Agreed, per my point the status quo won't say the status quo! I do disagree that simply getting people to charge overnight solves the problem. The overarching point I've been trying to make it is that we shouldn't minimize the amount of change required. This will require change, more so in some areas than others but we have most of tools to accomplish it and it is entirely possible.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hydrogen vs. Battery
- Thread starter siry
- Start date
If everybody traded in their stinker for an EV tomorrow, the grid would be in trouble. But they can't, because there are not enough EVs being made. More and more carmakers are going to start making EVs, but most of them will make small numbers of them for a long time. The move to electric transportation is and will be gradual. The increased charging will result in increased revenue and well-run utilities will use some of that revenue to increase capacity and incentivize off-peak charging. At some point it will simply be normal to charge during off-peak times. It will be handled automatically and people won't even have to think about it.
Note that a switch to H2 would be even more disruptive, as the distribution infrastructure does not exist and is more expensive to build, and it would seriously impact industries other than transportation that need H2.
Texas and California are examples of poorly-run grids where short-term profits are valued more highly than long-term robustness. If they continue to be run by incompetents, any increased demand will strain them. Not merely EVs but air conditioners in the face of rising temperatures and everything else that people use electricity for. The failure of profit-driven companies to meet growing demand is not the fault of our switch to cleaner and more efficient cars.
The bigger issue is whether we can stop burning coal and gas and diesel before climate change brings down our industrial house of cards.
Spot on and I'll highlight your first and last sentences. It's this weird position that we are in because we have time (because we can't physically transition by snapping our fingers) but we don't have time (because maintaining the status quo isn't sustainable).
If we consider 150 million cars actually driving in the US about 15,000 miles each year, if all they are EVs, and if on average they spend 1 kWh per 3 miles, then we need 7.5 x 10^11 kWh of energy. The annual production last year was 41x10^11 kWh. So, if ALL cars right now become electric, this will consume about 18% of the present-day energy production. It isn't a small amount, but it doesn't look to be unmanageable, especially considering the transition will likely take close to 10 years rather than 1 year.
This summer, our house consumed over 3 MWh/month energy. About 800 kWh or 27% was used by our 2 EVs.
Merrill
Merrill
Yes. Up to
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
The US produced 50TWh more from renewables in 2021 than it did in 2020. The average EV uses < 4MWh/yr. So even if the rate at which we're adding renewables wasn't increasing we could add ~12M EVs/yr to the grid and we'd be fine. So... yeah... we're fine because math.
I guess the major challenges will be with energy delivery and stability of the grid rather than with production. On a hot summer day in states like Texas, 20% more energy consumption by EV may lead to more outages, so the resilience of the grid should be improved. But that seems to be doable over the next 10 years or so I hope.
Don't forget that at the same time as people are buying EVs, people are also installing PV on their homes. Not everybody can, but this increases the nation's total production capacity. My house and my electric car consume no energy from the grid other than a tiny amount for load balancing, and some of that goes back into the grid for the same purpose. Many of those Texas air conditioners could run from home PV, and as the grid becomes less reliable more people will install PV and batteries.
If you have 20% more because of EVs, you have a lot of EVs.
If you have a lot of EVs, you have a lot of batteries.
If you have a lot of batteries, you have a lot of resilience.
It's easier to have a lot of grid-scale batteries because they can easily use LFP.
There is also a natural place for them: solar PV farms. That's because there's so much spare inverter capacity available due to the production curves.
The problem with photovoltaics is they are very expensive to install and they will basically never offset the grid electricity costs in states like Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, etc. My electricity cost is about $0.14/kWh max. And solar panels can easily get to a $50k+ project. It will take me over 20 years to get even with the grid. I'd better invest in some efficiency updates first. Of course, in Bay Area or HI, at over $0.30/kWh, solar panels start making a lot more sense.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I've installed 25 kW solar over the past 8 years. All arrays have paid for themselves (at 0.13 per kWh) so I now have free electricity for the next 20+ years. Grid rates have now gone up to 0.20 per kWh so even more savings.
Excellent video with an expert on fuel cell Hydrogen tech. It is worth your 17 minutes if you are into such things. He walks through where H2 can be effectively used and where it is a definite NO.
Residential rooftop solar is now reaching break-even in less than 20 years. After that, it will keep producing and you just have to replace anything that goes down. The replacement parts should cost less than they do now and with the rest of the sytem producing for 'free' (since you've already surpassed B/E), your new LCOE is even lower. Not much different than buying a house and eventually having to make repairs. If your B/E is 20 years, then you need to get more quotes. LOL
2030 Solar Cost Targets
The Solar Energy Technologies Office aims to further reduce the levelized cost of electricity to $0.02 per kWh for utility-scale solar.
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The time shifting is on the consumer side. As for how difficult it is for the utility, it happens in about the time you can say 'TOU'
The other thing is encouraging late-night/early-morning charging with rate changes. Some providers in Texas have a free night and/or free weekend plans because of the imbalance between production capacity and time of consumption
Here is what I think is an easier way to explain how little strain on the grid EV usage will be:
An average US home uses a bit over 10,000 kwh/yr
Residential usage is ~21% of all electricity (EIA numbers)
EVs get about 3-4 miles/kwh
Assume all households get an one EV and drive 12K - 15K miles per year (this includes households that don't even drive at all today)
This means an additional 3K to 5K kwh per year (or 30-50%) increase per household for every household
Thus we would see a net increase of about 6 to 10% overall
This transition, if it happens rapidly would take at least 10 years.
Thus we need to add 0.6% to 1.0% overall grid capacity per year.
Much of that (perhaps 50%-75%) can come from TOU via night time charging.
Also, since gasoline refining consumes about 15% of the energy value in electricity, the effect is about 15% less.
Key takeaway... so the savings from not having to refine gasoline pretty much pays for the charging needs of EVs! Additional savings from not having to refine diesel needed by the trucks to transport gasoline, not to mention other supporting processes that use even more electricity, I think we will use LESS electricity by switching to EVs!
Similar threads
