backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by Fost04mach.. on Dec 3 at 6:12 PM


GM VP Joel Ewanick shows off Volt charger  (Source: The Detroit News)

Fisker Karma plug-in hybrid
EVs will mean more profits, but possible power outages

The electric car is coming no matter what oil companies and consumers think. Several electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt are both going to start showing up in driveways very soon.

These cars will reduce the need for consumers to buy gasoline, but they will increase the load on the electric infrastructure in neighborhoods and cities. In some areas, this won’t be an issue. However, in places where the transformers serving homes are already taxed, adding EVs could spell trouble for America's aging electrical grid.

Electric companies are both excited and worried at the rush of EVs set to hit the infrastructure around the country. They are excited because if they can grab even a small portion of the $325 billion each year spent on gasoline it will be huge for them. The electric companies worry because adding one or two EVs in a neighborhood could result in power outages.

The Detroit News reports that the last time electric companies were faced with such a huge potential for increased demand in power consumption by consumers was in the 50's and 60's when air conditioning systems were widely installed around the country. The utility companies say that a single EV could draw more power than an average size home in some states. 

When an EV is plugged into a 120V outlet, it draws 1500W. However, when an EV is hooked up to a fast charger, which most are, they can draw much more power. The first Leaf and Volt EVs to hit homes will slurp down 3,300W of power and there are plans to boost that consumption to 6,600W soon. That 6,600W of power is twice the 3,000W an average home without AC in the San Francisco Bay area consumes.

The problem is expected to be worse in some areas like more affluent cities in California and Texas. The bad news for people in areas where hardware has to be upgraded is that the costs of the upgrades could well be figured into the rates for all people in an area. An EV at a neighbor's home could cost all homeowners more each month on their electric bill.

A spokesperson from Duke Energy said, "It's like you're about to have a baby. You know it's going to be good, but you also know there's going to be some throw up and some dirty diapers, and you just hope that it's something you are prepared for."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I've been saying this all along...
By Motoman on 11/22/2010 12:12:42 PM , Rating: 3
...our existing grid is nowhere near ready for a significant number of EVs or rechargable hybrids on the road.

Not only does the grid itself need a massive upgrade, but we also need to figure out where all this extra power is going to come from...and what it's impact on the environment is going to be.

Realistically, it's going to mean more reactors. Lots more. And an enormous smart-grid infrastructure.

All the eco-nuts pushing for EVs and hybrids have categorically not thought through what the impact of such vehicles is going to be...it's not "free and green" and just plugging them into your wall socket doesn't fix things.




RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Mogounus on 11/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: I've been saying this all along...
By drycrust3 on 11/23/2010 12:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Realistically, The load on the system will go up gradually giving electric companies plenty of time to keep up in upgrades.

I agree. This is just scaremongering. What do hotels in resorts do? They charge more in the high season to make a profit and charge less in the low season to just cover costs. What do restaurants do? They charge less at lunch time to attract customers and charge more in the evening to make a profit. What do taxi companies do? They charge more at night than in the morning. What do phone companies and car sales yards and XBox game sellers and Apple and TV manufacturers and your local supermarket do when they have a new product that has everyone clamouring for it and an old product that no one really wants and is near the end of its production life? They charge more for the new one and flog the old one off at less than half price. So is there a pattern here? Yes, those people know that when there is a demand for a product you can charge more than when there isn't a demand.
Ok, so now what could a power company do to solve this problem? Ummmm ... well ... maybe they could charge proportionally more for electricity usage that is above the average and charge proportionally less for electricity that is below average. What is more, if a customer has several cars they would obviously be willing to pay for a special meter that not only calculates the charging at different rates, but also distributes the charging so that urgent recharges only are done at the high rate while non-urgent charges are done at the lowest rates. In addition, there are obvious solutions such as installing random charging during low demand periods so as to distribute the effect on the network of thousands of car chargers "turning on" instead of having them all suddenly switching on at exactly 11pm.
Yeah, I know that costs money, and that will be paid by the end users, but if drunk patrons can find afford a taxi home and high season tourists can afford a hotel and Apple fans can afford another new iPhone and Indy car fans can afford to go to a race, then I am quite sure that with the correct motivation and pricing customers with several cars will pay for the power company to install a fancy meter that can do really sophisticated stuff which doesn't cost a fortune.
And what if the customers can't afford it? Then, sadly, they will pay more or miss out.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2010 12:44:23 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry but any upgrade the electric company does will be passed on to EVERY customer, not just the ones with electric cars.

quote:
Ok, so now what could a power company do to solve this problem? Ummmm ... well ... maybe they could charge proportionally more for electricity usage that is above the average and charge proportionally less for electricity that is below average.


So wait, not only am I paying more because I'm using more. But using more gives me an even higher rate too. So you're double dipping on me? What the hell.

What kind of incentive is this to get me into an electric car? If this is how you want to run things, I think paying $3 a gallon at the pump is looking better and better all the time!

You make a few good arguments, but your ideas are terrible.


By drycrust3 on 11/23/2010 5:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So wait, not only am I paying more because I'm using more. But using more gives me an even higher rate too.


