Updating California's Grid For EVs May Cost Up To $20 Billion (arstechnica.com) 116
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Two researchers at the University of California, Davis -- Yanning Li and Alan Jenn -- have determined that nearly two-thirds of [California's] feeder lines don't have the capacity that will likely be needed for car charging. Updating to handle the rising demand might set its utilities back as much as 40 percent of the existing grid's capital cost. Li and Jenn aren't the first to look at how well existing grids can handle growing electric vehicle sales; other research has found various ways that different grids fall short. However, they have access to uniquely detailed data relevant to California's ability to distribute electricity (they do not concern themselves with generation). They have information on every substation, feeder line, and transformer that delivers electrons to customers of the state's three largest utilities, which collectively cover nearly 90 percent of the state's population. In total, they know the capacity that can be delivered through over 1,600 substations and 5,000 feeders.[...]
By 2025, only about 7 percent of the feeders will experience periods of overload. By 2030, that figure will grow to 27 percent, and by 2035 -- only about a decade away -- about half of the feeders will be overloaded. Problems grow a bit more slowly after that, with two-thirds of the feeders overloaded by 2045, a decade after all cars sold in California will be EVs. At that point, total electrical demand will be close to twice the existing capacity. The problems aren't evenly distributed, though. They appear first in high-population areas like the Bay Area. And throughout this period, most of the problems are in feeders that serve residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. The feeders that serve neighborhoods that are primarily business-focused don't see the same coordinated surge in demand that occurs as people get home from work and plug in; they're better able to serve the more erratic use of charging stations at office complexes and shopping centers. In terms of the grid, residential services will need to see their capacity expand by about 16 gigawatts by 2045. Public chargers will need nine gigawatts worth of added capacity by the same point. The one wild card is direct current fast charging. Eliminating fast chargers entirely would reduce the number of feeders that need upgrades by 12 percent. Converting all public stations to DC fast charging, in contrast, would boost that number by 15 percent. So the details of the upgrades that will be needed will be very sensitive to the impatience of EV drivers.
Paying for the necessary upgrades will be pricey, but there's a lot of uncertainty here. Li and Jenn came up with a range of anywhere between $6 billion and $20 billion. They put this in context in two ways. The total capital invested in the existing grid is estimated to be $51 billion, so the cost of updating it could be well over a third of its total value. At the same time, the costs will be spread out over decades and only total up to (at most) three times the grid's annual operation and maintenance costs. So in any one year, the costs shouldn't be crippling. All that might be expected to drive the cost of electricity up. But Li and Jenn suggest that the greater volume of electricity consumption will exert a downward pressure on prices (people will pay more overall but pay somewhat less per unit of electricity). Based on a few economic assumptions, the researchers conclude that this would roughly offset the costs of the necessary grid expansion, so the price per unit of electricity would be largely static. The findings have been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
By 2025, only about 7 percent of the feeders will experience periods of overload. By 2030, that figure will grow to 27 percent, and by 2035 -- only about a decade away -- about half of the feeders will be overloaded. Problems grow a bit more slowly after that, with two-thirds of the feeders overloaded by 2045, a decade after all cars sold in California will be EVs. At that point, total electrical demand will be close to twice the existing capacity. The problems aren't evenly distributed, though. They appear first in high-population areas like the Bay Area. And throughout this period, most of the problems are in feeders that serve residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. The feeders that serve neighborhoods that are primarily business-focused don't see the same coordinated surge in demand that occurs as people get home from work and plug in; they're better able to serve the more erratic use of charging stations at office complexes and shopping centers. In terms of the grid, residential services will need to see their capacity expand by about 16 gigawatts by 2045. Public chargers will need nine gigawatts worth of added capacity by the same point. The one wild card is direct current fast charging. Eliminating fast chargers entirely would reduce the number of feeders that need upgrades by 12 percent. Converting all public stations to DC fast charging, in contrast, would boost that number by 15 percent. So the details of the upgrades that will be needed will be very sensitive to the impatience of EV drivers.
