Electrical demand with more EVs on the road. Is there enough power supply for future growth?

[ExCivilian]

I guess V2G might be possible but I’m not smart enough to know if it could work.

I don't think one has to be particularly smart to know US citizens are not, by and large, going to plug their $30-100K EVs into the wall during the day to allow utility companies to leech off their batteries. It won't even matter if the batteries aren't damaged by it, in my opinion, because without significant incentive it just won't happen at all. I'd still predict limited uptake even with payouts--most people don't have the luxury to care about the greater good or larger problems beyond what's in front of them at the time. Doing so with current technology would result in shortened battery lives anyway so it's a non-starter as-is. Given my background, I can't fault those who are in that situation and perhaps some here can relate depending on your personal backgrounds.

What I don’t really understand is your fatalism and negativity:

It may also be a heavy dose of much needed realism in response to the general EV-adopter's pollyanna perspective. There are spaces where these solutions simply won't work and ignoring that while placing all of our proverbial eggs in a singular basket for political expediency may bite us in the ass.

Sponsored

 

[VTbuckeye]

When you were working, any chance you were paid by the word?

I think you asked the question wrong. How exactly were you paid would be better? As a pharmacist I know all about open ended questions vs yes/no. You ask the yes/no when you don't really want to talk to the other person. Example: What did the doctor tell you about this medication vs do you have any questions about your medication.

 

[cvalue13]

When automobiles were introduced, many people believed they would never succeed because they would too bother the horses (drawing carriages). People couldn’t fathom the paradigm changing, so they only considered whether the new technology fit in the current paradigm.

I’ve been in the Oil & Gas industry, near its spear-tip, for the past 15 years. In the board rooms of the majors, they are not worrying over the feelings of horses. It is for them a foregone conclusion that in the future fossil fuels are not the predominant feedstock of many segments of society.

Their marketing machines and lobbyists may be saying otherwise, causing folks in this thread to parrot those tropes, but that messaging is in effect only to extend the penetration of that line of their business. They meanwhile seek to understand where they can continue fossil fuel business (industries, markets, pockets of future utilities), while also turning to participate in future technologies. They seek, to use the analogy, to both continue building horse-drawn carriages as long as possible, while also finding how to become an auto manufacturer because the writing is on the wall.

If I’m right that that’s how the majors view the world, I’m not sure how folks in this thread disagree with them.

Pointing to things like California as some Platonic example of how consumer fossil fuel avoidance is inherently flawed is a poor trick of rhetoric. Just because something is done poorly, does not mean it cannot be done well. And just because new technologies require loss-leader investment, does not mean the new technology is doomed to fail.

To me, the deeper issue and question is whether the first world will ever learn the lesson that the cleanest energy is energy unused. We spoiled, soft, voracious consumers of energy appear to have zero appetite for experiencing an ounce of discomfort, whatever the costs. With that constitution, it won’t matter what energy we’re attempting to use.

 

[Theo1000]

If more vehicles were built with V2G technology and workplaces had two-way electric charging, EV’s not in use could help power the grid then recharge during off-peak hours. This would of course require batteries to have 0-100% cycles several times their current lifetime to prevent loss of charge over a few years.

Ideally the grid folks would not cycle 0-100% nor would they have to.

Just doing the math, w/ ~ 100 kwh batteries. Say you take 2 kw per hour to the grid for vehicles above 70% Soc. With ~ 1000,000 such vehicles this would supply ~ 2,000 MW for 4 hours.

Your SoC would only drop from say 80% to 72%. And probably charge back in the 5th hour. No one will even notice.

Even full bore 6 kwh for 4 hours will only be ~ 25% SoC. Lots of potential here as everyone has known for a looong time.

 

[Nick Gerteis]

When automobiles were introduced, many people believed they would never succeed because they would too bother the horses (drawing carriages). People couldn’t fathom the paradigm changing, so they only considered whether the new technology fit in the current paradigm.

I’ve been in the Oil & Gas industry, near its spear-tip, for the past 15 years. In the board rooms of the majors, they are not worrying over the feelings of horses. It is for them a foregone conclusion that in the future fossil fuels are not the predominant feedstock of many segments of society.

