[mikado463]

Regular gas hit over $4.80 a gallon here this AM, EV's looking better by the day !!

[shawnhayes]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If most EV charge overnight, then why all the bother for public charging infrastructure?

Asking for a friend.

Because 500 mile trips occur. And mentally challenged ICE drivers park in the hotel "EV" parking spots despite a gajillion signs that say "don't".

Shawn

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by RM7

Most EVs charge at night when the grid is under-utilized. The grid is being constantly updated as far as capacity and infrastructure, more in some places and less in others, but generally grows over time.

Are this OAN talking points or something?

How much solar is being produced at night? where are those non-solar watts coming from? The coal plant that is being shut down?

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by RM7

My point wasn't to incite your apprehension and panic, it was to show you that a rather simple solution exists for your perceived problem. Yes, it will be a matter of companies wanting to participate, but it is by no means an insurmountable problem.

I'm not sure where you read apprehension or panic in my post, I was simply trying to articulate some of the issues that seem obvious to the solution you suggested.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

How much solar is being produced at night? where are those non-solar watts coming from? The coal plant that is being shut down?

Battery storage supplements evening/night use with excess production during the day. States like California benefit from this.

Night demand, however, is much lower than peak.

There is no one source of energy production that will solve the problems. It will be an aggregate.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If most EV charge overnight, then why all the bother for public charging infrastructure?

Asking for a friend.

Because one of the barriers to EVs are those that cannot plug in at night to charge and need public charging. Road trippers are the minority for the use case for public chargers. Increase the public charging infrastructure and you'll eliminate some of the apprehension of owning an EV.

[mikado463]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

How much solar is being produced at night? where are those non-solar watts coming from? The coal plant that is being shut down?

the gas fired plants that are ramping up !

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by ga9213

Battery storage supplements evening/night use with excess production during the day. States like California benefit from this.

Night demand, however, is much lower than peak.

There is no one source of energy production that will solve the problems. It will be an aggregate.

It's a problem of availability, scale, timing, and rate - not of whether or not solutions exists.

Curtailing one supply channel while increasing demand causes imbalance. Putting new load in system that has non-uniform supply, and focusing that new load in an area that is under-supplied (during darkness) causes additional stress on the remaining systems. Availability, scale, timing, and rate are misaligned with the *current plan to adopt EV's. We can't cheat the laws of physics, something will have to give.

I guess we can build new natural gas-fueled power plants to run these EV's but that seems a wasteful solution. They also take a long time to build from inception through permitting and construction. Add to that the "not in my back yard" and it gets even more complicated. Gas plants also don't address the goal of moving away from carbon because carbon is environmentally bad, inherently finite, and subject to supply/demand price fluctuations.

Going green on my car, only to charge it with carbon-based watts is not really going green.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

It's a problem of availability, scale, timing, and rate - not of whether or not solutions exists.

Curtailing one supply channel while increasing demand causes imbalance. Putting new load in system that has non-uniform supply, and focusing that new load in an area that is under-supplied (during darkness) causes additional stress on the remaining systems. Availability, scale, timing, and rate are misaligned with the *current plan to adopt EV's. We can't cheat the laws of physics, something will have to give.

I guess we can build new natural gas-fueled power plants to run these EV's but that seems a wasteful solution. They also take a long time to build from inception through permitting and construction. Add to that the "not in my back yard" and it gets even more complicated. Gas plants also don't address the goal of moving away from carbon because carbon is environmentally bad, inherently finite, and subject to supply/demand price fluctuations.

Going green on my car, only to charge it with carbon-based watts is not really going green.

I'm with you on current electrical grids not being able to withstand widespread home charging. Even at night, if everyone was at home pulling down thousands of watts simultaneously, there's no way a current power grid can handle that.