Yes, I agree, that doesn't sound a nice idea, but the electric company isn't in business to be a charity, it is in business to make money. The problem you have is that (assuming you have an electric car) you have to buy electricity to power your car. The best solution for them is for you to charge your car in off peak times, when the load on the network is light and the transmission line losses are less, but there is no benefit to you for doing so because they simply read the meter once a month and won't know you whether you did or didn't charge in off-peak times. It costs them money to replace your old meter with one that will read electricity usage according to the time of day and then calculate cost according to the different daily rates. Because of that, the electric company will give end users two options: 1) use the cumulative use meter they provide for free and read once a month as the basis for them to bill according to how their statistics suggest people use electricity; or 2) pay for a meter that, for example, reads once a minute, and that allows them to accurately determine your usage.
Since there is a benefit to them by having car users charging in off peaks (because it reduces the loading on their network during peak times, which lowers their waste costs, which makes them more competitive) the easiest option is to put up the charges on higher usage non-business customers and lower the cost of late night and early morning use to very low rates to encourage car owners to pay for a special meter to be installed.
If people can't afford the special meter, or they don't want to give their usage information to the electricity company for privacy reasons, the company won't care, they will just charge them at the higher rate.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Mogounus on 11/23/2010 12:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
First off there is no guarantee that the electric companies will necessairly have to charge customers more per WH in order to upgrade the grid. They make a profit on providing electricity. If they can double the elctricity they provide customers they will more than double their profits due to economies of scale. Now, they will realize that with their current infrastructure they would not be able to provide the electricity to make the extra profit and will probably summise that an investment in infrastructure paid for by those unrealized extra profits will be worth while.
All arguments like this that attack the viability of any technology, not just electric cars, are IMO just fearmongering. There is no impending doom, the market will handle it in the most efficeint means possible and determine if the EV is a viable technology.
The problem I see with the EV is the large subsidies being given out that distort the market realities. As long as they are phased out quickly I suppose it is acceptable though.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2010 2:19:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There is no impending doom, the market will handle it in the most efficeint means possible and determine if the EV is a viable technology.


I would agree with you, IF the market was the one making that decision. But to say we have Government intervention here is an understatement. And we have to be very wary when we see this level of it, no matter how well intentioned it might be.


By YashBudini on 11/23/2010 10:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Right, look at what Enron did to utility bills.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By CowKing on 11/22/2010 12:34:00 PM , Rating: 1
Well I think it's great that capitalism will finally force utility companies to start upgrading their power lines transformers or whatever is needed. Hell, maybe we'll see 240v lines being used in the home more than 120v. I'd personally like that as my PSU is more efficient with a 240v line.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By kerpwnt on 11/22/2010 12:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
Upgraded infrastructure and more common 240V would be really nice. However, If the average utility company is anything like my local utility, the cost of the upgrade will be extended to the consumer seven-fold...


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/22/2010 3:55:36 PM , Rating: 5
What are you guys talking about? Every, and I mean EVERY home in America has 240V. Are you talking wall outlets? Appliances in this country do NOT run on 240V, so there's no reason to have 240V wall outlets hot and live in homes. Only electric dryers, ovens, stoves etc etc, large appliances run on that voltage.

You haven't seen what 240V can do to the human body, I have. Trust me, it's not a bad thing that we went with smaller voltages for outlets.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Motoman on 11/22/2010 7:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yes indeed - essentially every house in the USA has 240v service, primarily for major appliances.

However, remember that voltage in and of itself is meaningless from a power standpoint...the statement about what 240v "can do to the human body." People survive lightning strikes that are, what, a million volts?

Volts * Amps = Watts. Watts kills people. If you had enough amperage at 1 volt, you'd be dead.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/22/2010 7:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
You aren't being entirely factual. The higher the voltage, the less the body's ability to resist electricity. Because the skin breaks down. Also many of these outlets would be in kitchens and bathrooms where, I'm sure you know, wet conditions would dramatically reduce the body's ability to resist to electricity.

220v @ 20a is sufficient to induce heart attacks, stop the human heart, and other lovely stuff. And that's an adult. What about infants and kids? You better believe that factored into choosing 110 over 220 for common household circuits/outlets. After all, we are the world leader in "saving the children!!" right? :P

quote:
People survive lightning strikes that are, what, a million volts?


LOL well hell, that's nice. People also survive through getting run over by buses and falling out of planes. Wanna try it? And have you seen a lightning strike victims picture? They might have survived, but I'm sure if you asked them they would have preferred NOT to have gone though it.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Solandri on 11/22/2010 8:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
220v @ 20a is sufficient to induce heart attacks, stop the human heart, and other lovely stuff.

20 milliamps, not amps. And actually 10m A (0.01 amps) is the more common figure used for safety. 20 A would be enough to fry you to a black cinder.

And the voltage of the current is pretty irrelevant (only comes into play if you've got an insulator protecting the bits you don't want toasted).


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/22/2010 8:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm we don't use milliamps in home wiring here. We use AMPS. Keep your funky metric system where it belongs :)


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Mogounus on 11/22/2010 10:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
Just FYI AMPS is also metric milli just means 1/1000 of an Amp. Please try not to spread ignorance.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/22/2010 10:51:11 PM , Rating: 1
Duh!???

Reading comprehension fail.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Mogounus on 11/22/2010 11:08:21 PM , Rating: 3
A) We don't use milliamps we use amps
B) Keep your funky metric system where it belongs

Just to explain basic logic to you but by saying A and B you imply that amps are not metric which they are.

Basic extension of logic fail!


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/22/2010 11:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ok I don't know how much more simply I can put this. He attempted to correct me by claiming that I was referring to milliamps. I was not. I was talking about AMPS. Electrical current of the type we were discussing, home outlet circuits, are not ever referred to in milliamps, but rather Amps.

First of all, I was making a joke. Second of all, in NO WAY did that joke even imply that Amps were not metric. I was attempting to convey that milliamps is NEVER used when referring to residential wiring here. Never EVER.

