CA energy issues

[4ohSick]

Right, but our electric grid is based on peak demand. You have to have enough generation to supply power at peak demand, so the time in which you are consuming power matters just as much as the amount you consume.

Lets look at a real example to show you:
View attachment 188402
This image here is of the total demand in the lower 48 the past two days. You'll see that 5 am was the lowest demand hour this morning. Peak was 6 PM, you can't see from that snip, but the peak MWhr was 657,000MWhr.


Now, what this tells us is that the grid has to be able to produce 657,000MWhr no matter what. So under your assumption we would be adding 5 million charging vehicles on to that peak. EPA indicates right now the fast chargers use about 7500 watts. So 5 million additional vehicles being completely empty at getting recharged would add 37.5MW of demand increasing the nations power demand to 657,037MWhr. So we would need additional power generation to make up for this gap.



But that's not what I've been saying this whole time. Instead of charging our cars at 6 pm, we use any remaining energy in them to supplement the grid. So now the grid no longer needs to produce 657,000MWhr through traditional generation, it can produce 656,963MWhr and the additional 37.5MWhr will come from the battery packs to reach full demand of 657,000MWhr.


Then, when demand is at its lowest at 5 am (or earlier) you charge up those batteries. demand goes from 428,000MWhr to 428,037MWhr, but guess what? We have plenty of generation available because we 657,000MWhr available out on the grid.


So in this very real case, we just added 5 million electric vehicles without requiring any additional power generation, and in actuality we reduced the amount of total generation the US would need by providing peak shaving from our EV batteries.


This is a real illustration of what those articles and I have been explaining.

I'm on your side here and realize that this is only one example amongst many of innovation that could address power needs. However, the issue I see with the electric car charging idea is that few electric car owners are equipped with fast chargers in their home - most require like 8 hours of charging to reach a full battery. So if you drained in the early evening to supplement the grid, there wouldn't be enough time to charge to full and the cycle would keep resulting in less each evening to supplement the grid. But I'm sure home quick chargers will become more commonplace as electric vehicles proliferate.

 

[homers]

The last thing I want as a California resident is to be dependent upon electric car drivers to install chargers in their homes and also providing their spare battery to the power grid in order to meet existing demand. 100% failure rate.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Right, but our electric grid is based on peak demand. You have to have enough generation to supply power at peak demand, so the time in which you are consuming power matters just as much as the amount you consume.

Lets look at a real example to show you:
View attachment 188402
This image here is of the total demand in the lower 48 the past two days. You'll see that 5 am was the lowest demand hour this morning. Peak was 6 PM, you can't see from that snip, but the peak MWhr was 657,000MWhr.


Now, what this tells us is that the grid has to be able to produce 657,000MWhr no matter what. So under your assumption we would be adding 5 million charging vehicles on to that peak. EPA indicates right now the fast chargers use about 7500 watts. So 5 million additional vehicles being completely empty at getting recharged would add 37.5MW of demand increasing the nations power demand to 657,037MWhr. So we would need additional power generation to make up for this gap.



But that's not what I've been saying this whole time. Instead of charging our cars at 6 pm, we use any remaining energy in them to supplement the grid. So now the grid no longer needs to produce 657,000MWhr through traditional generation, it can produce 656,963MWhr and the additional 37.5MWhr will come from the battery packs to reach full demand of 657,000MWhr.


Then, when demand is at its lowest at 5 am (or earlier) you charge up those batteries. demand goes from 428,000MWhr to 428,037MWhr, but guess what? We have plenty of generation available because we 657,000MWhr available out on the grid.


So in this very real case, we just added 5 million electric vehicles without requiring any additional power generation, and in actuality we reduced the amount of total generation the US would need by providing peak shaving from our EV batteries.


This is a real illustration of what those articles and I have been explaining.

K...

But I know a bunch of people with Teslas and none of them have anything other than a 120 wall charger and then they just scam free charges where possible.

A couple "are considering" doing a 240 upgrade to their garages, no one I know is talking about anything beyond that.

Basically all the people I know with EVs have them because of all the crazy subsidies, what happens when you pull those back?

Also peak demand is during the day? When your car is at your work... and the draw of power is mainly coming from your AC unit in your house? So like is power just supplementing the grid, and who is paying for that infrastructure. What's the ROR on that, better than an investment in a power plant?

Not trying to shoot down anything, I'm just curious about this and have questions.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

most require like 8 hours of charging to reach a full battery.

Dude not even close, a full charge on a Tesla from a 120 outlet would take 4 days. If you get 220 installed it's over 10 hours.

 

[antlerradar]

K...



A couple "are considering" doing a 240 upgrade to their garages, no one I know is talking about anything beyond that.

Upgrading beyond 240 and going to three phase 480 in every garage. Sounds like a big accident looking to happen. There are plenty of people out there working on earning a Darwin Award with 120 and 240. Put 480 in every house there is going to be fire works.

 

[BigHornRam]

K...

But I know a bunch of people with Teslas and none of them anything other than a 120 wall charger and then they just scam free charges where possible.

A couple "are considering" doing a 240 upgrade to their garages, no one I know is talking about anything beyond that.

Basically all the people I know with EVs have them because of all the crazy subsidies, what happens when you pull those back?

Also peak demand is during the day? When your car is at your work... and the draw of power is mainly coming from your AC unit in your house? So like is power just supplementing the grid, and who is paying for that infrastructure. What's the ROR on that, better than an investment in a power plant?

Not trying to shoot down anything, I'm just curious about this and have questions.

Back off college boy. It's a better idea than bubble gum and duct tape to hold the grid together.

 

[noharleyyet]

Gavin is having solar powered AC window units delivered to the tents in the designated Cap parking with cash and recall ballots taped to them.

Figuratively of course....

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Upgrading to three phase 480 in every garage. Sounds like a big accident looking to happen. There are plenty of people out there working on earning a Darwin Award with 120 and 240. Put 480 in every house there is going to be fire works.

Not to mention it’s not like everyone lives in a new home or one that would be easy to upgrade.

I know lots homes that don’t have grounded outlets…let alone 240

 

[jryoung]

There's a few thousand acres of almonds being torn out right now in the southern central valley, there's transmission there too. Putting in solar farms with 30yr PPAs would give landowners an annuity stream, create local tax revenue, and leave more water in rivers instead of exporting it to China.

If we could double this up with some new nuclear we could better meet our demands, and potentially export when storage solutions develop better.

 

[BigHornRam]

There's a few thousand acres of almonds being torn out right now in the southern central valley, there's transmission there too. Putting in solar farms with 30yr PPAs would give landowners an annuity stream, create local tax revenue, and leave more water in rivers instead of exporting it to China.

If we could double this up with some new nuclear we could better meet our demands, and potentially export when storage solutions develop better.

Sounds like a wonderful idea that hopefully stays in California.

 

[jryoung]

Sounds like a wonderful idea that hopefully stays in California.

Think of all the elk MT landowners could keep off their land if they covered it in solar.

 

[mottlet]

The amount of heads in the sand on these kinda threads while numerous others document the mind-blowing scale of drought and number of fires burning across the West makes my head hurt.

We have to build a better mousetrap, not sure which one is the best. But the one we got has, at best, outlived its usefulness. At worst, it'll kill us.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This of all the elk MT landowners could keep off their land if they covered it in solar.

BHA would probably sign off on that one

 

[jryoung]

BHA would probably sign off on that one

We'd break IPAs over a panel to christen it like Judge Smails and his sloop.

 

[Irrelevant]

Before we slip too far down the satirical slope...

The lurking threat to solar power’s growth

Plummeting sunny day solar prices are undermining the economic case to build more solar farms – and putting climate goals at risk.

www.technologyreview.com

“California is a little sneak peak of what is in store for the rest of the world as we dramatically scale up solar,” says Zeke Hausfather, director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, and author of the report.

@SD_Prairie_Goat

The state’s SB 100 law, passed in 2018, requires all of California’s electricity to come from “renewable and zero-carbon resources” by 2045. By that point, some 60% of the state’s electricity could come from solar, based on a California Energy Commission model.

60% of your power generation stops at sundown... no flaws with that?

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Lots going so I'll try to address what I can

K...

But I know a bunch of people with Teslas and none of them have anything other than a 120 wall charger and then they just scam free charges where possible.

A couple "are considering" doing a 240 upgrade to their garages, no one I know is talking about anything beyond that.

Basically all the people I know with EVs have them because of all the crazy subsidies, what happens when you pull those back?

Also peak demand is during the day? When your car is at your work... and the draw of power is mainly coming from your AC unit in your house? So like is power just supplementing the grid, and who is paying for that infrastructure. What's the ROR on that, better than an investment in a power plant?

Not trying to shoot down anything, I'm just curious about this and have questions.

Ultimately all the analysis doesn't take subsidies into account. Academics were basically looking into ways we can expand the use of EV's without adding significant load to the grid causing failure, or just wide spread capital improvements. So if you do pull them back, there will be less EV's bought and then less ability to use them as peak shaving. Ultimately puts us right back to where we are right now, without much change.

Peak demand is traditionally right when everyone gets off work and gets home to turn on their AC along with their range and TV. By using an EV battery you are essentially reducing your net power consumption by having the battery power part of your homes load. As far as infrastructure required to make this work, its really comes down to a smart charger on the wall that has bidirectional power capabilities and more than likely bidirectional metering at the utility meter. More than likely most folks will still be consuming power from the utility but will be supplementing much like solar does in many home applications.


Now, how can a utility force this implementation? Pretty easy at the end of the day. The utility can basically say that we don't have the infrastructure in place to accommodate the load you are requesting (fast charging). To be able to do so we need to have control over when this charger can be used. At the same time, we will purchase power from you during peak demands if you will allow. This may sound futuristic, but most folks on electric heat already do this (at least in SD they do). The utility gives discounted power for the electric heat with the agreement that they can call for the heat to be turned off if their system is running lower on available capacity.

I'm on your side here and realize that this is only one example amongst many of innovation that could address power needs. However, the issue I see with the electric car charging idea is that few electric car owners are equipped with fast chargers in their home - most require like 8 hours of charging to reach a full battery. So if you drained in the early evening to supplement the grid, there wouldn't be enough time to charge to full and the cycle would keep resulting in less each evening to supplement the grid. But I'm sure home quick chargers will become more commonplace as electric vehicles proliferate.

100% on the money. Don't get caught up in the current technology limitations. This is a long term scenario were talking about here. As charging and battery technologies improve these actions become easier and easier.

Upgrading beyond 240 and going to three phase 480 in every garage. Sounds like a big accident looking to happen. There are plenty of people out there working on earning a Darwin Award with 120 and 240. Put 480 in every house there is going to be fire works.

Keep in mind that converting from 240 to a higher voltage (600VDC) is really not that difficult if these charges ultimately require that higher voltage to properly operate. The end user wouldn't ever know there was above 240V if they keep the covers closed.

Before we slip too far down the satirical slope...

The lurking threat to solar power’s growth

Plummeting sunny day solar prices are undermining the economic case to build more solar farms – and putting climate goals at risk.

www.technologyreview.com

“California is a little sneak peak of what is in store for the rest of the world as we dramatically scale up solar,” says Zeke Hausfather, director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, and author of the report.

@SD_Prairie_Goat

The state’s SB 100 law, passed in 2018, requires all of California’s electricity to come from “renewable and zero-carbon resources” by 2045. By that point, some 60% of the state’s electricity could come from solar, based on a California Energy Commission model.

60% of your power generation stops at sundown... no flaws with that?

Huge issues with that obviously, but also many paths towards achieving this in the next 25 years... You saw on the daily demand chart that you still need roughly 60% (give or take) of your peak power demand over night. Many creative solutions being worked on currently. The bulk of them are based on the idea of collecting solar energy (or other green alternatives) throughout the day and storing additional production throughout the night. Many options to achieve this like, battery storage, heat storage, etc.

Ultimately I believe the grid is most reliable with a strong basis of traditional rotating mass power generation. I'm not saying what California is doing is perfect, but requirements like this do breed innovation for the industry. But like I said before, I maintain back up generation at my house in event of failures...

 

[BigHornRam]

The lurking threat to solar power’s growth

Plummeting sunny day solar prices are undermining the economic case to build more solar farms – and putting climate goals at risk.

www.technologyreview.com

The guy that cut all of his almond trees down probably wishes he would have read this first.

 

[TOGIE]

i get anxiety about keeping my phone charged, therefore i ain't gonna put jack chit of my EV's electrons back into the grid (when i get one, that is).

i'm always looking to have as much capability to go anywhere i want at all times, i suspect most americans feel this way too.

nobody want's to sacrifice their ability to go get some ice cream after dinner - because the peak demand needed their Tesla's last juices - for the sake of the common good. this is murica after all.

this is the biggest probelm in my mind with two way EV charging on the grid.

 

[jryoung]

Before we slip too far down the satirical slope...

The lurking threat to solar power’s growth

Plummeting sunny day solar prices are undermining the economic case to build more solar farms – and putting climate goals at risk.

www.technologyreview.com

“California is a little sneak peak of what is in store for the rest of the world as we dramatically scale up solar,” says Zeke Hausfather, director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, and author of the report.

@SD_Prairie_Goat

The state’s SB 100 law, passed in 2018, requires all of California’s electricity to come from “renewable and zero-carbon resources” by 2045. By that point, some 60% of the state’s electricity could come from solar, based on a California Energy Commission model.

60% of your power generation stops at sundown... no flaws with that?

Most of CAs legislation reads like satire doesn't it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

As far as infrastructure required to make this work, its really comes down to a smart charger on the wall that has bidirectional power capabilities and more than likely bidirectional metering at the utility meter.

Riiiiiight, so... not to be a Debbie downer