Throwing in the towel...electric cars are going to be the future.

In reply to nderwater:

Wow dude, we're like the same person.

The explains the sudden urge to check craigslist for volvo amazons

The grid issue is very overblown. Actually, selling more EVs should help the grid, not hurt it.

The biggest problem with power generation currently is matching supply with demand. It's hard, and extremely inefficient, to ramp up or down power generation to match spikes in demand. This means that power plants are at their least efficient at night, when demand is by far the lowest.

Widespread EV charging would take place primarily overnight. Your utility could even incentivize charging at off peak hours, as many currently do. This kind of usage, an increase of say 20% demand during off peak hours, would be easy to compensate for, and actually improve the efficiency of most power plants.

I'm starting to think "the grid" might not connect to most houses in the future in the way we know it today. Seems like the power companies are practically forcing people to choose between ever-cheaper solar and being connected to the grid. If you want both, you have to give up any cost savings through some asinine arrangement with the power company - these days, they're trying to push an arrangement on customers where the power company efffectively decides the value of the electricity you generate at your home! You can guess how that works out.

So I think that in the future, houses will be partially-grid-connected or maybe entirely off-grid so that they can use that cheap clean solar power - in any case, the load on the grid will drop a lot.

tuna55 wrote:

dculberson wrote: Concerns about "the grid" are overblown.. the amount of electricity EVs draw in charging is incremental compared to the regular power usage of an American house.

I love facts. You're right! I charge an EV every night after using 30-100 miles of range and it affects my electric bill by something like 10%. Now I guess if everyone used 10% more electricity tomorrow, it would cause an issue. But then again, if everyone used 10% less tomorrow, it would also be a problem. I am pretty sure it's a non-issue.

I won't pretend to know anything substantial about electricity or how it is delivered but here where it is cold a 1/4 of the year the paper will give updates on electricity avalability. Last winter after multiple -40 (with wind chill) days with everyone staying home from work (watching TV/computing/staying warm) our electric distribution was hours from running out. Again, if I'm uninformed you can say so in a non-caustic way but if 100x the current EV (still not really that many) came on the "grid" I could see peak charging times becoming a bit hairy.

chandlerGTi wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

dculberson wrote: Concerns about "the grid" are overblown.. the amount of electricity EVs draw in charging is incremental compared to the regular power usage of an American house.

I love facts. You're right! I charge an EV every night after using 30-100 miles of range and it affects my electric bill by something like 10%. Now I guess if everyone used 10% more electricity tomorrow, it would cause an issue. But then again, if everyone used 10% less tomorrow, it would also be a problem. I am pretty sure it's a non-issue.

I won't pretend to know anything substantial about electricity or how it is delivered but here where it is cold a 1/4 of the year the paper will give updates on electricity avalability. Last winter after multiple -40 (with wind chill) days with everyone staying home from work (watching TV/computing/staying warm) our electric distribution was hours from running out. Again, if I'm uninformed you can say so in a non-caustic way but if 100x the current EV (still not really that many) came on the "grid" I could see peak charging times becoming a bit hairy.

Highly dependent on where you live.

For gas turbines, which there are a lot of:

Typically there are peaker turbines offline and ready to fire within a few hours notice, and most of the baseload machines don't operate constantly at baseload, and they can produce more if they need to. Some sites have overfire and other fun means of producing more power on an emergency basis like pouring water into the inlet.

In reply to bastomatic:

Please elaborate on the grid issue is overblown? Substation are designed to last 50 years and they are encrouching on double that is service and are failing with out notice because no one is replacing them. You have rolling brown outs during the summer in areas because of over taxed grid systems.

I would call that important, EVs or not. then the 10% for an EV seems huge.

Infrastructure aging is a systemic issue that extends well beyond the national electric grid. Should people not be able to purchase large homes or build pools because they drive up electricity consumption? Are you going to argue that no new cars or trucks should be sold because so many roads, bridges and overpasses are past their service life? Both agruments are valid from a practical point of view.

In reply to nderwater:

Nope, but this is an EV discussion. Which is dependent on the grid. We can start a thread on ageing infrastructure and how we are not addressing it, but that is a different thread.

I don't hear anyone saying that electric cars shouldn't be sold at all. The quantity and speed of increase is what I'm reading the worries are.

Not really worried about it from my viewpoint since we as a country make E36 M3 work, always have always will.

There are plenty of people who feel that to prevent a global environmental or resource catastrophe we must act now to cap consumption at current levels then work hard to reduce our footprint. Makes sense, right?