Can you sleep now? Are you satisfied?


By Reclaimer77 on 11/22/2010 11:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
edit: amps=resistance, not current.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Solandri on 11/23/2010 4:51:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
He attempted to correct me by claiming that I was referring to milliamps. I was not.

Well then you are just wrong. I suppose technically 20 A is "sufficient" to induce a heart attack - it's at the lower bound of the power levels used in an electric chair for execution. It's well into current levels where you start charring flesh.
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~p616/safety/fat...

The human nervous system operates off millivolts and millimps. A mere 10 milliamps applied directly to the heart can induce a heart attack (though it'll have to be AC to disrupt heart muscle's failsafe of self-restarting once the current is removed).


By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2010 1:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ok my whole point was that higher voltage is more dangerous for home outlets! Can we PLEASE get back to that? The exact amounts needed to cause heart problems was NOT the crux of the issue. It was an EXAMPLE! Jesus you are arguing for the sake of it. Do you understand context?


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By jithvk on 11/23/2010 7:21:03 PM , Rating: 1
Another ignorant American who likes to boast it off.


By YashBudini on 11/23/2010 10:47:55 PM , Rating: 1
You must be new here.


By Solandri on 11/22/2010 8:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Volts * Amps = Watts. Watts kills people. If you had enough amperage at 1 volt, you'd be dead.

You're missing the other equation:

Amps = Volts / Ohms (resistance)

Since the resistance of the human body stays relatively constant, the only thing that determines how many amps will flow through you when you grab a power line is the voltage.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By CowKing on 11/23/2010 12:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
I said MORE 240v outlets. I know that houses already have 240v lines to the house, but it's far easier to up the voltage than to up the amperage. Power lines are somewhere in the 44,000v range and will keep getting reduced as it gets closer to your house


By YashBudini on 11/23/2010 10:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I said MORE 240v outlets.

Well they had to distort what you said in order to be Palin-esque.


By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 3:01:38 PM , Rating: 3
The power coming into your house is can be 240V. Hence you can run 240V electric dryers, air conditioners, etc. The secondary coming into your house on the electric company side of the meters consist of 3 wires....+120v, -120v, and the neutral. If you consider the voltage difference between the two hot legs, you get a difference of 240v. Which is how the electrician can hook up that 240v Electric Dryer, air conditioner, heat pump, etc.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Pirks on 11/22/2010 12:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
yeah you have to invest in the infrastructure to stay up with times, so what? don't see any news here. you can't have clean air/effective engines/energy for free. upgrades in tech always cost some $$$, get over it


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By FITCamaro on 11/22/2010 4:20:45 PM , Rating: 1
I don't want my power bill to skyrocket because a couple people down the street wanted to feel good about themselves and got EVs.

There's no argument that the power grid needs to be updated. The argument is that do we want to force it on the companies all at once. Thus forcing the costs on consumers all at once which means higher power bills. And in a recession no less. Not to mention there's the potential that it'll be on top of cap and trade depending what happens with the EPA and Congress.

But hell you probably don't even pay bills so what do you care.


By Solandri on 11/22/2010 8:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't want my power bill to skyrocket because a couple people down the street wanted to feel good about themselves and got EVs.

The power companies are pretty good about tiering your electricity price based on usage. If you use more, your price per kW-hr goes up. If your annual usage kicks you up into a higher price bracket, it'll take another year of lower usage to drop you back down to a lower price tier. So you should be pretty safe from having to pay for your neighbors' increased electricity usage.

The bulk of EV recharging is going to happen at evenings and night too, which is currently the time slot with the least electricity usage. We have a lot of excess capacity during those hours so the initial spike of EVs shouldn't even require building new power plants (power lines to residences would probably have to be upgraded though). In fact it should actually ease things for some power sources (e.g. nuclear plants don't like to be ramped up or down, so the power companies tend to run them at constant output, using coal and hydro plants to increase or decrease power output).

Regardless, you're right. This is a long-standing assumption about EVs which I think most people have been glossing over, just like they did corn ethanol pricing. People always figured the price of corn would hold steady when doing the cost calculations for whether corn ethanol made sense. Then when gas prices went up, the market price for ethanol went up with it, dragging corn prices up, dragging food prices up.

The same thing is going to happen with electricity prices if/when we shift a significant fraction of our vehicle base from petroleum to electricity. Electricity prices will go up, and the price of everything which depends on electricity will go up with it. Germany is already encountering this. They banned nuclear power and mandated a significant % of their power come from green sources. Consequently they pay some of the highest electricity prices in the world (3x that of the U.S., though about 10 cents of that is taxes) and are still forced to buy electricity from France to meet demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#G...

You can avoid the price increases if you gradually ramp up EV usage, allowing power companies to gradually ramp up production in response. But stuff like blocking construction of nuclear power and mandating green electricity sources is a recipe for fiscal disaster.


By YashBudini on 11/23/2010 11:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't want my power bill to skyrocket because a couple people down the street wanted to feel good about themselves and got EVs.

Your kind drive what they drive and use whatever gas they use with ZERO concern about costs to others. Frankly if we didn't have any CAFE standards before the last oil crisis the overall US mpg average would have been much lower and the whole crisis would have been worse.

If everybody that made more than $14/hr (your big goal) were to buy 65" plasma TVs (that use 700 watts or close to 1HP of electricity), central air, and a pair of EVs, electric dryers and hot water heaters, that's their business, just as the vehicle you honor in your name is yours.

They have every right to spend their money to their satisfaction as you do. It's called freedom and it's suppose to work for everybody, not just you. Deal with it.