Paying for the necessary upgrades will be pricey, but there's a lot of uncertainty here. Li and Jenn came up with a range of anywhere between $6 billion and $20 billion. They put this in context in two ways. The total capital invested in the existing grid is estimated to be $51 billion, so the cost of updating it could be well over a third of its total value. At the same time, the costs will be spread out over decades and only total up to (at most) three times the grid's annual operation and maintenance costs. So in any one year, the costs shouldn't be crippling. All that might be expected to drive the cost of electricity up. But Li and Jenn suggest that the greater volume of electricity consumption will exert a downward pressure on prices (people will pay more overall but pay somewhat less per unit of electricity). Based on a few economic assumptions, the researchers conclude that this would roughly offset the costs of the necessary grid expansion, so the price per unit of electricity would be largely static. The findings have been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
How much is really delayed maintenance? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How much is really delayed maintenance? (Score:5, Interesting)
The grid is not made of copper. You thought it was? Copper is for home wiring, if that. Up to that point, it's alumium, bundled with steel on major lines for tensile strength. Does it look like copper to you?
As for the article: grid operators don't build out grids on a lark. They do it to sell power, because they make money selling power. If people want to buy more power because they want to charge an EV, then that's more money available for them. EVs are a boon to grid operators. They're almost an ideal load. Most charging done at night, steady loads, readily shiftable and curtailable with incentives, etc. Daytime / fast charging isn't, but that's a minority. And except in areas with a lot of hydro, most regions already have the ample nighttime generation capacity; it's just sitting idle, power potential unsold. In short, EVs can greatly improve their profitability. Which translates to any combiation of three things:
1) More profits
2) A better, more reliable grid
3) Lower rates
* ... depending on the regulations and how competitive of an environment it is.
As for the above article: the study isn't wrong, it's just - beyond the above (huge) problem - it is based on stupid assumptions. Including that there's zero incentives made for people to load shift when their vehicles charge, zero battery buffering to shift loads, and zero change in the distribution of generation resources over the proposed timeframe. All three of these are dumb assumptions.
Also, presenting raw numbers always leads to misleading answers. Let me rephrase their numbers: the cost is $7 to $26 per person per year. The cost of 1 to 5 gallons of gas per year at California prices..
More demand means more money available (Score:2)
...in short, EVs can greatly improve their profitability. Which translates to any combiation of three things:
1) More profits
2) A better, more reliable grid
3) Lower rates
...As for the above article: the study isn't wrong, it's just - beyond the above (huge) problem - it is based on stupid assumptions.
to the contrary. If you read to the bottom of the summary, it draws a similar conclusion:
This makes sense. Expanding t
Re: More demand means more money available (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
" Daytime / fast charging isn't, but that's a minority. "
And just to touch on the idea, the solid state battery and it's projected 700 miles (Toyota) or 900 miles (Porsche) range will have more charging performed at home at night than is currently accomplished with EV's running out of their range and being charged at fast chargers during the day. Instead, those in long range EV's will run all day, and if away from home, charge all night at their motel parking lot. The grid hardly needs upgraded since not
Re: (Score:1)
Not running the AC at night???
I dunno WTF you live, but here in the New Orleans area...my AC comes on early to mid April and really doesn't hardly shut off till mid November.
Night is when I REALLY crank the temperature down so I can sleep.
Re: (Score:1)
We're talking about the ability of the grid to deliver power. The blue line on your link shows power consumption which shows a dip to its lowest values in the very early morning, as I said. The power consumption is much higher during the daytime. Therefore the grid itself, the wiring to carry power, far exceeds the nighttime usage, so no additional capacity will be required for nighttime charging of EVs, as I said.
Re: (Score:1)
Tell me you don't understand grid management without telling me you don't understand grid management:
>The grid is not made of copper. You thought it was? Copper is for home wiring, if that. Up to that point, it's alumium, bundled with steel on major lines for tensile strength. Does it look like copper to you?
What do you think is the part of the grid that must be overbuilt the most and spent on the most to get the that utopian world in?
That's right. The last mile part. The copper part. That's why I starte
Re: (Score:2)
Copper is not "the last mile". It's the last five meters. If that. When people talk about "the grid", they're not talking about the wiring in your walls. Which you don't have to redo anyway for adding an EV. Nobody has to touch, say, your kitchen wiring to add an EV charger.
