a bit of EV scepticism??
 

Hi,

I just had a sudden thought (inspired by this Spiegel article - sorry, in German, see translated version here)

So here is my question:

My country has currently about 6 millions cars. Imagine that half of them are EVs, so we have 3 millions EV cars. Lets say nominal distance on full charge is 400 km, with speed 50 km/h (reasonable for central Europe) it takes 8 hours to cover the distance. Than it takes another eight hours to charge their 22 kWh packs (assume 230 Volts, 12 amps, roughly 3 kW, which is what most of my country infrastructure can handle). So 1.5 million of cars will be tied to grid at any moment, drawing 4.5 GigaWatts of electricity. Our biggest nuke power plant has around 2 GigaWatts output, whole country produces around 16 GigaWatts. Wieving it from this angle, "bright EV future" looks kinda scary.

Where are my assumptions wrong?

The main thing you've missed is that not every EV will drive 400km every day and recharge at the same time.

If you drive 40km a day then you only need to plug in once a week.

There's certainly a possibility of grid issues when everyone drives EV (like when everyone plugs in before a long weekend or approaching storm) though.

Also consider that the EV adoption rate won't be at 50% for decades, if ever.

Fundamentally the decision to buy an EV will be based on individual convenience and average annual cost per mile or km over the life of the vehicle. In urban areas public transport and streamlined e-bikes are very cost effective.

Unfortunatelly not in the EU, where it was decided by politics. From 2025 i think, car makers must sell "zero emissions" cars only. Hopefully i am wrong.

When electric cars reach that sort of market penetration, many distribution and timing problems will have to be solved.

There are many possible solutions. The ones I hear most about:

- More local generation (solar panels on your roof, small wind turbines) so you can charge your car (cheapest) when you have the power available

- more local storage (tesla power walls) so you can charge your power wall from your solar and transfer it to your car when it is convenient for you

- incentives (lower power cost) from your power company for charging when demand is otherwise low. This makes good use of the transmission and distribution that is already in place. It depends on your grid though. Coal power and nukes can't be turned up and down easily so when there is no power demand, rates go much lower. In england there is low demand for power during the night and wind power is available for cheap.

- centralized solar generation with heliostat, where mirrors reflect the solar to heat up oil or salt in a tower, then that is used to heat water for a conventional steam turbine generator. These appear to need to be a certain size (big) to make money.

- grid level storage, where cheap power charges up the storage and it is put back on the grid when demand is high. Again this uses the distribution grid that is already there more efficiently. The grid storage is intended to be close to large users/industrial so that there is little loss when the energy is put back onto the grid.

In my opinion, there needs to be lots of discussion between now and when it is implemented. And different things will be implemented in different areas. Heck, the solution may be to do ALL of the various solutions (plus a few we have not come up with as yet) in a different mix for each area.

After driving an EV for a year I would find it hard to go back to an ICE on my next car, I really don't miss anything about internal combustion vehicles!

I'm pretty sure the power grid will accommodate EVs by the time they are mainstream.

Extracting oil and transporting it, and refining gasoline - takes a lot of electricity.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Add to that the fact that many motorists will have their own source of electricity from PVs, as they become cheaper and more efficient. I know a couple of people who have PVs and a Powerwall, solely to charge their car (one a Model 3, the other a Leaf).

Humans are very efficient at solving technical problems using technology. How to generate enough electricity to charge EVs is a minor issue that will be addressed as the adoption rate steadily increases.

The immediate problem is the cost of EVs, and more specifically the battery. An EV sceptic is right to bring this up as a hurdle to the feasibility of EVs. Besides cost, the next biggest hurdle to overcome for the typical consumer is access to charging, and charging speed.

$50 hot water heater timer.
Problem solved.

Almost every EV and/or EVSE has a way to time when the car gets charged.

I set up the charging schedule on my Volt right after I got it, and since then I just plug it in as soon as I get home and walk away. The car knows when I'm going to leave in the morning from the schedule I set up, and it starts to charge it late in the evening so that the battery is fully charged and warmed up when I get ready to leave the next day.
I assume every EV out there does this.