Got hyprocrisy?

I wonder if either of the two faces will get it.


By Fost04mach on 12/3/2010 6:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
But it's for the good of the collective, comrade...


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/22/2010 12:44:04 PM , Rating: 1
Of course when I said the same thing a year ago, I was voted down and told I didn't know anything about anything, especially taxed power grids. The proof given was "Show's how much you know." Wow, a regular William Jennings Bryan.

NOW everyone is on board with the idea that this will kill the grid in some places. And as you say, we'll need more power from somewhere. I think there is some law of thermodynamics at play.

</chagrin>


By twhittet on 11/22/2010 2:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, a regular William Jennings Bryan.

Sorry, had to do it!


By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 3:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct, thermodynamics is at play. The more current through the wires, the more they heat up. the hotter the wire gets, the more resistive they become, the more losses they create. The more resistive, the hotter they get, it is a vicious cycle. If you put too much current through a wire, it will catch fire and burn down (it will burn down a pole). the engineers at the local utilities will have to keep an eye on how much current they are trying to put through these wires.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By MozeeToby on 11/22/2010 12:44:54 PM , Rating: 1
Charge the consumer more for peak power and the problem basically takes care of itself. The 3 kW average (without AC in SoCal? Really?) is presumably a 24 hour average (including a higher rate during peak hours). What's the median peak power draw and what is the median lowest power draw for houses with AC? I suspect that it's something like 7 kW for a peak and 1.5 kW for the lowest; charge the car at the lowest and all the sudden the problem becomes one of running our power plants closer to peak for more time, which is, of course, the mode that power plants are designed to run at.

Not to mention the fact that EV adoption is going to be a very gradual thing unless something changes drastically. I'd be shocked if more than 10% of homes have an EV before 2020, there's lots of time to figure out the details before problems show up.

Not that I don't agree with you that the grid needs an overhaul, it does. Luckily, I'm happy to say I come from somewhere that there was the political will to install the necessary high voltage lines over the largely unfounded concerns of the general population. And my area hasn't had a significant power outage or brownouts in my memory because of it.


By Dr of crap on 11/22/2010 12:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed!
No way one or two EVs will overload and blackout your neighborhood. If it's that close to the edge you'd have experienced something already.

My only change to your post would be - let's see if these cars actually sell. So far it's hype after hype, and we really don't know if they will sell very well. I agree it will be gradual, but maybe there will be a big push at first and then the sales might fall off.

I would rather drive a CNG car over a EV!


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 3:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like the idea of peak pricing. My schedule doesn't allow me to wait to do laundry, charge a car, heat my house, etc. I also don't like the idea of being billed by something I can't control...the peak of the system. Billing should be constant and levelize the peaks (for residential accounts) across all residential accounts.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By EddyKilowatt on 11/22/2010 3:54:10 PM , Rating: 1
So, how do you propose to pay for the cost of producing your power? Or more to the point, why should the rest of us pay more because you want to dry your socks when you want to?

In order for markets to work, consumers have to get clear price signals that encapsulate the *whole* cost of providing the things they choose to buy.


By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 4:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
I must admit, there are various different types of peak billing programs out there....from one peak during the day, to monthly peak billing, to am peak billing combined with pm peak billing. Coincident peak billing (you get charged peak rate only if your peak occurs at the same time as the system peak) vs Non Coincident billing (it doesn't matter where your peak usage is, you get billed at the peak rate) So, it is difficult to properly discuss the general idea of peak billing when we could all be discussing different payment plans.

Also, different electric companies have different contracts with their suppliers, so what makes sense for one utility doesn't make sense for all.

Over the course of time, residential customers have been given a flat rate. This allows customers to budget properly. We know about what our electricity costs will be month to month, and reducing usage means a reduced bill. With peak pricing, that is not necessarily the case. You can reduce your usage, but be charged more. The charges against you are not anything you can control. You can't control every other person on the system, but yet, you get charged more because of what they do.

What I am looking at is simply the economies of scale. Residential users can use a maximum of 12000kwh of demand at once (100 amp panel, 120v) provided they max out the ratings on their equipment. Typical maximum demand is around less than 5kwh. Peak of the system depends on the size of the system, of course, but is usually measured in the 50-1000 MWH range (smaller coops are below 50 mwh, but peak in the month around 50mwh. So, you are essentially raising rates on residential users who individually make up 1/10,000th of the peak (using 50mwh as peak). In other words, you would need about 10,000 residential customers to make the residential base peak the small system.

Also, different systems peak at different times. And even the same utility will peak at different times on different days, different months, etc. It is just plain difficult for a utility to plan for these peaks, with the historical data they have, much less for the average consumer who, generally don't have expertise in such things.

What I just described can be summed up as pricing based on uncontrollable variables. I don't like that plan. the other problem I have with peak pricing is that there will always be a peak, that is by eliminating one peak, you create another. It really is a cat and mouse game. Suppose, right now, peak ends at 7:00 pm. So, everyone decides to not do their laundry, etc, until 7:00 pm. They create another peak later on and will get billed for that. Another way to put it, is that there is very little any residential customer can do to avoid peak pricing. If every residence and business reduces peak from 50mwh to 40mwh, residences will still get charged a peak rate, because there is still a peak. Again, there is no way for residential customers to avoid peak pricing, short of turning power off to the house completely. This results in the residential customers paying a higher percentage of the peak bill than they caused. Essentially transferring the costs from the for profit business sector to the private sector, which is, to paraphrase you, making the rest of us pay more, because the rest of the system wants power too.