But even if you ran a EV off of a worst case scenario coal burning power plant, it would still be more fuel efficient than a gasoline car. It wouldn't be carbon free but it's way more energy efficient and less air polluting. Natural gas is even better.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Z K

But even if you ran a EV off of a worst case scenario coal burning power plant, it would still be more fuel efficient than a gasoline car. It wouldn't be carbon free but it's way more energy efficient and less air polluting. Natural gas is even better.

There is a study on that, I don't recall where I found it but it was a legit study by legit sources. Carbon based electrical generation feeding an EV car netted an equivalent of ~50 MPG best case in high efficiency EV's, which many are not.

In another news story I just found that was an actual correction of a falsehood being circulated, their correct figures stated a 66KWH battery took the equivalent carbon fuel supply of 8 gallons to charge, and using EPA KW/mileage figures that works out to 32 MPG. How green is that?

It results in a net-better than many people's cars, but not better than all, or even most. There are over a dozen ICE cars that get better than than 50 MPG, and a whole lot are better than 32. Most of these high MPG cars are cheap and easy to find/make. You can buy one today, and it won't cause your neighborhood to brown out on hot August nights.

We will get there, and it will be great when we do, I just hope the decision makers start aligning their plans with the national grid, and reality.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

It's a problem of availability, scale, timing, and rate - not of whether or not solutions exists.

Curtailing one supply channel while increasing demand causes imbalance. Putting new load in system that has non-uniform supply, and focusing that new load in an area that is under-supplied (during darkness) causes additional stress on the remaining systems. Availability, scale, timing, and rate are misaligned with the *current plan to adopt EV's. We can't cheat the laws of physics, something will have to give.

I guess we can build new natural gas-fueled power plants to run these EV's but that seems a wasteful solution. They also take a long time to build from inception through permitting and construction. Add to that the "not in my back yard" and it gets even more complicated. Gas plants also don't address the goal of moving away from carbon because carbon is environmentally bad, inherently finite, and subject to supply/demand price fluctuations.

Going green on my car, only to charge it with carbon-based watts is not really going green.

Which is why, on the micro, I addressed this with Solar. Even with my EV, I'm producing excess.

I cannot solve the macro problems....but I addressed it from my end.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by ga9213

Which is why, on the micro, I addressed this with Solar. Even with my EV, I'm producing excess.

I cannot solve the macro problems....but I addressed it from my end.

As you should, and thanks for contributing to the greater good.

The grid and it's problems work on a macro scale. Macro solutions need to be better aligned or we will start breaking stuff.

[Higgs Boson]

I have 59 panels and 40kw backup battery, about $135k worth

at peak I can generate about 14kw with the panels and of course depending on the month, I run a credit in March/April/Oct/Nov/Dec and still have to pay on the other months due to hard running AC units or hard running heater/pool pumps.

My wifes prior EV cost us about 150 per month added onto our bill and she drives about 20k per year, we pay 8 cents per kw so it's definitely cheaper than the 75 per week or so for gasoline but by no means does our, what I feel like is a large solar system, cover the cost of the house plus a car, much less if we had two of them.

the battery backup will last for 30 hrs off grid during the credit months but if the pool pumps are running and the solar panels are covered in snow, 5-7 hrs is all I get.

Solar/battery backup/EV situation is no where near being a replacement solution for gas cars, even personal/residential use only. not even close.

[ga9213]

Originally Posted by Higgs Boson

I have 59 panels and 40kw backup battery, about $135k worth

at peak I can generate about 14kw with the panels and of course depending on the month, I run a credit in March/April/Oct/Nov/Dec and still have to pay on the other months due to hard running AC units or hard running heater/pool pumps.

My wifes prior EV cost us about 150 per month added onto our bill and she drives about 20k per year, we pay 8 cents per kw so it's definitely cheaper than the 75 per week or so for gasoline but by no means does our, what I feel like is a large solar system, cover the cost of the house plus a car, much less if we had two of them.

the battery backup will last for 30 hrs off grid during the credit months but if the pool pumps are running and the solar panels are covered in snow, 5-7 hrs is all I get.

Solar/battery backup/EV situation is no where near being a replacement solution for gas cars, even personal/residential use only. not even close.

I'm sorry, WHAT?!

Holy hell man. I installed my own system with a size of 13.86 kw with 42 panels for 16k.

I'm on net metering so I don't need battery as our grid is not currently, or in the near future, at any risk.

I'm producing 80kwh a day with full sun. I only got it up and running last September but it's looking like I'll be producing excess from March to October. Winter I still had a bill, but I was also mining cryptocurrency at ~40kwh a day (which I have now discontinued)

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by ga9213

I'm sorry, WHAT?!

Holy hell man. I installed my own system with a size of 13.86 kwh with 42 panels for 16k.

I'm on net metering so I don't need battery as our grid is not currently, or in the near future, at any risk.

I'm producing 80kwh a day with full sun. I only got it up and running last September but it's looking like I'll be producing excess from March to October. Winter I still had a bill, but I was also mining cryptocurrency at ~40kwh a day (which I have now discontinued)

Mine produces about 115 in full sun so about the same per panel.

I also don't have a risky grid but the battery runs the house at night, just trying to be green since I have removed all my cats for the last 30 years it's the least I can do, lol.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

There is a study on that, I don't recall where I found it but it was a legit study by legit sources. Carbon based electrical generation feeding an EV car netted an equivalent of ~50 MPG best case in high efficiency EV's, which many are not.

In another news story I just found that was an actual correction of a falsehood being circulated, their correct figures stated a 66KWH battery took the equivalent carbon fuel supply of 8 gallons to charge, and using EPA KW/mileage figures that works out to 32 MPG. How green is that?

It results in a net-better than many people's cars, but not better than all, or even most. There are over a dozen ICE cars that get better than than 50 MPG, and a whole lot are better than 32. Most of these high MPG cars are cheap and easy to find/make. You can buy one today, and it won't cause your neighborhood to brown out on hot August nights.

We will get there, and it will be great when we do, I just hope the decision makers start aligning their plans with the national grid, and reality.

But how will anyone make quick profits with that kind of attitude??

[shawnhayes]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I guess we can build new natural gas-fueled power plants to run these EV's but that seems a wasteful solution. They also take a long time to build from inception through permitting and construction. Add to that the "not in my back yard" and it gets even more complicated. Gas plants also don't address the goal of moving away from carbon because carbon is environmentally bad, inherently finite, and subject to supply/demand price fluctuations.

Going green on my car, only to charge it with carbon-based watts is not really going green.

Unless the EV contributes to pollution by production, even though its not optimal, it's better than the alternative.

Many EV's get about 100mpge - which means 100 mpg on electric made from 1 gal gasoline. That's easily triple average mpg. Cutting carbon based production by 66% doesn't seem attractive? That doesn't make any sense to me. All integrated solutions will be needed to move in the right directions for this.

Shawn

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by shawnhayes

Unless the EV contributes to pollution by production, even though its not optimal, it's better than the alternative.

Many EV's get about 100mpge - which means 100 mpg on electric made from 1 gal gasoline. That's easily triple average mpg. Cutting carbon based production by 66% doesn't seem attractive? That doesn't make any sense to me. All integrated solutions will be needed to move in the right directions for this.

Shawn

The unit of energy consumed is deemed to be 33.7 kilowatt hours without regard to the efficiency of conversion of heat energy into electrical energy, also measured in kilowatt hours. The equivalence of this unit to energy in a gallon of gasoline is true if and only if the heat engine, generating equipment, and power delivery to the car battery are 100% efficient. Actual heat engines differ vastly from this assumption.

Power generation systems are not 100% efficient, nor are the delivery systems. On a good day, gas turbines are 55%, and the distribution systems 90%. It can be worse and is rarely better. This is where a 100MPGe car becomes closer to 50 MPGe.