The downside is that as EVs become more mainstream we will eventually lose the super-low rates we currently see from charging during the off-peak hours overnight. The more cars charging at night, the more the overnight demand will rise on the grid, and that will directly affect the cost of charging at night

Solar hot water heater on roof, power goes to cars instead.

Smart car-charging network, that talks to grid and charges when there's surplus power (cheap) if you don't need the car until morning.

Viewed from perspective of an average in-block-of-flat living European I shall correct it: $50 timer and 300 meters of extension cord. Our cars do not live with us. They usually stay in parking lots (or everywhere else possible). As said, major infrastructure changes are needed.

Wait, so pipe hot water and use it to heat your roof?

That's probably not accurate, or at least only a temporary problem.

Primary generators are cheap to run, which is why off-peak energy is so cheap. There will always be an off-peak, since by definition it's the low demand part of the day. If demand rises for off-peak energy, primary generating capacity will be expanded.

Peaking generators are more expensive to run, and this is why peak rates are higher than off-peak. It wouldn't make sense to always be using peaking generators to supply off-peak energy.

There was a pilot test done in SF where EV owners installed an app on their phone. Through the app, the utility could ask the customer if they were willing to delay charging during peak demand.

It would be relatively simple to develop a system where consumers input charging parameters relating to how much time they need to charge a vehicle, and what hours it will be connected to the grid. The utility could then balance the demand by scheduling charging to both meet the needs of the customer, and place a steady draw on the grid. The customer could override the utility if needed, but there would be incentives to participate, such as lower energy rates.

If anything, EVs should help balance grid consumption which would reduce production costs.

Yes. It's hard to get good numbers.

But it is a substantial amount of electricity

It's way more natural gas than electricity, but the idea's the same. We can use the natural gas to extract/refine petroleum, or we can use it to generate electricity.

How much natural gas needs to be burned to power the conversion to gasoline?

Ever do a fractional distillation in science class? The more volatile (easily evaporated) chemicals boil off first, and the distinct petroleum products are separated. Turning all that liquid into a gas takes an enormous amount of energy.

It would be cool if we could separate the chemicals in a centrifuge instead, but there must be some reason it's not possible.

It doesn't take as much energy as you would think.
Oil refineries have heat exchangers that cool the freshy distilled product and warm the incoming raw product.

Ineos power plant, to power Grangemouth refinery develops 145 MW. That's certainly more energy than I would have thought. And that is not a huge refinery.

Oil refineries rely on smooth steady operation the be safe and efficient. Thermal solar is not continuous.

The Grangemouth refinery, here in Scotland, was supposed to get it's electricity from their power station using shale oil from a locally licensed block, but because of the ban on fracking they have to import shale oil from the US.
The tankers arrive every few days, here on the Firth of Forth.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1507137227

Very true, but solar COULD dramatically reduce the draw from other heat source(s), thus requiring the ±energy input to come not from the sunlight, but rather from the energy source they CAN control, ie: a distillation version of hybrid, use one when you HAVE to and the other when you CAN.

Spain has already demonstrated molten salt solar power generation that can go a minimum of 24 hours with no sunshine and 48+ with reduced sunshine. Utility level power, not just residential or light commercial.

A very common way to store energy is pump water up to a higher reservoir. This is done in some places just to save on power costs for their community. When power is cheaper (off-peak), water is pumped up (in the one I am familiar with) in the Delaware Water Gap to a reservoir that is higher up. When they need more electricity (and didn't want to build another power plant), the water is let flow down and turns turbines that generate the power to make up the difference. The area around this reservoir is parkland with trails and hiking paths...
That technique has been around a long time.
Also, as appliances and HVAC, in general, are getting less expensive (electricity wise), less power is needed.
People are making sure their homes are well insulated cuts down power
As for parking garage/lots. PV and Wind can help those lots generate power to charge the cars parked there.
If I owned apartment buildings, I would be covering any south facing or flat roofs with PV and/or hot water panels.
Price of PV panels seems to be getting very cheap, until you hear about how the cost of Wind generation has gotten so cheap, it competes with fossil and nuclear power without subsidies.
It is easier to predict the wind generation that the power usage levels, which is why the ability to use EV battery packs in cars connected to the grid to help offset sudden short peaks in power draw is something many grid utility operators want. It would save them so much money as now they have to have standbye power generation ready for those sudden peaks. If that could be handled by EV battery packs that are connected to the grid.
If businesses add power generation (PV and hot water panels), they save money, and surplus power sold to grid operator generates money. The roof of office buildings, work parking lots/garages, etc.
As vehicles (ICE or EV) get more efficient and safe, it will take less fuel (petroleum or electricy) and thus less demand on the Grid.