Their marketing machines and lobbyists may be saying otherwise, causing folks in this thread to parrot those tropes, but that messaging is in effect only to extend the penetration of that line of their business. They meanwhile seek to understand where they can continue fossil fuel business (industries, markets, pockets of future utilities), while also turning to participate in future technologies. They seek, to use the analogy, to both continue building horse-drawn carriages as long as possible, while also finding how to become an auto manufacturer because the writing is on the wall.

If I’m right that that’s how the majors view the world, I’m not sure how folks in this thread disagree with them.

Pointing to things like California as some Platonic example of how consumer fossil fuel avoidance is inherently flawed is a poor trick of rhetoric. Just because something is done poorly, does not mean it cannot be done well. And just because new technologies require loss-leader investment, does not mean the new technology is doomed to fail.

To me, the deeper issue and question is whether the first world will ever learn the lesson that the cleanest energy is energy unused. We spoiled, soft, voracious consumers of energy appear to have zero appetite for experiencing an ounce of discomfort, whatever the costs. With that constitution, it won’t matter what energy we’re attempting to use.

Spot on, and FF companies are of course going to be just fine. Their product is still going to be used in plastics etc., and their skills will help power renewables: if you can drill for oil and gas in the ocean you can install wind turbines there, and if you can drill on land you can tap geothermal.

 

[Nick Gerteis]

As an economist I am trained to avoid words like never, every, always, etc., so use them sparingly and only for effect. This was a choice and I have confidence in the statement. There are certain things we know about megatrends. Rural areas are depopulating and cities are becoming more concentrated. this is due to better farming methods. That trend will not turn around. Therefore infrastructure delivery to rural areas will generally not increase unless it is done on an economically distorted basis. In some states like North Dakota, formerly paved roads are being ground to gravel because the maintenance is easier and far less expensive, with mileage driven on those roads being way down. My county in Virginia where I have a farm has 32,000 people, down from 85,000 100 years go. It is declining about 5% per decade. That trend will not stop until it reaches an equilibrium where the population reaches the level of economic opportunity (old folks die off, and their kids move away as they see no opportunity, and jobs elsewhere). It is currently distorted by government programs keeping people in place through subsidies, so we have shanty towns with slave-legacy folks - but their kids are largely going away. So our roads are also reverting to tar-and-chip over former paving. It is the RIGHT thing. There will “never” be an electrical grid for the 100,000 people strung along the Carretera Austral in Southern Chile. If there is, it will only be because someone did a very stupid, illogical thing. And I can say with confidence that world GDP will remain 90%+ above the equator, because the trend line is even stronger in that direction, with no countervailing reason that it would reverse.

Absolutely correct about the megatrends you mentioned, but none of this supports your argument that the grid won’t improve. In fact the opposite will happen: as people concentrate in large urban areas and vast parts of the country depopulate, those parts will now become prime spots for installing renewables. Of course the grid will be improved to move this energy from its rural sources to its urban users. Exactly like it’s been done with food for centuries- we managed to get all the infrastructure for that in place just fine. You’re correct about sparsely populated areas receiving fewer services, but just because a few people in the Andes will never have a functioning grid doesn’t mean that we can’t improve ours here.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

When automobiles were introduced, many people believed they would never succeed because they would too bother the horses (drawing carriages). People couldn’t fathom the paradigm changing, so they only considered whether the new technology fit in the current paradigm.

I’ve been in the Oil & Gas industry, near its spear-tip, for the past 15 years. In the board rooms of the majors, they are not worrying over the feelings of horses. It is for them a foregone conclusion that in the future fossil fuels are not the predominant feedstock of many segments of society.

Their marketing machines and lobbyists may be saying otherwise, causing folks in this thread to parrot those tropes, but that messaging is in effect only to extend the penetration of that line of their business. They meanwhile seek to understand where they can continue fossil fuel business (industries, markets, pockets of future utilities), while also turning to participate in future technologies. They seek, to use the analogy, to both continue building horse-drawn carriages as long as possible, while also finding how to become an auto manufacturer because the writing is on the wall.

If I’m right that that’s how the majors view the world, I’m not sure how folks in this thread disagree with them.

Pointing to things like California as some Platonic example of how consumer fossil fuel avoidance is inherently flawed is a poor trick of rhetoric. Just because something is done poorly, does not mean it cannot be done well. And just because new technologies require loss-leader investment, does not mean the new technology is doomed to fail.

To me, the deeper issue and question is whether the first world will ever learn the lesson that the cleanest energy is energy unused. We spoiled, soft, voracious consumers of energy appear to have zero appetite for experiencing an ounce of discomfort, whatever the costs. With that constitution, it won’t matter what energy we’re attempting to use.

Mostly agreed. I'm on the board of a publicly-traded (NYSE) company that owns over 3,000 properties in 50 states, many of them convenience stores. Think we're studying this? I and some fellow board members and company execs drive EV's, yet our properties contain many fuel dispensing pumps. We also have an increasingly large number of charging stations, but we are going to need a small fraction of the number of pumps/charging statin ratio because everyone with a house has their own fuel station, so figuring this out is top of mind for everyone. 100 years ago there weren't many filling stations and 100 years from now there won't be many either. Right now I'm actively trying to figure out a refueling strategy for 8 Andes pass crossings between now and the middle of November.... using Garmin basecamp because there's no app like plugshare for dirt roads. The reality is that no extreme wins here. Portable fuel will remain a reality for generations to come because that characteristic cannot be replaced and is invaluable.

 

[IdeaOfTheDayCom]

California is a joke!. Newsome is a joke! There can be power for all with good policy.

The funny thing is that California is the only state that actually is planning a specific date (2035) to ban the sale of new ICE vehicles.

Clearly they've got a lot of work ahead of them if they actually plan on following through.

That said, they could suggest that EV owners only charge their vehicles during off-peak hours. Anything beyond suggesting that would be impossible to enforce because they wouldn't be able to tell if an EV that is plugged in is actually charging, or waiting for a scheduled charge to start.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

I think you asked the question wrong. How exactly were you paid would be better? As a pharmacist I know all about open ended questions vs yes/no. You ask the yes/no when you don't really want to talk to the other person. Example: What did the doctor tell you about this medication vs do you have any questions about your medication.

Bicycle shop owner in high school and college. CPA for 8 years. Real estate corporate CFO. Took company public in 1994. Then investment manager CFO while studying economics. Then wall street investment banker, paid by deal. Then NYSE institutional sell-side investment analyst, paid for publishing research and by clients for advice - enough to retire in 2010 at 52. Then college professor (now) and corporate board member. Also own sustainable-focused oyster aquaculture farm on VA Chesapeake Bay. Never overpaid until now. Board fees are just stupid, pushed by diversity requirements. Having fun. Info on our solar panels and sustainability "story" here: https://www.fmoyster.co/

(You asked.)

 

[sotek2345]

The funny thing is that California is the only state that actually is planning a specific date (2035) to ban the sale of new ICE vehicles.

Clearly they've got a lot of work ahead of them if they actually plan on following through.

That said, they could suggest that EV owners only charge their vehicles during off-peak hours. Anything beyond suggesting that would be impossible to enforce because they wouldn't be able to tell if an EV that is plugged in is actually charging, or waiting for a scheduled charge to start.

NY has stated they will follow California's lead and match their date / rules.

 

[MM in SouthTX]

From WSJ today

“BRUSSELS—European energy ministers backed sweeping interventions in the continent’s energy markets to tamp down soaring electricity and gas prices, aiming to limit the economic damage inflicted by Moscow’s move to cut gas deliveries to the continent.”

Back to the here and now. Transitioning off fossil fuels before there is storage for renewables is not a good idea. Economic damages are mentioned here, but the political implications may end up being more important. Germany in particular is in a horrible situation.

“Officials are looking to craft emergency policies that would apply across the 27-nation bloc, from nuclear-energy reliant France to a handful of countries in central Europe that still consume a lot of Russian gas. At the center of the debate is Germany, the EU’s largest economy, which for decades counted on Russian gas to keep its factories humming. Moscow’s decision to shut down indefinitely the Nord Stream pipeline, the main artery for natural-gas deliveries, has the continent idling factories as it faces surging gas and electricity prices.

The crisis has pushed governments to consider policies that until recently were seen by many officials as unrealistic. The proposal to redistribute companies’ windfall revenue, for example, “was crazy in June, it was fringe in July, and it was mainstream in August,” said Václav Bartuška, the special envoy for energy security for the Czech Republic.”

The German delegation laughed in Trump’s face when he predicted this in 2018. Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are laughing now.

 

[IdeaOfTheDayCom]

NY has stated they will follow California's lead and match their date / rules.

At least there's a lot of time to prepare for 2035.

England and some other European countries set their goal to 2030, which is going to be a bit tight.

The key here is that car makers who don't have a strategy in place within the next 6 or 7 model years will be pushed out of some pretty big markets like England, so they're going to all need to step up ASAP.

 

[Maquis]

From WSJ today

“BRUSSELS—European energy ministers backed sweeping interventions in the continent’s energy markets to tamp down soaring electricity and gas prices, aiming to limit the economic damage inflicted by Moscow’s move to cut gas deliveries to the continent.”

Back to the here and now. Transitioning off fossil fuels before there is storage for renewables is not a good idea. Economic damages are mentioned here, but the political implications may end up being more important. Germany in particular is in a horrible situation.

“Officials are looking to craft emergency policies that would apply across the 27-nation bloc, from nuclear-energy reliant France to a handful of countries in central Europe that still consume a lot of Russian gas. At the center of the debate is Germany, the EU’s largest economy, which for decades counted on Russian gas to keep its factories humming. Moscow’s decision to shut down indefinitely the Nord Stream pipeline, the main artery for natural-gas deliveries, has the continent idling factories as it faces surging gas and electricity prices.

The crisis has pushed governments to consider policies that until recently were seen by many officials as unrealistic. The proposal to redistribute companies’ windfall revenue, for example, “was crazy in June, it was fringe in July, and it was mainstream in August,” said Václav Bartuška, the special envoy for energy security for the Czech Republic.”

The German delegation laughed in Trump’s face when he predicted this in 2018. Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are laughing now.

Germany contributed mightily to their current problems when they went full bore shutting down their nukes in a knee-jerk reaction to the Fukushima disaster, even though there is a zero chance of a tsunami hitting a power plant in Germany.
Solving long-term problems requires long-term, pragmatic solutions, and that decision ran counter to this.

 

[cvalue13]

BRUSSELS—European energy ministers backed sweeping interventions in the continent’s energy markets to tamp down soaring electricity and gas prices, aiming to limit the economic damage inflicted by Moscow’s move to cut gas deliveries to the continent.”

Back to the here and now. Transitioning off fossil fuels before there is storage for renewables is not a good idea. Economic damages are mentioned here, but the political implications may end up being more important. Germany in particular is in a horrible situation.

I’m a bit confused by the intent of the example you raise.

the European continent is presently the best example of the geo-political necessity for diversifying feedstock

europe has been ahead in pushing alternative energies not because they’re philosophically superior, but because everyone has known for decades Europe is beholden to Moscow for its energy. The European push for renewables/alternatives was marketed as a social philosophy, but funded as a geo-political necessity.

the current “problem” in Europe is the result of an almost inevitable collision of push and pull: on one hand. Europe didn’t get enough renewable/independent feedstock fast enough for Russia to not now still hold the strings; on the other hand, Russia had to move now while it still held the strings, as Europe got closer to cutting them.

as applies to the present discussion, modern Europe is an example of why governments should be throwing more money at renewables/alternative feedstocks, as a national security matter

 

[MM in SouthTX]

I’m a bit confused by the intent of the example you raise.

the European continent is presently the best example of the geo-political necessity for diversifying feedstock

europe has been ahead in pushing alternative energies not because they’re philosophically superior, but because everyone has known for decades Europe is beholden to Moscow for its energy. The European push for renewables/alternatives was marketed as a social philosophy, but funded as a geo-political necessity.

the current “problem” in Europe is the result of an almost inevitable collision of push and pull: on one hand. Europe didn’t get enough renewable/independent feedstock fast enough for Russia to not now still hold the strings; on the other hand, Russia had to move now while it still held the strings, as Europe got closer to cutting them.

as applies to the present discussion, modern Europe is an example of why governments should be throwing more money at renewables/alternative feedstocks, as a national security matter

What exactly will heat their homes this winter? What will run their factories when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? How would adding more renewable energy help answer the last two questions?

Sponsored