There is also the matter of calculating and comparing average a grids load/source out on a per-day basis. If your city has 80% solar-source per day but you charge at night when it's dark, how much solar are you charging with? Hint, it's not 80%. Most charge at night, and we haven't perfected nighttime solar just yet.

Cutting carbon is very attractive, and I'm glad to be a part of it. I just don't want to cut it before we are ready to supply all this new EV load which largely won't be supplied with "green" sources. It all averages out on your bill so this looks like a slam dunk idea, but the actual system is already seeing difficulties with real time load balancing.

[shawnhayes]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

[I]
Cutting carbon is very attractive, and I'm glad to be a part of it. I just don't want to cut it before we are ready to supply all this new EV load which largely won't be supplied with "green" sources. It all averages out on your bill so this looks like a slam dunk idea, but the actual system is already seeing difficulties with real time load balancing.

I'm with you, but that's what I mean by using carbon in the power plant and an electric car. If we can get them to charge at night, we'll use our CARBON more efficiently until we get a full group of adaptions to do better. I'd rather burn a gallon of gasoline in a power plant to deliver electricity to a car that gets 50mpge than burn it in a car that gets 20mpg.

But honestly, WTF went wrong when we stepped away from nuclear? Other than Chernobyl and Fukashima things went pretty well. I think we could have stuck to the program and done well.

Shawn

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by shawnhayes

I'm with you, but that's what I mean by using carbon in the power plant and an electric car. If we can get them to charge at night, we'll use our CARBON more efficiently until we get a full group of adaptions to do better. I'd rather burn a gallon of gasoline in a power plant to deliver electricity to a car that gets 50mpge than burn it in a car that gets 20mpg.

But honestly, WTF went wrong when we stepped away from nuclear? Other than Chernobyl and Fukashima things went pretty well. I think we could have stuck to the program and done well.

Shawn

100%

I don't want to down EV's, I just want to make sure we are smart about them and don't harm the grid, an area I care about because it's my job.

You can already get a gas car that beats 50MPG, they have been mainstream available for about 2 decades. Driving a 20 MPG car is a choice.

Nuclear is where I wish we went like some of Europe did, but it is unpopular and can't be modulated to meet peaks, or turned down when demand is low. It still needs backup supply : steam (generally carbon basd). generation and transmission utilities also need spinning reserve, and that too is generally steam, or Hydro when available. < both involve wasted energy.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

The unit of energy consumed is deemed to be 33.7 kilowatt hours without regard to the efficiency of conversion of heat energy into electrical energy, also measured in kilowatt hours. The equivalence of this unit to energy in a gallon of gasoline is true if and only if the heat engine, generating equipment, and power delivery to the car battery are 100% efficient. Actual heat engines differ vastly from this assumption.

Power generation systems are not 100% efficient, nor are the delivery systems. On a good day, gas turbines are 55%, and the distribution systems 90%. It can be worse and is rarely better. This is where a 100MPGe car becomes closer to 50 MPGe.

There is also the matter of calculating and comparing average a grids load/source out on a per-day basis. If your city has 80% solar-source per day but you charge at night when it's dark, how much solar are you charging with? Hint, it's not 80%. Most charge at night, and we haven't perfected nighttime solar just yet.

Cutting carbon is very attractive, and I'm glad to be a part of it. I just don't want to cut it before we are ready to supply all this new EV load which largely won't be supplied with "green" sources. It all averages out on your bill so this looks like a slam dunk idea, but the actual system is already seeing difficulties with real time load balancing.

Gas turbines have bested 65%

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

This is why a diesel-powered EV hybrid makes more sense (i.e. diesel Volt). Diesel engines are about 60% efficient running at optimal RPM load to generate on-board electricity to power a 90% efficient electric drivetrain. No range anxiety, oh and you get free heat back in the winter...

The I8 is proof that onboard hybrid generation doesn't have to suck, and on so many of these now you can still plug it in for local short trip "greeness".