"The grid" is the wiring leading up to your house. Those conductors are alumium, not copper. Occasionally the SER/SEU cable will occasionally be copper, but even that's generally alumium these days. And that's only to the service c
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure it is in your magical world. In real world on the other hand, it's the point from the downvolting to 230V, not to even talk about 110V systems where using anything else would necessitate active cooling of cables in most places with any meaningful demand. Try hooking up a small apartment building with residential voltages and watch the your cute hollow core cable melt and burn under load.
>I have never seen a single utility that charges a flat grid access fee to residential consumers, anywhere on
Re: (Score:2)
Why on earth do you think that the grid must be made from copper?
Copper has about 1.6x the conductivity of aluminium, which means you need about 1.6x the area of aluminium as you do copper for the same cable resistance.
Aluminium is a LOT cheaper than copper and a lot less volatile (making costs more predictable).
This is why there are very many cable manufacturers selling aluminium power cables for undergronud use as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I thought it was copper too. Learn something new everyday.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it is, but as always, "it depends". It's always aluminum for aircraft and overhead cables since it has superior resistivity per unit weight. For buried cables it's a tradeoff, but as always it comes down to money. As the price of copper goes up, the tradeoff tips towards aluminium.
Re: (Score:1)
Fire risk.
Exceedingly important in last mile of deployment, where consumption can be somewhat unpredictable and you can't rely on the fusing to work properly on each line.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been hearing interesting things lately about reconductoring [google.com]: stringing advanced cable on existing towers that, because of their construction, can carry more power (higher voltage and/or current). So you can upgrade existing transmission infrastructure without having to replace the towers or get new rights of way.
As an example: replacing the steel core of the cable with Kevlar or carbon fiber, which won't sag as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or how much of the necessary maintenance and upgrades to the Calif grid were delayed / deferred by frivolous lawsuits from 3rd parties claiming some sort of harm to persons or animals due to the presence of those power transmission & distribution towers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:How much is really delayed maintenance? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no longer a fan of electric cars after I learned that they don't really solve the smog problem
That's stupid. EVs might not be a 100% perfect fix, but they will dramatically improve air quality. (Including a reduction in o3, a major component of smog). That's a good thing.
EVs are an essential and important step towards a cleaner future. Walkable cities and high-speed rail are ultimately better, but we're not going to see that in the US in our lifetime.
Re:How much is really delayed maintenance? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh?
I mean, they DO solve the smog problem. And they can solve the personal transportation CO2 emission problem. They don't solve the for-profit grid problem, but at least here in socialist TVA territory we don't have that nightmare, and the few remaining coal plants here will all be dark by 2035.
They just do absolutely nothing for the horrific zoning laws problem, nothing for the HOA problem, and nothing for the functional cities problem. Still, if I'm going to have to be stuck in a traffic jam anyway, I'd rather not have to smell it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no longer a fan of electric cars after I learned that they don't really solve the smog problem and after I was introduced to the concept of High-Speed rail and walkable cities, but if I can't have those things I guess I will take the facts that they at least reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
So, rather than running some wires, which the defeatist contingent is already saying is too costly and infeasible, we should just *checks notes* rebuild every suburban community in the country? Oh, and also while we're at it, fundamentally reprograming the human psyche so that we don't get people losing their shit from living in an urban environment. [wikipedia.org]
I guar-an-fuckin-tee if you were living in some urban ratbox with your neighbor blasting Fox news all hours of the night, you'd deeply regret the lifestyle you
Re: (Score:2)
EVEN IF all of the power lines in CA were upgraded, we still don't have enough power generation to charge a quarter of the proposed amount of EV's.
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is maintenance that should have been done but has been put off.
Grid maintenance is done regularly. There is a very close link between the grid and power generating companies that sell power -- much closer than the link between any commercial user of highways for example. Decades of deferred maintenance does not happen on power grids since that would prevent the generating companies from selling power. They invest, and see to it that there is investment.
EVEN IF all of the power lines in CA were upgraded, we still don't have enough power generation to charge a quarter of the proposed amount of EV's.
Maybe you should read the study. It obliterates your fake statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the grid is severely undermaintained.
If it was maintained, PG&E wouldn't be near bankrupt because of all the fines from the wildfires it starts from failing equipment. We're not even talking equipment like transformers and other grid things, we're talking things like insulators and bushings that are falling to pieces and causing wires to short out.