But wait - where do motorsports fit in to that equation? What if I want to take a cruise or fly to visit family or buy a big tv? I'm not saying that a line in the sand should't be drawn, but there is absolutely no easy, painless way to do so, let alone a strategy that everyone is willing stack hands on.

nderwater wrote: Infrastructure aging is a systemic issue that extends well beyond the national electric grid. Should people not be able to purchase large homes or build pools because they drive up electricity consumption? Are you going to argue that no new cars or trucks should be sold because so many roads, bridges and overpasses are past their service life? Both agruments are valid from a practical point of view.

Whoa dude, it's like we're the same person.

From a grid operator perspective charging between midnight and 5am or so would generally be fine. The real problem would be the initial high current draw hitting the grid at the same time as the evening peak, particularly in the winter. That peak is pretty much when everyone gets home from work and cranks furnaces and ovens and lights and such until they head off to bed.
Any utility company worth anything has remotely controlled meters available for load shedding hot water heaters and irrigation pumps and the like during peaks, though, and usually offers a cheaper rate for anyone willing to put up with that inconvenience. Getting the charger hooked up to one of those meters would completely eliminate any grid concerns at the tiny expense of maybe only getting 8 hrs of charge vs 12 in a night. Depending on the house, adding a new meter drop on the side of the garage and having the utility wire to it might save the homeowner several hundreds of dollars as well

In reply to nderwater:

This is why I take a calculated risk/benefit approach to environmentalism. Know why humans don't have much in the way of(textbook definition) slavery anymore? We made petrochemicals our slave instead. Does that make melting the polar ice caps so bad?

Now we need to find a better slave, and without some visits from aliens grade jump in technology, solar/wind and vehicles propelled with batteries isn't gonna cut it.

tuna55 wrote:

nderwater wrote: Infrastructure aging is a systemic issue that extends well beyond the national electric grid. Should people not be able to purchase large homes or build pools because they drive up electricity consumption? Are you going to argue that no new cars or trucks should be sold because so many roads, bridges and overpasses are past their service life? Both agruments are valid from a practical point of view.

Whoa dude, it's like we're the same person.

With the same poor example?

Those new cars aren't putting more strain on existing roadways; most often they are replacing an aging mode of transport. So... Not really adding strain to the highway system (road grid ).

Before this gets into a pissing match has research into the grid issue been done by a credible group? On top of that Have they researched it in multiple areas with different weather? I can say how I see it and so can you but that doesn't make it so. I'm all for electric cars and would own a leaf but I commute 110 miles a day and even with a charge at work it really isn't something I feel comfortable relying on yet. I hope to have an affordable option that I CAN rely on in the next 2-4 years.

Interesting topic. While I like some of the EVs out there, I do not believe these are the future in their present form. We've been working a lot on batteries as well as solar panels, and there are definitely issues that need to be resolved before these are seriously threatening to oil. We haven't even touched on waste disposal and potential accident issues (which we've had to deal with this week).

Personally, I believe the answer lies in an alternate fuel, or a different type of battery or recharge system. The system Porsche is using in WEC is interesting, but even concepts such as that need major work for production based vehicles that can be used to everyday. By that I mean a car that can go unlimited mileages like you can now with a simple fill ups. Until then, some sort of hybrid will be the answer.

I like the idea of EVs, but until technology is improved, they are only going to be useful for short trips. As far them driving themselves, with our litigation system, that too is a pipe dream. There's so much liability involved there I don't see any manufacturer willing to risk it on a large scale. A friend that works for Ford commented to me that they could do this now, but lawsuits are definitely the deciding factor in putting these systems into place.

Hal wrote:

SVreX wrote: But we won't be able to afford it. I work for a company that does road construction- it's REALLY expensive. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that each mile of Interstate cost $20.6 million. Smart roads could easily cost twice that, especially with the demolition costs added.

A little late to the discussion, but how much of that $20M was for land acquisition? Which wouldn't be a factor in retrofitting the existing roads for "smart" cars. Why the need to demolish anything? I have seen crews install loops for traffic light control in existing roads dong nothing more than cutting a slot in the roadway with a masonry saw. Admittedly the "slot" would have to be larger but still would not require demolition of the existing road.

Slow response. Sorry.

That is a question which cannot be answered without an actual design of a smart road.

Generally, when we cut a road, the base is not up to new DOT standards. It requires new base. Especially an Interstate.

It is unlikely a large cut could be made in an aging roadbed directly under the traffic lanes that would not require demo and new base.

You are definitely not talking about cuts similar to a traffic control loop.