By emarston on 11/23/2010 7:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
Consumers in the US get stuck with the bill in various ways including use of tax dollars. The power companies here aren't competing in a free market. Many states regulate electricity as it is considered essential. Every place that deregulated that I've seen has had massive price increases, yet somehow prior to "deregulation" they were able to make things work. It's pretty hard to have a true free market where there is a guaranteed consumer (they have no real choice if they want service) and the price of admission is so high that nobody else will pay to play the 800lb gorilla awaiting them. It's a nice set up for the power companies, they have their areas of control and good luck to anyone else trying to get into their market. There is no "real" choice unless you call the various "distributors" a choice, even though they get their power from the same company.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By HrilL on 11/22/2010 3:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
In my area we're already billed based on peak and off peak there is also a middle peak I believe. So 3 different rates depending on how much power people are using. It is a completely fair system and follows supply and demand.


By randomly on 11/22/2010 5:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
You may not like peak pricing, but it reflects the fact that it costs more to generate that peak power. Peaking power plants can operate for as little as an hour a day, yet they still have to be built, operated and maintained, and fueled. Yet they can only recover those costs for the brief times that they are actually generating power.

If you want to pay less for power, insulate your house, turn your thermostat down, and charge your car at night.

Peak pricing is not something they just made up to irritate you and gouge your wallet, it reflects the costs of generating the power.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By chunkymonster on 11/22/10, Rating: 0
By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 3:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
You would be surprised at how the smart grid is actually obtainable (depending on how one defines "Smart grid", even in big cities. Basically, all the pieces have been around for a few decades, but have been used on transmission systems, rather than distribution systems. Radio controlled switching of cap banks, switches, reclosers, automatic meter reading, etc. It just needed to be all put together.

With the new smart meters that give you gps coordinates, real time data and tell you when the power goes out, the utility can better respond quicker to outages, the office workers during the outage can help pinpoint a problem by seeing where clusters of customers are out of power on the same line, so the crew wouldn't have to patrol the entire line. Also, the meters give the engineer live and real data to make decisions with, rather than a model. Each customer has a volt/current meter that would tell the engineer the voltage drop on the line to that user, the amount of current on any branch of any circuit, and therefore, the engineer can better balance load on phases, identify when transformers are overloaded or underloaded. And it can help the utility monitor their peak usage quicker and more closely than before.

Put it all together, and when a power outage happens, you can identify a fault quicker, identify the area of the fault, remotely open and close specific switches which allows power to be rerouted through various circuits to pick up the load around the fault, without becoming a safety issue.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By bildan on 11/22/2010 12:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed!

It seems a universal failing that 'tree huggers' don't do their homework. Despite this they do us a service.

Wind and solar should be relied on to do all they can - then we build nukes to supply the other 80 - 90% of the power we'll need for an EV fleet. Wait! If we need that many nukes, why are we trashing the scenery with windmills and solar farms?

I'm looking forward to EV's as even the monster truck owners should. If 30% of the fleet is electric, that might drive down the cost of gasoline.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By gamerk2 on 11/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: I've been saying this all along...
By Motoman on 11/22/2010 3:17:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
We can implement the technology, TODAY.


No we can't. Where do you reckon all that free hydrogen is going to come from...how it's going to get distributed...how the process for generating it is going to get powered...???

Your "very minor" point demonstrates how wildly disconnected from reality you are.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By cgallaway on 11/22/10, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 11/22/2010 4:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding me?

It's not necessarily the difficulty in producing hydrogen its the cost. It costs a lot. And you need a lot to harvest it from. Water is the most likely source. Taking it from the air takes a lot of power.

And auto racing teams? Tell me one professional racing team that uses a hydrogen fuel cell. There aren't any. Yes there are colleges out there who've done it. But that's about it.

A tractor trailer transporting hydrogen vs gasoline will result in less fillups per tanker. While clean hydrogen is a very poor source of energy (at least in an engine). It's amount of energy per unit is extremely low resulting in you needing a lot of it to get the same bang.

Nuclear power stations could provide us with hydrogen. But we're probably 50 years away from having enough of them and even then that's assuming the hippies shut up and the red tape for building them goes away.

A better answer is bio-diesel. Which maintains current infrastructure and is a far better fuel. And can be produced from algae.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/22/2010 3:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No we can't. Where do you reckon all that free hydrogen is going to come from...how it's going to get distributed...how the process for generating it is going to get powered...???


Well uhh you see we need to ummm get rid of oil! Yes, get rid of oil first!! Then umm.....uhhh...we'll just....


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By BigBubbaWV on 11/22/2010 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 1
You know who's going to be REALLY busy from all of this? Firemen. All of you commenters here - not one electrician among you? 3300W AC = 27.5 AMPS. How many people already have 8 or 10 gauge electical wire run to their garages? (I'm guessing .0001%). 6600W = 55 AMPS. OMG! That's more than running your electric oven at 500 degrees AND your big microwave AND your refrigerator all at the same time. And that will require at least 8 guage wire. Go price 100' of 8 guauge copper wire and tell me the gas companies are the only ones ripping you off.
If this is really what people are expecting to do, then get out the marshmallows. Try to avoid the toxic smoke.


By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 3:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
I believe they designed these things to work within the regulations of the electrical code....the 3300W is for the 240V wiring, which is 13.75 amps. The article states the rated 1500W for the 120V receptacle, which is 12.5 amps. You used the wrong watt/voltage combination.