Those are things that are generally supposedly to be replaced on a regular basis, and honest, are very cheap items individually, though are very expensive
Re: How much is really delayed maintenance? (Score:1)
Re:How much is really delayed maintenance? (Score:5, Informative)
Electricity grids require an maintenance investment of about 2.5% a year -- you effectively replace the grid every 40 years. If the spending is tripled during the build-out, then 1/3 of that is the grid maintenance cost that would be present anyway. After the EV build-out finishes the cost would be 2.5% of a ~50% larger grid.
The headline was the most extravagant sounding aspect of the report "cost up to 20 billion dollars!" instead of highlighting the conclusion "electricity costs will remain stable".
There will be no EV apocalypse.
BTW from 1960 to 1980 electricity demand increased 5% every year - a similar period of rapid grid expansion. And the major driver for that were air conditioners which were rare before 1960, but all but universal by 1980 -- everyone who wanted them had them. And electricity demand when flat in 1980 and stayed flat for decades after. We have seen this scenario before.
Re: (Score:1)
The changes won't just be needed for EVs, they will be needed for domestic solar as well. People are going to keep adding solar and batteries, getting to the point where they barely need the grid for much of the year, or at all. If the grid doesn't adapt to much greater changes in demand and lower unit prices, the operators are going to go bust.
They will need to transition from centralized generation to becoming distributors and offering convenience services.
Re: (Score:2)
All the grids in the USA seem to be run on a shoestring budget, are always having brownouts, blackouts, lack power.....
Perhaps not regulating them was a bad idea ...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello, Russian troll. Or maybe Chinese, because the CCP has reorged for better control over its psy-ops minions.
That cash going to Ukraine is a lot cheaper than sending over US and European troops, and it isn't NATO that is doing the invading and warcrime atrocities in that theater, since Russia doesn't have any plans on stopping anytime soon, and atrocities that Russia did in Ukraine (and previously in Afghanistan, including putting mines in teddy bears and children's toys) will be happening in the Baltic
Re: (Score:1)
Wishful Thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
$200 billion would be perfectly okay (Score:2)
California is a big place with a lot in it. Electricity is kind of useful.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no confidence in their estimate either. I think they are underestimating the cost. I'd be surprised if it doesn't end up double that.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no confidence in their estimate either. I think they are underestimating the cost. I'd be surprised if it doesn't end up double that.
I have no confidence in their estimate, either. I think they overestimated it by $20 billion.
Think about it. In the Bay Area, people travel just 10 miles per day on average. I think the state average is somewhere closer to 20 or 30. Even if you assume 30 miles, that's only ~7.5 kWh of charging per day. Spread over 12 hours of being plugged in, that comes to just 2.6 amperes per vehicle on average.
My air conditioner can end up running very nearly continuously during the day in the hottest part of the su
Re: (Score:2)
I don't. Electricity grids in the US are in a pretty bad shape overall and have had years of neglect. I question whether this all points towards EVs or not. More likely, the $20billion figure includes maintenance and upgrades not done over the past 5 decades.
This isn't actually a lot? (Score:5, Interesting)
California has a GDP of $3.9T and the state budget is $295B. Seems like a fair cost for what you get and in reality is closer to $2B a year over 10 years.
Re:This isn't actually a lot? (Score:5, Interesting)
It works out to $638/per registered car.
Re:This isn't actually a lot? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, about 3-4 years of car registration fees in California. Doesn't seem like too much for something amortized over basically forever.
Re: This isn't actually a lot? (Score:2)
That's optimistic. My 9 year old Volt cost $278 at the most recent renewal. 7 year old Bolt was $276. /year depending on value.
The Volt is probably due for a replacement in the next few years, and registration on the average new car is likely going to be at least $600
That said, the $20 billion for the grid are peanuts on a per capita basis, or per electrical customer. That's $500 per capita. The utilities already increase their rates more than that each year already. The CPUC would just rubberstamp the rate
Re: (Score:2)
And you can't look at the budget of $295B like that's money available to spend. That's money already spent. They'd have to cut programs or raise taxes or issue a bond, all of which is politically unsavory in California. California already has the highest taxes of any state with a sales tax of 7.5% and a top income tax bracket of 13% over the existing Federal rates. They could
Re: (Score:2)
Some people would look at this as a way to target Prop 13 again for the umpteenth time, which proves to be political suicide in the state particularly given the high price of housing.