Unless, we can charge thousands of vehicles at the same time using a single low voltage cable.

Without a design, it is speculation on my part. But it is a pretty educated guess based on a lot of experience.

tuna55 wrote:

dculberson wrote: Concerns about "the grid" are overblown.. the amount of electricity EVs draw in charging is incremental compared to the regular power usage of an American house.

I love facts. You're right! I charge an EV every night after using 30-100 miles of range and it affects my electric bill by something like 10%. Now I guess if everyone used 10% more electricity tomorrow, it would cause an issue. But then again, if everyone used 10% less tomorrow, it would also be a problem. I am pretty sure it's a non-issue.

With all due respect, those aren't really facts. At least not very well researched.

10% increase in your electric bill does not equal a 10% increase in consumption.

You are buying the electricity at night during off-peak hours.

Actual Kw hours would be a heck of a lot more meaningful.

Plus, the discussion was about smart streets, not how you currently charge at home.

Consumption through smart streets would most definitely be during peak hours.

In reply to SVreX:

This thread is about electric vehicles. Also, since my utility does not charge differently for peak hours, it does represent a different of 10%.

Umm.. First post was actually about smart roads (and the EVs that use them).

It's VERY rare for a utility to not differentiate between peak and off-peak. They are over charging you (and would probably negotiate if you told them you were charging an EV off peak).

It would still be a heck of a lot easier to discuss in actual electric consumption, not percentages of monthly bill. Billing rates vary in virtually every single utility company.

10% is a meaningless number.

SVreX wrote: Umm.. First post was actually about smart roads (and the EVs that use them). It's VERY rare for a utility to not differentiate between peak and off-peak. They are over charging you (and would probably negotiate if you told them you were charging an EV off peak). It would still be a heck of a lot easier to discuss in actual electric consumption, not percentages of monthly bill. Billing rates vary in virtually every single utility company. 10% is a meaningless number.

Actually, the first post was about the inevitable conclusion of adopting the EV. It's kind of why I think it will happen. Besides the fuel, the EV taken to its limits of driving itself, gets rid of the weakest link in mass individual transportation: The individual.Still more science fiction than science at this time, but look at a phone 30 years ago, and compare it to what y'all walk around with. Cell phones required a ton of infrastructure and technology. The creation of both has generated a lot of jobs.

Let me see if I can help you...

EPA says my Leaf will consume 34 kWh per 100 miles driven.

Average US driver drives about 15,000 miles per year.

Average US household consumes about 10,800 kWh per year, but it varies a lot. Louisiana averages about 15,046 kWh, Maine is more like 6367 kWh (but they don't heat their houses with electricity).

So, the average US driver would need 5100 kWh to drive 15,000 miles in their Leaf.

That's about 50% of the average US household, not 10%.

It would be 33% of household consumption in Louisiana.

It would add 80% to an electric bill in Maine.

I am happy for you that it only costs you 10%, but that is completely meaningless in terms of US consumption, smart road loads, and the future of EVs in the US.

109 kwh delta August before Leaf to August with Leaf, and all of the variables that entails. Charge is currently 10.1 cents per kwh regardless of time, no reduction for owning or charging an ev.

No monthly record of mileage but figure about 1,100 miles

Assuming I am close to average in usage (and I am), the average one EV households would add roughly 10% to their energy consumption (something in the 900s kwh for the average monthly electric usage in the US). Like we said. You know me better than to think I just guessed my 10% number from reading the dollar amount at the bottom of the page, don't you?

So, can the power plants serving us produce another 10%, especially at night when most folks are charging? Absolutely.

And, remember, power plants operate at something like 60% efficiency (I'm sure tuna knows the exact number, or at least something closer than 10 percentage points), whereas the best ICE is only about 35% efficient. Yes, there are grid losses, and figure 98% or so charge/ discharge efficeincy of the batteries, and about 90% efficiency on the e-motors...but I'd bet you're still talking close to 50% efficiency all said and done in an e-car.

Don't forget gasoline takes energy to refine and distribute, too.

Battery technology is still the biggest problem in my view. Dangerous/unstable chemistries, rare/ expensive components, and poor energy density (a Leaf's battery holds the equivalent of 2-3 gallons of gasoline- could anyone sell a commercially viable gasoline car with a 3 gallon tank?) are the 3 main problems that need ot be overcome before EVs can become mainstream.

In reply to tuna55:

So, you are using only 10 kWh per 100 miles?

That's pretty good. It's less than a third of the EPA estimate of 34 kWh.

Ours is closer to the EPA estimate.

Interesting...