However, you are correct, in a sense, that not too many people will have their garages re-wired to accommodate these cars, because they are being told they don't need to. For a newer home, that's fine....just don't try to run anything else on the same circuit, or the breaker will trip. With older homes, that have been grandfathered by the NEC, you are correct. These homes surely do not have the coordinated ratings for the fuses/wire/outlet combinations used. 30 amp fuses were common, even though the wire used can only safely carry 15 amps.


By AmbroseAthan on 11/22/2010 3:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
My parents actually just went through something like this when their electric stove broke. The new one required 40 amps (240V), fully operating it can draw 8,100 watts, so they had to rewire the run with 10 gauge. This was for a 30" stove. A 36" Induction stove example is 10,200 watts fully running (50 amps over 240):

http://www.wolfappliance.com/InductionCooktops/CT3...

As long as people had wired 240 volt boxes to their garage, it is not insane. It does cost a bit though.


RE: I've been saying this all along...
By pityme on 11/22/2010 3:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if the green nazis have taken the carbon toll of extra transformers (and the carbon to install), power upgrades, etc intothe total carbon savings equation. Ha, Ha, they do not even include the carbon manufacturing costs of building their "green cars"into the equation.


By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 3:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
don't forget to mention all the heavy metals in the batteries that will need to be unearthed to build them (most likely using rare metals from China---and all the pollution that they allow) and the disposal at the end of life for these batteries.

I think I would rather worry about CO2 (which is used in carbonated beverages) than worry about heavy metals in the water supply.


By monkeyman1140 on 11/24/2010 11:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'm sure utilites are absolutely TERRIFIED of getting more business, more customers, and more money.

Let me guess, you're a republican and bang 2 sticks together for warmth while you live in your log cabin home built by the NRA.


Reality Check
By icemansims on 11/22/2010 12:54:54 PM , Rating: 4
You have several problems here.
1 Is the infrastructure capable of managing this?
2 Are you actually meeting your goal a "greener" mode of transportation?
2a Does this reduce the US reliance on foreign oil?
3 Is it financially feasible to run one of these electric cars, given you're talking about, roughly, double what your average house slurps down in power?

Notes:
1 We're about to find out, it should be alright in low demand areas, but problematic in high demand urban areas where this car will be of the most use.
2 At this point....no. The greenhouse gases produced by this and the reliance on fossil fuels will go UP because the efficiency to convert chemical energy (coal/oil) to thermal energy (heat) to mechanical energy (steam driven turbine) to electrical energy to mechanical energy (automotive locomotion) is less efficient than chemical (gas/diesel) to thermal (internal combustion) to mechanical (automotive locomotion). Plus the environmental impact of the batteries necessary.
2a Yes, probably. Power can be routinely produced from domestic coal.
Additional note: Yes, I realize it's possible to produce electricity from "green" means, but not at a level necessary for mainstream use.
3. No. Average electrical cost of a home in San Francisco (their example) is around $75 a month. If you double that for what they are talking about for one of these cars $150 a month. That is at current prices, but if this becomes main stream, the demand will increase, and therefore, so will the cost per watt.




RE: Reality Check
By Dr of crap on 11/22/2010 1:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree with you for the most part. BUT ...
But if coal is used to fix problem 2A, then the "greener" part from problem 2 is not answered, and the cost from problems 1 and 3 will go up if we do use more electricity.
And if we then use less gas, taxes will also have to increase to cover the loss of gas tax to keep the roads smooth.

No matter how you slice it, we will probably have costs for whatever form of propellant we use to move us about that will equal $4 a gallon gas or higher.
I don't see how we can avoid it!


RE: Reality Check
By menace on 11/22/2010 1:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
3 Is it financially feasible to run one of these electric cars, given you're talking about, roughly, double what your average house slurps down in power?

The "double power" scenario is when using a fast charger, which I presume would involve perhaps one to two hours of charging. Your house won't be using twice the energy (kw-hrs) so your doubling the electric bill scenario won't happen. E.g. if your house normally burns 48kwh per day, fast charging 6kw for two hrs increases daily energy use by 25% to 60kwh. In fact it really doesn't matter much how fast you charge the amount of energy it takes for a daily charge will be the same.

Possibly the charge stations themselves could be designed for prevention of grid overload. If they monitor line voltage they can determine a "normal" load condition and then if the line voltage drops below a threshold they can switch from fast charge mode to a lower power charge mode. If the line voltage comes back up closer to normal (with appropriate hysteresis) it can kick back up to fast charge.


RE: Reality Check
By DanNeely on 11/22/2010 2:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
The real problem is the superfast 440V 3 phase chargers some people are talking about that would charge an EV as quickly as you fill your gas tank. The load from one those is comparable to an entire residential block. OTOH even if batteries and chargers that can handle that much current without overheating can be made, and even if the grid can be tweaked to handle large numbers of that sort of surges, making a connector safe for Joe Latte to use might not be possible. Wiring at that power is almost universally hardwired by electricians for a reason.


RE: Reality Check
By Solandri on 11/23/2010 5:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
All the quick-charging ideas I've seen involve dumping all the Amp-hours into a huge capacitor over time, then quickly dumping it into an EV battery as a quick-charge. That means you don't have to pull enough power as an entire residential block during the duration of the charge - you can pull a smaller amount of power over a longer period of time.

Of course I wouldn't want to be anywhere near one of these capacitors. At least with gasoline it's stable unless hit with an open flame and an oxygen source. A huge capacitor like that could discharge almost instantly if something conductive gets close enough to the two power leads.