And this is why we can't have nice things, Prop 13 and other laws are definitely share in the reasons it has the housing crisis it does and to me is the plurality of California's problems, economically and politically, but people as you said are going to flip their top while digging themselves in a deeper hole.
Let me rephrase it this then maybe, it "shouldn't be a lot" for a state like California. Hell, they should be able to spend a bit more than that. The thing with spending like this is that it's not
soooo....your answer is to return to... (Score:2)
The era when California politicians were stealing money from the taxpayers so fast, and their appetite for taxes was so extreme, that they were grabbing the homes right out from under frail, elderly citizens who had worked their entire lives, lived responsibly, and paid taxes?
I remember what the Democrats [sorry this is partisan, but it WAS the Democrats doing it, not some space aliens] in California were doing to the elderly right before Prop13 passed and it was REPULSIVE. It was EVIL. It was armed robbery
Re: (Score:2)
"i ant reading all that. im happy for you tho. or sorry that happened"
hey if you want to keep Prop 13 around go for it, but then let's not claim you or any of those homeowners believe in a "housing market" becuase it's not at that point so all your Prop 13 supports better stop nimby-ing it up over there and blocking housing developments and other works projects becuase, well, fuck you.
Aww your homes value skyrocketed in the past 30 years and now your taxes are twwoooooo high?!?! Well sorry thats how fuck
um, no (Score:2)
"Well sorry thats how fucking markets work." - Nope. That's not how MARKETS work, it's how government-distorted markets work. You seem to presume that any degree of government intervention in a marketplace, including seizing private property and/or manipulating values by manipulating money supplies and inflation etc, has no distorting effects. I doubt very much that you would make that very same presumption on the relationship between anything you LIKE and government intervention. Incidentally, you seem to
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to presume that any degree of government intervention in a marketplace, including seizing private property and/or manipulating values by manipulating money supplies and inflation etc, has no distorting effects.
Did I fucking say that? You are making my point: Prop 13 is market distorting. If my property increases in value over 300% in 2 decades my property taxes go up proportionally. You don't like that? Support an LVT like I do. If we admit housing is a distorted market in need of heavier regulations: I AGREE!
the owner does not have that added money in-hand.
Yeah sorry, you got priced out of the market. Sell your house, collect your million+ dollars and move on. Why do you deserve government protection because you made a good financial choice 30 years ago?
missed again (Score:2)
1. Government intervention (regulations, taxes, seizures, inflation, etc) in a marketplace distorts it, a point I made because you made the bizarre claim that people supporting Prop13 did not believe in a housing market. Prop13 WAS NOT a government intervention in the marketplace, it was the citizens forcing a limit on that government intervention! The citizens did not even stop the tax hikes, they simply capped the rate on increase. You seem to conflate the gas pedal [in this case applied by politicians an
Re: (Score:2)
Politically unsavory to issue a bond? I've been voting in California for over 20 years and every fucking Bond I've ever seen on the ballet gets passed, regardless of what it's for. I've voted against every single one of them but clearly I'm outnumbered by people that either can't do math or don't realize that we the tax payers have to pay that shit back. Zero accountability for any of this spending, ever.
So given that, I'd say the lemmings in this state LOVE to let the state government issue bonds and for A
Re: (Score:3)
California does not have a history of major budget deficits. It has a major deficit this year, but has had recent surpluses. Over 25 years it is close to balanced most years and about as likely to be in surplus as deficit [statista.com]. This year is an anomaly - not a pattern. Look at the data.
ahhh, but... (Score:2)
The recent surpluses have been driven by recent policy changes (mostly huge tax increases) which have had the natural consequence of changing the behavior of the population (if people did not react to changing conditions, they'd be idiots) which has in-turn created the major deficit which MIGHT be the "new normal". The tax increases are not going away, in fact they're scheduled to get worse, so the taxpayers (both individuals and businesses) who have departed for better states are unlikely to return. This i
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to spend it all in one year. You probably couldn't anyway. Finding $3 billion per year for the next 10 years is probably more reasonable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
your ideas intrigue me and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter
$4 billion less than we spent on homeless (Score:3)
I remember what the skies in Southern California looked like in the 70s and 80s. It was bad. We have made a lot of progress, and I hope we don't stop.