I think quick EV adoption is possible and the grid will be fine. Just my opinion though.

LDJ

I wouldn't worry too much about the vehicle to grid thing happening any time soon.
The problem with vehicle to grid is the new digital smart meters. The new digital dumb meters count any power flow they detect as consumption. So right there if you have a new digital dumb meter this not possible.
Then with the net meters they sell you power at the standard rate of say 10 to 15 cents per kwh, then allow you to sell your excess solar power back to the power company for anywhere from 1 to 3 cents per kwh. On top of that they charge you a lot more for net meter service.
So what are you going to do, buy a very expensive vehicle to grid 2 way charge system, add wear and tear on your battery so the power company can rip you off?
So the power companies them selves have made sure to prevent this from happening. They have made it clear they don't really want or need our help generating power.

Well, if I had the money and sunshine, I would do solar to battery and then charge my car from that battery.

My state just passed a law that will end net metering... but even at the $0.04 per kW, if it is in excess to what I can store and use while generating it, still better than getting nothing for it.

From what I have read and watched, not seen all home digital and smart meters work like that.

I am hoping some day to have a house built to my specifications... and besides lots of insulation, LED lights, radiant floor heating, and PV, hot water, & wind generation, it will also use passive solar techniques to help offset winter heating and summer cooling costs.

That combined with a large battery and insulated hot water tank, the house should produce more energy than I use. Then I will need to decide if connecting to the grid makes sense, but if I do, it will be mostly to sell my excess energy to the grid.

Yes, it would be great if our electrical grid was more of an open market and less a monopoly. I would just be happy to be using the lest polluting option for power and provide that kind of energy to the grid. It will only help the country and if a make a small amount, great.

Have you folks heard of the Sunamp Heat Battery?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9upXeTMHUqE

It is a battery and a heat storage system, all in one.

Net metering began as a consequence of how the old analog meters functioned, not as an official way to compensate customers for their over-production. It was called gorilla solar. People wouldn't tell the utility they were feeding electricity back into the grid, but the meter would run backwards when production exceeded consumption.

Net metering is the best form of compensation because it requires no administrative overhead. Nobody has to keep track of the energy that goes back to the grid and then calculate compensation. It's compatible with old meters, so a meter upgrade isn't required. It's fair because the customer is billed only for the net use. Overproduction is most likely to occur during peak use since air conditioners run when the sun is shining brightest.

To get a battery that would work for a house and still hold enough to even begin to think about charging an electric car will cost around $10,000 to $16,000.

Rather than banks of solar cells I might consider a focusing mirror with tracking motors as on telescopes to heat an external combustion engine. Here we just convert the vehicle to natural gas, usually trucks and buses or fleet vehicles.

Hi need to sort link for siencest who has proved ev are not a way forward to reducing pollution. He claims tyres and brake dust contrbute 50% of all toxic emissions given out by vehicles in urban areas. If true certainly food for thought. London uk was where he did his testing.

Hi cant copy and paste but on daily expess uk website.

Hopefully link will work.

Haha electric cars actually aren't that clean.

Electric cars rarely use brake pads. They might burn through tires faster though given their instant torque.

I believe EVs will lead towards reducing pollution and overall cost of ownership.

My prediction is that in 10 years, 50% of vehicles sold will be either EV, or hybrid.

A few years ago DoE figured by 2020 3% of vehicles will be hybrid or electric, with the majority being hybrid.
Then by 2030 up to 10% on the road will be hybrid or electric, again with the majority being able to use liquid fuel.