RE: Reality Check
By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 4:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
How would this charger take into account the current ratings of the utilities Primary wires/transformer/secondary wires? Voltage drop is a concern, one that can be band-aided by capacitor banks or voltage regulators until the problem can be totally corrected (getting another feeder to takeover some load elsewhere on the line). The transformer can be upgraded for the amount of power to be used. Even the primary/secondary wires can easily be replaced, but the issue is cost. Businesses would by the chargers, would require the additional power, so the utilities would have to charge them what the upgrades would cost, so that every rate payer would not be subsidizing the cost of a business. The residential side is the same thing.


RE: Reality Check
By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 5:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
1) assuming 1500W@120V, the high side of the transformer (assuming 12.47kv primaries) will see an additional 0.12 amps per electric car. The issue will be in much older areas that still have 70 yr old small copper or steel wire for primaries.

To give an idea, if you have 100 people on a circuit, and they all bought 2 of these cars, you would increase the amperage by 24 amps. depending on the time of day you are charging, probably at night, most infrastructure wouldn't need to be changed, but some would be pushing the limits.

2) No, because the battery saves you about 1 gallon worth of gas per charge (for the Chevy Volt, rated 40 miles per charge, 40 mpg on gas, actual results vary). This is about 2920 gallons of gas saved over the life of the battery(estimate of every night charging for 8 yrs, assumption of battery life of 8 yrs). The emissions of 2920 gallons of gas, I believe would be far offset by the emissions required to mine the raw earth metals used to make the battery, the actual making of the battery, and the methods of disposal of the battery. Not to mention that the disposal of rare earth metals is more toxic than the CO2 emissions...before anyone disagrees with that, note that you drink CO2 in the form of carbonated beverages (soda and beer).

2a) not really, the biggest user of foreign oil I would guess isn't really cars, but roadways. All that oil in the blacktop for 12ft lanes, for thousands of miles of what used to be concrete. I would also suggest any machinery requires oil...lubrication of joints, bearings, manufacture of plastics (just about everything in the medical field, which used to be recycled glass, cases for tv's, computers, pill bottles, wrap and bags for foods, coolers, etc). Our oil usage is much greater than just cars, and until the green movement realizes this, I do consider them well meaning, but misguided. If you want to stop our dependence on foreign oil, we need to find a new source for everything, not just gasoline.

3) It is not financially feasible to run one of these cars on longterm basis. If you drive less than 40 miles round trip per day, yes it is feasible. However, if you drive more than that, probably not. Certainly for long trips, it is not feasible. The cost difference between the Chevy volt (after the tax rebate, not counting tax tag and title) is $33,500. The price of an equivalent car without the electric engine is about $20,000. A difference of $13,500. Assuming a 40 mpg rating on the gas motor and 40 mile range on electric charge only, again, we are only saving one gallon of gas. But we are paying for 1500 watts for 10 hours (the 10 hrs is from other accounts of charge tim e@ 120v), which is 15kwh@ $0.10/kwh which is about $1.50 per charge. If gas were at $4.00/gallon, you would be saving about $2.50/charge. To make up for the $13,500 cost difference, without maintenance costs like replacing the batter, it would take 5400 charges to break even between the cost savings of gas vs the extra price of the car, which is about twice the estimated life of the batter (again @ $4.00/gallon and no battery replacement). Assuming one charge per day, it would take approximately 15 yrs for the car to pay that back. Again, that is with the tax rebate and a higher cost of gas factored in.


Taxes
By fishman on 11/22/2010 2:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
EV's don't pay any of the "road" taxes that internal combustion engined cars pay by way of the gas taxes. Don't be surprised when the government puts a surcharge on electricity used for charging EVs. They could require specialized charging devices that would be on a dedicated meter. Either that, or a surcharge per mile driven.




RE: Taxes
By tng on 11/22/2010 3:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that is just great.

Should have thought about that. I doubt that with the current climate/attitude at the fed/state level that EVs will be required to pay anything, even if they are found to be causing more road damage than Semi trucks. It would not be politically PC, can't see any politician asking for it.

So if the usage of these goes way up and the taxes that are currently paid by buying gas goes down, the roads go to crap (if they are not there already) and there is no money to fix them and no political will to get it.


RE: Taxes
By FITCamaro on 11/22/2010 4:37:15 PM , Rating: 3
Don't worry. They'll just charge us "evil" carbon burners more to offset the caring "genius" who properly drives an EV.


RE: Taxes
By YashBudini on 11/23/2010 11:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
If tax avoidance is at the top of the list you can always get a bicycle, but yes should we allow EVs to not pay any road taxes?

Alternative is all roads become toll roads or all vehicles are taxed by miles driven. In either of these cases weight should also be a factor.


Power Your own Car
By Sceptor on 11/22/2010 12:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm excited for the future of transportation. It's much easier to generate your own power then to produce gasoline. I'm looking forward to the day where my home can collect power (wind / solar) during the day and charge my car overnight. This will reduce additional load on the electrical system. Hopefully, home builders will create new homes with this feature built right in.




RE: Power Your own Car
By tech4tac on 11/22/2010 1:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. The possibility of a zero energy home that can also supply your transportation energy needs is an existing one. It's still quite a number of years away but not in the realm of the impossible.

Maybe we could implement intelligent charging systems that can communicate with the grid and automatically apply charge rates for EV when loads are at there lowest (such as late at night when there is an excess of capacity). Couple that with electric company incentives to customers having such a system and we can mitigate the issue.


RE: Power Your own Car
By tng on 11/22/2010 2:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
No it is not impossible, but unless you install solar and wind, you may have times when you will still get it from the grid.