What's the cost of NOT updating the grid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even totally ignoring the environment, Californians bought 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline in 2022. At a cost of $4.50 that's $61.2B per year on gasoline, every year, forever, until we invest in other options. $20B towards kicking that habit - permanently - isn't necessarily unreasonable.
Of course there are some recurring costs to maintain the grid (though a non-upgraded grid might be higher or lower, I don't know), and other costs to
Others complain the grid isn't being used enough (Score:2)
So the people living non-solar, high density without batteries for charging their cars are going to see ever increasing electrical fees to pay for the grid and we have a whole new reason to have urban sprawl.
Re:Others complain the grid isn't being used enoug (Score:5, Informative)
Then there is this article which notes that the abundance of solar panels on residential homes is causing the grid to not get enough delivery fees
Let me share actual numbers from my latest PG&E bill.
Note: this is from my business.
My home bill is not subject to the additional fees or delivery charges -residential users in my area are only billed for usage (the "Electric Generation Charge") per the deal with the local electric supplier (Central Coast Community Energy rents the lines from PG&E directly).
Electric Generation Charges : 62.95
PG&E Electric Delivery Charges : 157.44
Other Fees and Services : 152.74
PG&E is charging nearly 3x as much for delivering the power over their lines as the cost of the power itself...and another $150 in misc fees and services (whatever that means...)
The delivery fees are plenty fucking high enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. That's crazy.
Meanwhile, my latest bill has a basic service charge for electricity of $20.50. That's the grid maintenance portion of the bill.
That's in TVA territory, of course. No profits here.
Socialism WORKS!
California should seize the grid instead of allowing for-profit companies to screw the people over.
Re: Others complain the grid isn't being used enou (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch. My Basic Charge, the same as your electric delivery charge) is 57 cents a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are 3 different rates daily: Peak ($0.18500), Off Peak ($0.09900), and Super Off Peak ($0.05200)... and this is a business, so usage is pretty evenly split between peak & off peak.
Total usage of 517.207300 kWh over 30 days for 17.243 kWh average daily usage (central California = no heating or cooling, but lots of lighting throughout the store)
Re: (Score:2)
17.243 kWh average daily usage
oops... math fail (well, copy/paste fail..)
17.240243 kWh average daily usage :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that those are commercial rates, not residential rates. Residential rates are much lower.
Either way, the actual power charges are pretty low. The PG&E fuck-you charges are many times the electricity charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's another way to put it into perspective. PG&E reported a profit last year of $2.2 billion. San Diego Gas & Electric had a profit of just under $1 billion. Southern California Edison, the third major utility in California, is part of a larger company that doesn't break out its profits, but it's presumably in the same range. And all that is before the two rate increases that have been approved since the start of the year.
Spending $6 billion over two decades would barely budge their profits.
Lots of assumptions (Score:2)
This study looks at EV charging growth over 20 years. There are a lot of assumptions about not only EV proliferation but how people will charge those EVs.
For example, I have a PHEV and a BEV, and I currently charge both via Level 1 chargers. Why? Because my family's driving habits fit this type of charging, and I don't care to spend the money to upgrade my circuits for the moment. If there are a lot of EV users like me, then the need for upgraded electrical distribution will be muted.
The study had to as
Re: (Score:3)
EV sales are going to grow, because ICEs have been banned. You have a choice. Buy that Tesla, or better enjoy riding that bicycle. Pure as that. The point is really moot, because there will be only EVs to choose from in a couple of years.
2035 in most places. That is eleven years.
I expect 2033 and 2034 are going to be really good years for ICE sales. Will probably have to pre-order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lots of assumptions (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is expected, can be mitigated, and is good (Score:5, Interesting)
This is expected:
1. Replace as much stuff that burns gas with stuff that runs on batteries as possible
2. Charge those batteries with low-carbon energy
The challenge isn't just step 1; it's step 2 as well. Replacing all the gas cars with electric ones means you need more electricity; just because electricity can be zero-emissions doesn't mean you don't have to build infrastructure for it. Building new electric infrastructure to replace gasoline infrastructure is a good thing. Yes, it costs money. We should happily pay it -- this is part of the point. We built a huge amount of gasoline infrastructure (filling stations, tanker trucks, refineries, etc) -- we can build power lines/wind+solar+nuclear generation to replace it.
There are a number of ways to soften the impact here. The most obvious is even mentioned in the article: "coordinated surge in demand that occurs as people get home from work and plug in". With proper time-of-day pricing, this won't be a thing; if this surge is an issue, then energy should be more expensive at 6pm than at 3am. Home charging on 220V is fast enough that you don't need all night to replenish a day's usage; home charging on 110V doesn't draw as much power.
Re: (Score:2)
We have had the problem solved in the UK for a while now. Chargers tie in to pricing data, which is predicted a day in advance, and then delay charging until it is cheapest. Often the price goes negative, i.e. you are paid to charge your vehicle, if you are on a variable tariff.
Have a look at this website showing prices: https://agileprices.co.uk/ [agileprices.co.uk]
You can see that for 7% of April, prices were negative, and for another ~30% they were extremely low.
collectivism (Score:2)
"Yes, it costs money. We should happily pay it" - this is a common sentiment I often see offered by people who have no intention of being part of the "we". Most people who say this stuff REALLY mean "somebody else", as in "Yes, it costs money. We should force somebody else to buy us the stuff we want, and he damned well better be smiling while we force him".
Very few people would be opposed to massive utopian projects and plans that would usher-in a shiny new StarTrek-like future, as long as somebody else p
Re: (Score:2)
I am happy to pay taxes to build low-carbon infrastructure. Earlier this year my old car was totaled; I didn't buy an expensive new fully EV, but bought a relatively cheap used plug-in hybrid after calculating that it would let me drive 70% on electrons.
The EV community is well aware of, and quite grumpy about, the proliferation of high-end EV's in the US. Many more affordable electric vehicles exist elsewhere that are not sold in the US -- Chinese ones, yes, but also smaller models that are not sold in the
Way more than $20B (Score:2)
There's one EV that's going to eat up a massive chunk of infrastructure improvement for that - the Brightline high speed railway to Vegas. That's an easy $10B alone or more just to make that power distribution network happen.
Your best bet is around $50B as a conservative estimate as to how much it will really cost to outfit CA for EV/solar futures.
between $6 billion and $20 billion (Score:5, Insightful)
So you are saying we could solve the whole fucking problem for a fraction of what Musk paid for Twitter.
Fuck Yea!
I'm starting a tire fire. (Score:1)
Another EV hit-piece (Score:2)
start by implementing dynamic line rating (Score:2)
EV and solar panels (Score:2)
I am trying to combine an article about California have too much solar power (from residences) and the need for vast upgrades to the electrical system.
Maybe change your EV at home?
Re: (Score:2)
Charging the EV at home is a match for work from home. Charging from solar power at night is an issue ;-)
I don't think the nova of T Coronae will be helpful.
Re: (Score:1)
When you store your solar power during daytime, you can use it at night.
Or not uncommon for USA: have two cars, one to charge and one to drive, swap each day...
That cheap? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's just the start (Score:2)
dumb charging vs smart charging (Score:3)
If you go to the PNAS study this is all based on, they make a distinction between smart charging and I'll call it dumb charging. They really only analyze current dumb charging. They assume that the cars can't do anything to smooth the load as a simplifying assumption. The authors of the study say this is a first step, and then proceed to ignore that this is a simplistic assumption. They point out that most cars start charging when they are plugged in. I have my car set up to charge so it's ready at 8am so it may be a bit warmer in the winter before I drive it. That's just a tiny amount smarter. My car is connected to the internet, it could determine when electricity was in lowest demand and charge them -- perhaps the utility could offer an appealing slightly lower time of use charge incentive. I live in NY and rates are tiny between 12 and 8am, which is when I charge. The grid is massively underutilized at all times during that period in NY. California may have a different time that it's underutilized. Without much infrastructure charges at all but some cooperation from the cars the grid utilization can be much smoother than it is now and most grids are set to deliver in the hottest of heat waves in the middle of the day for A/C and have lots of capacity at other times.
The article to make their job easier assumes that charging patterns will not change.
By the way the article observes that electricity costs are likely to go down as a result of EVs because they will shift all electric use to cheaper production which will help even non-EV users.
Paid for by big utilities (Score:1)
Who? (Score:2)
Who? The utilities? Nah, I don't think it's the utilities who will be paying for this, and anyone who thinks it will be only $20B is smoking meth.