrical panel upgrade, solar install, or battery install in the United States.
Yes, I am improving the house, and I would probably need a new panel eventually anyway, but this still goes to show that there is a lot more involved than some people might think.
Managing time of day for charging isn't a more complicated problem than any of those.
The way that power companies "communicate" about load is by slightly changing the frequency.
If the frequency is 60.5, then there's an abundance of energy on the grid and some less profitable generators can cut back or storage systems can charge. If the frequency is 59.5 then there's a lack of available power on the grid and other generators should go on line and unnecessary load should stop doing its thing (and if it has the ability, it could discharge instead).
People in US were so flipped when they heard this
It people drive to work and cannot plug in their car, then most of the time it will only be plugged in at night.
Universal-ish WFH dramatically undercuts the need for both energy and infrastructure (which also takes energy) and will allow us to scale back both dramatically (e.g., multi-lane roads), while saving lives and giving employees more life flexibility.
Advocates for public transportation (for environmental reasons, particularly) risk fighting the last war. They should shift focus to WFH instead. I really don't understand why Greens and Labor don't push for WFH mandates (for environmental and quality of life reasons, respectively). Probably too tied to the commercial real estate industry.
Or, do we just raise power prices for everyone and then give them a break if they allow a third party device to restrict their power usage? Seems like a great way to subsidize "the solution" on the backs of people who can't afford a new EV of their own.
Also.. when are there times of "excess power?" The grid operator tracks demand and then orders power from stations, or it doesn't. There is "excess capacity" but that's set against not running the plant at all, so I'm not sure there's some "free lunch" to be had here.
This is not a penalty situation, it is an enticement. Smart charge rates of 4 cents instead of 20 cents a kw/h. People will voluntarily do this to save themselves money.
And you're going to have those renewables available at night, when this charging is expected to take place and be straining the grid?
> This is not a penalty situation, it is an enticement. Smart charge rates of 4 cents instead of 20 cents a kw/h. People will voluntarily do this to save themselves money.
So where does that 16c/kWh come from? Subsidies? From taxes? So again, everyone has to pay to benefit a small group of consumers who can afford the product in the first place?
I think you are misunderstanding curtailments. It's when renewables are producing more power than what is needed and they are shut off or throttled. For the power producers getting 4 cents is better than getting 0 cents. Everyone involved in the transaction is better off. Customers get cheap power to charge their cars, and power producers get to sell energy that they otherwise couldn't. No one is subsidizing anything, the system is just more efficient.
Buying EV before getting rooftop solar (and potentially batteries) is incredibly dumb. FWIW gov shouldn't even allow this.
Life is unpredictable, and I have had emergency 2 AM phone calls that lead to situations where 20% battery is not sufficient. I don't have an electric vehicle yet, but my concern with smart charging would be finding myself in another situation where I need to drive to the nearest trauma center (2 hrs away) in the middle of the night and my battery is dead.
Shouldn't you try to at least give a reason why you think so?
You can both be right here.
There are many current challenges that prevent people from choosing an EV or against rapid majority adoption. We also have to consider that alternative methods of taxation (how to pay for roads) and the eventual reduction in tax incentives are problems that still need to be solved.
I'm also looking forward to the EVs that come out 1-2 decades from now with batteries that should have 4x+ density and/or half the cost. The biggest downer for me is all the damn tech that comes with them currently. If cost can come down, then I hope I can get one with less tech. Or that conversion kit will be common.
Are roads really payed from gas taxes? Everywhere? I perhaps naively assumed all the taxes go into a big bucket which is used to pay for all kinds of things, including roads.
Somehow even relatively poor countries manage to have good roads. We will save elsewhere. Most of the taxes go into the social bucket in most countries (retirement, social security, health, education) anyway.
Fuel taxes are quite common. In some areas they do make up a large component of the road funding. Finding a replacement for them is a major issue.
"Somehow even relatively poor countries manage to have good roads. We will save elsewhere. Most of the taxes go into the social bucket in most countries (retirement, social security, health, education) anyway."
This doesn't make any sense and lacks factual support. How do the poor countries pay for the roads, and which counties are these? What are we saving and where? The majority of current taxes going to social programs has no relevance to this discussion. If we're eliminating a current tax and having the same service costs (or more due to increased weight), a new one will need to take it's place.
Sure, there are grid issues. There are resource issues(Li, Ni, Co, Al, Cu, rare earths) with both temporary and long-term shortages combined with geopolitical issues. But overall EVs are more efficient and will win in the long run.
Should we be more focused on hybrids right now? Yes. But, in the long run, electric wins(along with mass transit, walking, biking, etc).
> Should we be more focused on hybrids right now?
I think most people overestimate the distance they really need. I have not charged at a public charger for months. Charging at home is so convenient, I never want to go back to the hassle with gas.
And for the occasional road trip, superchargers are fine.
Additionally, PHEVs have unlimited range like ICE while using less fuel so they are good for people who frequently need more range than a BEV can provide.
So there is no reason for BEV to be cheaper, more less it will keep being expensive or will get even more expensive than it is today.
The actual report from NREL (1) linked to the article is far more informative and interesting and eludes that clickbait headline, but still makes ham-fisted assumptions that make the whole report a little goofy. To list a few:
- "Absent systemic changes in customer behavior" (you mean no changes except mass customer purchasing of EVs? what's the point of assuming nothing changes)
- Slide 18 shows, for high EV adoption with no charging logic, effectively, "everyone definitely plugs in their EVs at 9pm because thats when TOU kicks in", while also showing "Almost nobody charges at work during the day". Most people will plug in whenever they get home. With WFH, that is basically any random time of the day. Also, they acknowledge people respond to TOU, but dont acknowledge that TOU can change?
- "At-work charging makes up a small portion of total EV charging, so the system benefits are likely to be small" (are they really assuming no changes here over a decade? I would love to charge at work but my office building has no services. These will become commonplace over time. Is this really their
EDIT: this is fun! here's the actual model from the NREL report! This launches a virtual machine, which might take a minute to boot up. Once the model has opened, click on ‘Cell > Run All’ to initialize the script’
https://hub.gke2.mybinder.org/user/skoeb-co-ev-model-rkichrt...
(1) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73303.pdf
I don't think so. It takes forever for anything to get built in this country. I have zero confidence the grid will improve fast enough to make mass EV adoption practical in many parts of the US. During the intervening period we will see higher energy bills, rolling blackouts, and rationing.
I mean, if our governments and utility companies were good at building this sort of thing, then why are the power grids in such a poor state today?
GP, why should we believe you?
These are significant changes and have happened in the last 10 yrs. The grid can continue to make major changes. Nothing I've said is particularly wild or opinionated.
The article and the report make a very plain fallacy of assuming a millions of EVs get dumped on the grid at the same time with no other material changes. It's just not a helpful discussion or presented conclusion/headline. Bold claims extrapolated from sparse data. Reminds me of the peak oil articles way back when, media sought to cast an image of cars stranded on apocalyptic interstates.
That feels dramatically optimistic.
The California Camp Fire was started by PG&E transmission lines about a 100 years old that were not being maintained. That is the rate of change and maintenance on the electrical infrastructure.
Now, sure, EVs are shaking up the electrical grid needs so perhaps the future will see faster evolution than a 100 year cycle. But dramatically different in 13 years? I don't think so.
But more broadly, the grid is evolving whether a Utility embraces it or not. On a residential basis, I have an EV and a backup generator. Software and policy are the primary inhibitors that prevent me from feeding a few kws back into the grid. But even if I never get to feed back into the grid, if the grid is insufficient, I can always kick on my gen to provide the power I need. That private generator is part of the grid, part of the network. Who is to say utilities or even EV supercharging stations don’t start installing large generators on site to shave demand. New Grid interconnects are possible between regions. These can be massive thousand mile deals or they can be across a river.
People love to complain about their power utilities, and there have been some dramatic shortcomings in recent years across the country, but waving away the opportunity to adapt is a curious approach to me, especially for the HN crowd.