Also if you just install solar and you work during the day, it does you no real good. Ideally you would be working at night and charging while you were home sleeping during the day when solar is usable.


Devil is always in the details!
By chunkymonster on 11/22/2010 12:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
This article is correct in that some areas will have reliability and overload issues as a result of EV's hitting the market en-mass. The article is also correct in that the market share of EV's is beginning and will continue to grow as a popular alternative to ICE's and gasoline as a fuel source. An EV is and should be a no-brainer decision for anyone living in an urban or inner-city area.

Any strain on the existing electric infrastructure should be no surprise and no cause for reactionary measures on the part of electric companies or government. What happened to the billions of dollars in "stimulus" for electric infrastructure upgrades from both G.W. Bush and Obama?

Personally, I am looking forward to an EV with enough range (minimum of 150 mile per charge) to replace my daily commuter car.




By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 5:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
most of the money from the federal government went to transmission, not distribution. what was given to the distribution system was for smart metering, and a smart grid (which includes outage management systems, gps tied mapping systems, the radio systems/towers required for all of it to tie together)


Obvious BS
By FormerDemocrat on 11/23/2010 1:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
So the Leaf has "mileage" about 3 times better than the Chevy Volt? Anyone dumb enough to believe that? The Volt rating was believable, the Leaf rating is not.




RE: Obvious BS
By YashBudini on 11/23/2010 11:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any knowledge of the electrical storage capacity of either vehicle?


Hahaha
By KIAman on 11/22/2010 1:05:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A spokesperson from Duke Energy said, "It's like you're about to have a baby. You know it's going to be good, but you also know there's going to be some throw up and some dirty diapers, and you just hope that it's something you are prepared for."


Hahaha wow, this guy has never had children.




RE: Hahaha
By tng on 11/22/2010 1:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's like you're about to have a baby. You know it's going to be good, but you also know there's going to be some throw up and some dirty diapers, and you just hope that it's something you are prepared for."
Agreed, but what he really said is that your neighbor has a baby and you have to pay for the crib and the diapers for him.....

Wonder if someone who buys an EV and drags down the whole block will get sued due to the electric provider charging everybody for the upgrade to support it.

Interesting times ahead.


Rising demand = rising prices
By wookie1 on 11/22/2010 1:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's pretty fundamental that if electricity demand increases due to EV's or any other devices, prices will also increase. Part of the price increase is needed/used for infrastructure upgrades, and the rest boosts profits and growth of the electric companies. This is basic economics.

Now, if electricity prices increase, this will also offset the cost/benefit balance of driving and EV vs an ICE or mild hybrid at the margins, but new supply/demand points will be found.

All of the doom-gloom etc assumes that one variable is changed but all of the others remain static. It is difficult to predict how people and industries will change their behavior as their surroundings change, but there is not likely to be a catastrophe unless we rely on some central planning agency to provide the power. Central planning agencies can't have enough information to make optimal choices, and are notoriously bad at assuming that changing one variable will not change the course of others.




By cgallaway on 11/22/2010 5:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
I can see where the adoption will vary by geography....in the north, where it is colder, people will be reluctant to buy it....because the battery power will not produce the rated range operating at colder than normal temps. This seems to be a common them with almost all "green" issues. Almost everything is geared towards warmer climate problems, when very little of our geography is in climates that are above 50 degrees year round. We talk about solar energy, forgetting about the lack of power when snow or ice might collect on them, or the decreased performance due to dirt spots from the rain (we are talking about moving electrons, which are quite a bit smaller than a spec of dirt). We also tend to forget that the solar panels can only produce power when the sun is out. In northern areas, that is quite a bit less than southern areas, particularly in winter. We discuss wind power, which favors not climates, but topography, however, we all know and have seen where wind whips most in between the seasonal extreme temps, but not the peak temperature ranges in either the summer or winter, meaning when demand is highest, the wind towers aren't generating much at all. It had been discussed to paint the roofs of building white, or use reflective metal roofing, however, in cold climates, this does more harm than good, because that is less heat you have in the winter from light, and increases winter heating bills the way they would decrease summer cooling bills.

It has been proven time and time again that cold climates harm the ability of a battery to work, and while they have battery warmers, it does reduce the range of the ev vehicle, making the investment in one even less financially viable. It might be good for some, like those that live in warmer climates, that don't drive over 40 miles a day, but it isn't good for the rest of us. Just like Solar power, it is a regional benefit, but not a national one.

The same has been said for Geothermal power, however, every region has access to the Earth's crust. The cost prohibitive measure is the drilling. And I don't know why. We have companies like BP that can drill in the ocean, 2 miles below the water, down another mile into the earth's crust in order to pull out oil. I suppose the ocean water cools the tools? We also have had mines across this country deeper than what we would need for geothermal to work.

Perhaps the lessons of geothermal can be used to supply power. Every existing power plant gives off heat, perhaps that heat can be used to turn a steam turbine to create additional power. Sewage treatment plants burn methane gas to prevent pipe explosions. Perhaps that can be used to power a natural gas type generator, with the waste heat again powering a steam turbine. The solid waste at waste treatment plants can be dried and also be burned, similar to coal fired plants, and again, the waste heat can power a steam turbine.

In terms of increasing gas mileage in vehicles, the same idea can be used to provide a secondary turbine with the power to create electricity from a gas or diesel engine, which should be more efficient than modern drive trains.




No big deal
By YashBudini on 11/23/2010 11:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
A 6600 watt gas generator. Problem solved.

</US opportunist at work>




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki