BP tosses in towel?...

[Ricketty C]

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 3:29:48 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ricketty Crazy Man wrote:

=============================

( snip piles of utter garbage)

Notice on the chart that only 0.11 million barrels of oil
a day are accounted for by electricity generation. So it
is unlikely increases in EV use will add to the carbon footprint.

Switching to electric vehicles is expected to increase the load on electricity generation by about 30%.

While EVs may ultimately require a 30% increase in generation, it won\'t require any increase in generating capacity because of the huge amounts of idle time of a significant portion of generating capacity.

There may be some increase in peak time usage by EVs, but in the end that may be balanced by or even over compensated for by the reduction in electric usage by the gasoline distribution industry.

So while there may be more electricity being utilized, it won\'t require added capacity. It simply requires more consistent usage of the resources on hand. In the end this lowers the cost of electricity for everyone.


> We don\'t have to burn any fossil carbon to generate electricity (though we do burn quite a lot in power generating plants at the moment) so the effect on the carbon footprint is uncertain.

In the short term most EV charging is done at home at night when the costs are lowest and the free generating capacity (free in both senses of the word since it\'s already there to use, just pay the marginal costs) is sitting idle. This is mostly petroleum or coal and will increase pollution for the short term. As the generating sources change and/or the day time production of solar is stored in batteries to be used at night (who saw that one coming?) the carbon impact will be less.

Charging during the day can be encouraged as solar takes off. However providing a price advantage will be awkward unless it is done for all consumption. Adding extra meters to handle the billing will be costly and homeowners will not want to pay for it. Charging at work will require additions to parking facilities, most of which are presently just sheets of asphalt. That won\'t happen any time soon either.

I suspect the 30% number is not accurate. Taking an average annual mileage number of 12,000 miles and a typical energy consumption of 4 miles per kWh gives 3,000 kWh per year or just over 8 kWh per day. That is only half of my summer usage and I didn\'t turn on the AC this summer. Factor in that most people see their bills double or triple in the summer and those with heat pumps increase in the winter, none of which accounts for the commercial sector\'s electricity usage.

I\'d like to see some numbers that show EVs using 30% of the current generation total. Just as many have said that there will not need to be any distribution infrastructure changes from EV home charging, I find it implausible that EVs will suck up 30% of the generation capacity or that it will require anything to be added other than site specific changes.


> What is certain is the burning gasoline derived from crude oil is responsible for quite a bit of our carbon footprint, and that going over to electric vehicles would let us reduce it, if we went to the trouble of getting most of our electric power from renewable sources (which is not something that the fossil carbon extraction industry wants to happen) .

It will also require coordination of charging with production unless we want to charge batteries so the car batteries can be charged when convenient.

I expect it will encourage people to install solar at home. If I had 2 kW on my house it would take care of my charging needs and also provide excess for the house. I might not need to use net metering at all. That\'s a low enough figure that between charging the car and supplying the house it will all get used up without involving the utility to act as my capacitor. Add a small battery, say 10 kWh and I might not need to buy power from the utility until it gets cold.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 1:12:12 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 3:29:48 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ricketty Crazy Man wrote:

=============================

( snip piles of utter garbage)

Notice on the chart that only 0.11 million barrels of oil
a day are accounted for by electricity generation. So it
is unlikely increases in EV use will add to the carbon footprint.

Switching to electric vehicles is expected to increase the load on electricity generation by about 30%.
While EVs may ultimately require a 30% increase in generation, it won\'t require any increase in generating capacity because of the huge amounts of idle time of a significant portion of generating capacity.

In Australia, this reflects the fact that solar farms and wind turbines can produce more power - at times - than electricity users want to consume, and so far - there isn\'t enough grid storage available to soak it up until it is needed. Electric cars needing a recharge would be useful customers in this context, but so far there aren\'t nearly enough of them to make much difference.

> There may be some increase in peak time usage by EVs, but in the end that may be balanced by or even over compensated for by the reduction in electric usage by the gasoline distribution industry.

Electric vehicles don\'t load the grid when they are being used, only when being recharged, and since cars spend 95% of their time parked, the recharging time could be moved around to suit the grid, and probably will be as soon as there are enough of them to make worth making the effort.

> So while there may be more electricity being utilized, it won\'t require added capacity.

It might not require added capacity, but that does depend where the power is coming from.

> It simply requires more consistent usage of the resources on hand. In the end this lowers the cost of electricity for everyone.

It would be good if it could be regulated to place the extra load at times when it was easy to deal with, but getting to be able to do that might be simple, but won\'t be trivial.

We don\'t have to burn any fossil carbon to generate electricity (though we do burn quite a lot in power generating plants at the moment) so the effect on the carbon footprint is uncertain.

In the short term most EV charging is done at home at night when the costs are lowest and the free generating capacity (free in both senses of the word since it\'s already there to use, just pay the marginal costs) is sitting idle. This is mostly petroleum or coal and will increase pollution for the short term. As the generating sources change and/or the day time production of solar is stored in batteries to be used at night (who saw that one coming?) the carbon impact will be less.

Setting up commuter parking so that electric cars can be charged up when the sun is shining is another option - probably a better one, and one that will have quite a lot of popular support, at least from people who know about anthropogenic gloal warming. The fossil carbon extraction industry is trying to make as many people as possible ignorant about this and their efforts have certainly worked on some of the people who post here.

> Charging during the day can be encouraged as solar takes off. However providing a price advantage will be awkward unless it is done for all consumption. Adding extra meters to handle the billing will be costly

Not very costly at all. It\'s just smarter meters, and electricity companies can already make enough money out of them to pay for them themselves.

> and homeowners will not want to pay for it.

They may not have to. It may help the generating business enough to persuade them to pay for it.

> Charging at work will require additions to parking facilities, most of which are presently just sheets of asphalt. That won\'t happen any time soon either.

Your crystal ball probably needs to be updated - it doesn\'t seem to be looking at a particularly likely future right now.

> I suspect the 30% number is not accurate.

You can suspect all you like. I told you where I got the number from when I first posted it, and it\'s probably a more relaible source than your intuitions.

> Taking an average annual mileage number of 12,000 miles and a typical energy consumption of 4 miles per kWh gives 3,000 kWh per year or just over 8 kWh per day. That is only half of my summer usage and I didn\'t turn on the AC this summer. Factor in that most people see their bills double or triple in the summer and those with heat pumps increase in the winter, none of which accounts for the commercial sector\'s electricity usage.

Not exactly a useful input.

> I\'d like to see some numbers that show EVs using 30% of the current generation total.

You did, but you\'ve forgotten about it.

> Just as many have said that there will not need to be any distribution infrastructure changes from EV home charging, I find it implausible that EVs will suck up 30% of the generation capacity or that it will require anything to be added other than site specific changes.

The distribution infrastructure has been changing more or less continuously since it was put in to support domestic electric lights. It\'s pretty flexible.

What is certain is the burning gasoline derived from crude oil is responsible for quite a bit of our carbon footprint, and that going over to electric vehicles would let us reduce it, if we went to the trouble of getting most of our electric power from renewable sources (which is not something that the fossil carbon extraction industry wants to happen) .

It will also require coordination of charging with production unless we want to charge batteries so the car batteries can be charged when convenient..

Non-dispatchable renewable power sources need grid storage. Pumped hydro is one way of getting it. Stacks of Tesla car batteries do the job in South Australia. The same batteries in parked electric cars is another option. There are others.

> I expect it will encourage people to install solar at home. If I had 2 kW on my house it would take care of my charging needs and also provide excess for the house. I might not need to use net metering at all. That\'s a low enough figure that between charging the car and supplying the house it will all get used up without involving the utility to act as my capacitor. Add a small battery, say 10 kWh and I might not need to buy power from the utility until it gets cold.

Roof-top solar plus a battery is an increasingly popular option in Australia. It was 12% of the roof-top solar market in 2017.

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/Inputs-Assumptions-Methodologies/2019/2019-Projections-for-Small-Scale-Embedded-Technologies-Report-by-CSIRO.pdf

discusses this sort of stuff in great detail, but hasn\'t got any kind of clear take-away message, beyond the fact they aren\'t willing to stick their necks out at all.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[boB]

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 08:33:00 -0700 (PDT), Ricketty C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:24:17 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 11:37:05 PM UTC-4, boB wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 21:44:29 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

On 2020-09-23, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:49:32 -0700 (PDT), Ricketty C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 12:45:39 PM UTC-4, Ricketty C wrote:
On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:53:19 AM UTC-4, boB wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 21:14:52 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:04:33 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:05:27 -0700, Robert Baer
rober...@localnet.com> wrote:

Today, (Sep 16) global energy giant BP (BP) wrapped up its three-day
investor event, in which it \"said the relentless growth of oil demand is
over, becoming the first supermajor to call the end of an era many
thought would last another decade or more.\" This is a big deal, as this
Bloomberg article highlights: BP [...]
I guess they want us (and the car-buying and house-lighting folks in
India and Africa and South America) to buy our oil and gas somewhere
else. We can do that.

But you need a different plant to burn it on. You should emigrate to Venus, where global warming has already run its course.

What you ought to do is fuel your electric cars with renewable energy generated by windmills and solar panels, and heat your houses with reverse cycle air-conditioners, also powered from renewable sources.

The fossil carbon extraction industry would lose a lot of it\'s income when that happened, and they want to put it off as long as possible. One of the ways they do that is by spending a lot of money on climate change denial propaganda. There\'s a whole industry devoted to doing this kind of work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

The output isn\'t all that plausible but there are enough gullible twits like you to make it worth doing. As Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time.


I think that long haul trucks still use quite a bit of fossil fuels
along with lots of jets and ships. It will be quite a quite a while I
think before we are anywhere near where we need to be to reduce
emissions to make a dent.

I think you are in denial or at least lacking accurate facts. In 2018 gasoline production accounted for 9.3 million barrels of oil a day. Fuel oil was 4.1 million. Jet fuel was 1.7 million. So auto use dominates. I believe we can put a pretty sizable dent in this with EVs, both autos and trucks. The trucking industry is focused on costs like most. EVs present lower operating costs and will be worth swapping out fleets of vehicles to get those lower costs. It won\'t happen over night because there will need to be infrastructure built specifically for trucks. But there are no fundamental obstacles and it will happen. By 2030 the majority of trucks on the road will be quiet, non-poluting EVs mostly charged by renewable resources.

Notice on the chart that only 0.11 million barrels of oil a day are accounted for by electricity generation. So it is unlikely increases in EV use will add to the carbon footprint.


This, I believe, (in my possibly wrong opinion) is where capitalism
can and is helping to further the renewable energy way of the future
because they will be rewarded for their efforts. Enough people do
understand the necessity of buying and using the RE produts and it
makes them feel good about \"helping the planet\". The guvnmnt isn\'t
going to pay for it all. Maybe some though.

There is no real need for considering the ecological benefits of EVs to justify buying EVs. They are on the cusp at the moment, with Tesla claiming lower cost of ownership for EVs. Going forward as battery costs drop it will become clear that EVs are a less expensive means of personal transportation and a MUCH less expensive means of commercial transportation. The government isn\'t paying anyone to buy Teslas anymore. Tesla has reached a point of independence where they are competing head to head with ICE manufacturers and winning. The ICE manufacturers completely get this and are working feverishly to catch up and establish their positions in the race.

By 2025 people won\'t be having these discussions anymore. It will be about whether Chevy, Ford, VW, Honda or Tesla is going to build the EV in your driveway. Even JL will have an EV because California will impose a $2,000 a year ICE tax. I could be wrong about that. It could be $5,000 a year.

Forgot the link...

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/petroleum.pdf



Which of those categories are diesel for trucking transportation ?

Diesel ia a type of engine, not a type of petroleum. Distillate is
what they put in the tank.


Diesel fuel comes from crude oil.

Most diesel fuel comes from crude oil. But some diesel fuel comes from algae and from used cooking oil.

Dan

Yes, the chart shows an input \"other liquid products supplied\" - \"(s)=Less than 0.005 and greater than -0.005.\". The numbers are millions of barrels per day. So not so much compared to crude oil and other high volume sources, <5,000 barrels a day.

Diesel from French Fries smells best

 

[Ricketty C]

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:58:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 1:12:12 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 3:29:48 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ricketty Crazy Man wrote:

=============================

( snip piles of utter garbage)

Notice on the chart that only 0.11 million barrels of oil
a day are accounted for by electricity generation. So it
is unlikely increases in EV use will add to the carbon footprint..

Switching to electric vehicles is expected to increase the load on electricity generation by about 30%.
While EVs may ultimately require a 30% increase in generation, it won\'t require any increase in generating capacity because of the huge amounts of idle time of a significant portion of generating capacity.

In Australia, this reflects the fact that solar farms and wind turbines can produce more power - at times - than electricity users want to consume, and so far - there isn\'t enough grid storage available to soak it up until it is needed. Electric cars needing a recharge would be useful customers in this context, but so far there aren\'t nearly enough of them to make much difference.

Timing is also important. As I mentioned there are not enough charging facilities where the cars are during the day, mostly at work.

There may be some increase in peak time usage by EVs, but in the end that may be balanced by or even over compensated for by the reduction in electric usage by the gasoline distribution industry.

Electric vehicles don\'t load the grid when they are being used, only when being recharged, and since cars spend 95% of their time parked, the recharging time could be moved around to suit the grid, and probably will be as soon as there are enough of them to make worth making the effort.

They have to be parked somewhere they can be charged. You can talk about what is possible, but there is little incentive for employers to provide charging. Also, like homeowners many locations aren\'t amenable to adding charging. Too many employees and too much congestion. How many chargers does Tesla provide??? That\'s a real clue to what employers will be doing. If not Tesla, then who?

So while there may be more electricity being utilized, it won\'t require added capacity.

It might not require added capacity, but that does depend where the power is coming from.

It simply requires more consistent usage of the resources on hand. In the end this lowers the cost of electricity for everyone.

It would be good if it could be regulated to place the extra load at times when it was easy to deal with, but getting to be able to do that might be simple, but won\'t be trivial.

I think you just said this is a problem that needs addressing (or will need addressing). I think it is less of a problem than the 30% (fake news?) number indicates, but that is not to say no problem at all.

We don\'t have to burn any fossil carbon to generate electricity (though we do burn quite a lot in power generating plants at the moment) so the effect on the carbon footprint is uncertain.

In the short term most EV charging is done at home at night when the costs are lowest and the free generating capacity (free in both senses of the word since it\'s already there to use, just pay the marginal costs) is sitting idle. This is mostly petroleum or coal and will increase pollution for the short term. As the generating sources change and/or the day time production of solar is stored in batteries to be used at night (who saw that one coming?) the carbon impact will be less.

Setting up commuter parking so that electric cars can be charged up when the sun is shining is another option - probably a better one, and one that will have quite a lot of popular support, at least from people who know about anthropogenic gloal warming. The fossil carbon extraction industry is trying to make as many people as possible ignorant about this and their efforts have certainly worked on some of the people who post here.

\"Popular support\".... does that mean the government will pay to put it in? Will they make the utilities install charging? While it would not be expensive per car really, since level 2 charging will do nicely, the aggregate amount will be considerable. Employers simply won\'t do it on their own.

Charging during the day can be encouraged as solar takes off. However providing a price advantage will be awkward unless it is done for all consumption. Adding extra meters to handle the billing will be costly

Not very costly at all. It\'s just smarter meters, and electricity companies can already make enough money out of them to pay for them themselves.

\"Smarter meters\"??? I don\'t know where you work, but most places provide parking and won\'t be willing to greatly increase this cost. Maybe Australia is different from the US and employers put meters in their parking lots.

and homeowners will not want to pay for it.

They may not have to. It may help the generating business enough to persuade them to pay for it.

Not likely I think, but possible. If they really thought there was money in it, they would be working on that now. Instead other than Tesla the auto makers are dragging their heels and they have the most to gain from public meters.

I just realized the auto makers are losing out on this side of the EV market. While making cars may be their bread and butter, making money on charging is a continuing profit center. If they develop a market for charging that will be continuing cash flow.

I don\'t see utilities getting into this unless they are forced to. They will be happy to be part of the problem though with various rate structures to make the chargers less profitable.

Charging at work will require additions to parking facilities, most of which are presently just sheets of asphalt. That won\'t happen any time soon either.

Your crystal ball probably needs to be updated - it doesn\'t seem to be looking at a particularly likely future right now.

Not sure what you are talking about. If you want charging at work the charging has to be added. Virtually no one supports that presently. What are you seeing?

I suspect the 30% number is not accurate.

You can suspect all you like. I told you where I got the number from when I first posted it, and it\'s probably a more relaible source than your intuitions.

I don\'t care what you posted some months ago that I can\'t find. The numbers are not hard to come up with as I have shown. Simple math really, showing 30% is wrong.

Taking an average annual mileage number of 12,000 miles and a typical energy consumption of 4 miles per kWh gives 3,000 kWh per year or just over 8 kWh per day. That is only half of my summer usage and I didn\'t turn on the AC this summer. Factor in that most people see their bills double or triple in the summer and those with heat pumps increase in the winter, none of which accounts for the commercial sector\'s electricity usage.

Not exactly a useful input.

I\'d like to see some numbers that show EVs using 30% of the current generation total.

You did, but you\'ve forgotten about it.

Just as many have said that there will not need to be any distribution infrastructure changes from EV home charging, I find it implausible that EVs will suck up 30% of the generation capacity or that it will require anything to be added other than site specific changes.

The distribution infrastructure has been changing more or less continuously since it was put in to support domestic electric lights. It\'s pretty flexible.

What is certain is the burning gasoline derived from crude oil is responsible for quite a bit of our carbon footprint, and that going over to electric vehicles would let us reduce it, if we went to the trouble of getting most of our electric power from renewable sources (which is not something that the fossil carbon extraction industry wants to happen) .

It will also require coordination of charging with production unless we want to charge batteries so the car batteries can be charged when convenient.

Non-dispatchable renewable power sources need grid storage. Pumped hydro is one way of getting it. Stacks of Tesla car batteries do the job in South Australia. The same batteries in parked electric cars is another option. There are others.

Just like other hydro, pumped has geographical limitations. Not the best solution really. The obvious solution for solar is to make day time charging the norm when the sun shines. Also using the reserve capacity at night.

It will be a while before we have to worry about it though.

I expect it will encourage people to install solar at home. If I had 2 kW on my house it would take care of my charging needs and also provide excess for the house. I might not need to use net metering at all. That\'s a low enough figure that between charging the car and supplying the house it will all get used up without involving the utility to act as my capacitor. Add a small battery, say 10 kWh and I might not need to buy power from the utility until it gets cold.

Roof-top solar plus a battery is an increasingly popular option in Australia. It was 12% of the roof-top solar market in 2017.

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/Inputs-Assumptions-Methodologies/2019/2019-Projections-for-Small-Scale-Embedded-Technologies-Report-by-CSIRO.pdf

discusses this sort of stuff in great detail, but hasn\'t got any kind of clear take-away message, beyond the fact they aren\'t willing to stick their necks out at all.

This is an industry that is finding its footing. It will take time. While there has been a lot of press about renewables, the progress is only large relative to past progress. It\'s still a very small part of the grid in most places.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 6:33:02 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:58:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 1:12:12 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 3:29:48 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ricketty Crazy Man wrote:

=============================

( snip piles of utter garbage)

Notice on the chart that only 0.11 million barrels of oil
a day are accounted for by electricity generation. So it
is unlikely increases in EV use will add to the carbon footprint.

Switching to electric vehicles is expected to increase the load on electricity generation by about 30%.
While EVs may ultimately require a 30% increase in generation, it won\'t require any increase in generating capacity because of the huge amounts of idle time of a significant portion of generating capacity.

In Australia, this reflects the fact that solar farms and wind turbines can produce more power - at times - than electricity users want to consume, and so far - there isn\'t enough grid storage available to soak it up until it is needed. Electric cars needing a recharge would be useful customers in this context, but so far there aren\'t nearly enough of them to make much difference.
Timing is also important. As I mentioned there are not enough charging facilities where the cars are during the day, mostly at work.

That\'s fairly easy to fix.

There may be some increase in peak time usage by EVs, but in the end that may be balanced by or even over compensated for by the reduction in electric usage by the gasoline distribution industry.

Electric vehicles don\'t load the grid when they are being used, only when being recharged, and since cars spend 95% of their time parked, the recharging time could be moved around to suit the grid, and probably will be as soon as there are enough of them to make worth making the effort.
They have to be parked somewhere they can be charged. You can talk about what is possible, but there is little incentive for employers to provide charging.

They wouldn\'t have to pay for the current. Providing the extra wiring in the car park wouldn\'t be a big deal, and employers have an interest in keeping their employees happy.

> Also, like homeowners many locations aren\'t amenable to adding charging. Too many employees and too much congestion. How many chargers does Tesla provide??? That\'s a real clue to what employers will be doing. If not Tesla, then who?

Tesla provides super-chargers, which can charge cars fast. Charging in the parking lot can take hours, which calls for much cheaper equipment.

So while there may be more electricity being utilized, it won\'t require added capacity.

It might not require added capacity, but that does depend where the power is coming from.

It simply requires more consistent usage of the resources on hand. In the end this lowers the cost of electricity for everyone.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/01/09/electric-cars-will-challenge-state-power-grids

They talk about a 38% increase in generating capacity.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/26/national-grid-fossil-fuel-vehicle-ban-electric-cars-is-there-enough-electricity-

talks about needing an extra 18GW (on top of existing capacity of 60GW) to deal with a fully electric UK car fleet in 2050.

It would be good if it could be regulated to place the extra load at times when it was easy to deal with, but getting to be able to do that might be simple, but won\'t be trivial.

I think you just said this is a problem that needs addressing (or will need addressing). I think it is less of a problem than the 30% (fake news?) number indicates, but that is not to say no problem at all.

It wasn\'t a fake news number when I first found it, and it still seems to be in the right ball park, though it takes quite a lot of work to find useful links.

We don\'t have to burn any fossil carbon to generate electricity (though we do burn quite a lot in power generating plants at the moment) so the effect on the carbon footprint is uncertain.

In the short term most EV charging is done at home at night when the costs are lowest and the free generating capacity (free in both senses of the word since it\'s already there to use, just pay the marginal costs) is sitting idle. This is mostly petroleum or coal and will increase pollution for the short term. As the generating sources change and/or the day time production of solar is stored in batteries to be used at night (who saw that one coming?) the carbon impact will be less.

Setting up commuter parking so that electric cars can be charged up when the sun is shining is another option - probably a better one, and one that will have quite a lot of popular support, at least from people who know about anthropogenic gloal warming. The fossil carbon extraction industry is trying to make as many people as possible ignorant about this and their efforts have certainly worked on some of the people who post here.

\"Popular support\".... does that mean the government will pay to put it in?

Not usually.

>Will they make the utilities install charging?

Why should they? You have to pay an electrician to wire up your house, and adding a charging socket in your garage or next to your drive would something you\'d have to pay for to. It wouldn\'t be all that expensive.

While it would not be expensive per car really, since level 2 charging will do nicely, the aggregate amount will be considerable. Employers simply won\'t do it on their own.
Charging during the day can be encouraged as solar takes off. However providing a price advantage will be awkward unless it is done for all consumption. Adding extra meters to handle the billing will be costly

Not very costly at all. It\'s just smarter meters, and electricity companies can already make enough money out of them to pay for them themselves.

\"Smarter meters\"??? I don\'t know where you work, but most places provide parking and won\'t be willing to greatly increase this cost.

Owning or renting the land - or space - where the cars get parked is going to cost them a lot more. Adding charging points would add to their value.
It\'s an investment.

> Maybe Australia is different from the US and employers put meters in their parking lots.

Not yet. Hardly any demand so far.

and homeowners will not want to pay for it.

They may not have to. It may help the generating business enough to persuade them to pay for it.

Not likely I think, but possible. If they really thought there was money in it, they would be working on that now. Instead other than Tesla the auto makers are dragging their heels and they have the most to gain from public meters.

It\'s the power generating companies that have most to gain.

> I just realized the auto makers are losing out on this side of the EV market. While making cars may be their bread and butter, making money on charging is a continuing profit center. If they develop a market for charging that will be continuing cash flow.

Keeping thinking about the subject for a bit longer. Eventually you may catch up with what

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

was saying back in 2008, and has kept on being said since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

> I don\'t see utilities getting into this unless they are forced to. They will be happy to be part of the problem though with various rate structures to make the chargers less profitable.

You do need to upgrade your crystal ball.

Charging at work will require additions to parking facilities, most of which are presently just sheets of asphalt. That won\'t happen any time soon either.

Your crystal ball probably needs to be updated - it doesn\'t seem to be looking at a particularly likely future right now.

Not sure what you are talking about. If you want charging at work the charging has to be added. Virtually no one supports that presently. What are you seeing?
I suspect the 30% number is not accurate.

You can suspect all you like. I told you where I got the number from when I first posted it, and it\'s probably a more reliable source than your intuitions.
I don\'t care what you posted some months ago that I can\'t find. The numbers are not hard to come up with as I have shown. Simple math really, showing 30% is wrong.
Taking an average annual mileage number of 12,000 miles and a typical energy consumption of 4 miles per kWh gives 3,000 kWh per year or just over 8 kWh per day. That is only half of my summer usage and I didn\'t turn on the AC this summer. Factor in that most people see their bills double or triple in the summer and those with heat pumps increase in the winter, none of which accounts for the commercial sector\'s electricity usage.

Not exactly a useful input.

I\'d like to see some numbers that show EVs using 30% of the current generation total.

You did, but you\'ve forgotten about it.

Just as many have said that there will not need to be any distribution infrastructure changes from EV home charging, I find it implausible that EVs will suck up 30% of the generation capacity or that it will require anything to be added other than site specific changes.

The distribution infrastructure has been changing more or less continuously since it was put in to support domestic electric lights. It\'s pretty flexible.

What is certain is the burning gasoline derived from crude oil is responsible for quite a bit of our carbon footprint, and that going over to electric vehicles would let us reduce it, if we went to the trouble of getting most of our electric power from renewable sources (which is not something that the fossil carbon extraction industry wants to happen) .

It will also require coordination of charging with production unless we want to charge batteries so the car batteries can be charged when convenient.

Non-dispatchable renewable power sources need grid storage. Pumped hydro is one way of getting it. Stacks of Tesla car batteries do the job in South Australia. The same batteries in parked electric cars is another option. There are others.

Just like other hydro, pumped has geographical limitations. Not the best solution really.

And your \"best solution\" is?

The obvious solution for solar is to make day time charging the norm when the sun shines. Also using the reserve capacity at night.

It will be a while before we have to worry about it though.

I expect it will encourage people to install solar at home. If I had 2 kW on my house it would take care of my charging needs and also provide excess for the house. I might not need to use net metering at all. That\'s a low enough figure that between charging the car and supplying the house it will all get used up without involving the utility to act as my capacitor. Add a small battery, say 10 kWh and I might not need to buy power from the utility until it gets cold.

Roof-top solar plus a battery is an increasingly popular option in Australia. It was 12% of the roof-top solar market in 2017.

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/Inputs-Assumptions-Methodologies/2019/2019-Projections-for-Small-Scale-Embedded-Technologies-Report-by-CSIRO.pdf

discusses this sort of stuff in great detail, but hasn\'t got any kind of clear take-away message, beyond the fact they aren\'t willing to stick their necks out at all.

This is an industry that is finding its footing. It will take time. While there has been a lot of press about renewables, the progress is only large relative to past progress. It\'s still a very small part of the grid in most places.

There are places where it supplies all the power generated - on good days. Denmark is about 45% wind-powered, and aiming to get to 85%.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Saturday, 26 September 2020 at 01:33:02 UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:
....
> They have to be parked somewhere they can be charged. You can talk about what is possible, but there is little incentive for employers to provide charging. Also, like homeowners many locations aren\'t amenable to adding charging. Too many employees and too much congestion. How many chargers does Tesla provide??? That\'s a real clue to what employers will be doing. If not Tesla, then who?

At Apple we have a couple of thousand Chargepoint charging stations for employees with more planned.

Many other companies such as Intel and Google also provide them.

kw

 

[Ricketty C]

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 9:05:26 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 6:33:02 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:58:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 1:12:12 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 3:29:48 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ricketty Crazy Man wrote:

=============================

( snip piles of utter garbage)

Notice on the chart that only 0.11 million barrels of oil
a day are accounted for by electricity generation. So it
is unlikely increases in EV use will add to the carbon footprint.

Switching to electric vehicles is expected to increase the load on electricity generation by about 30%.
While EVs may ultimately require a 30% increase in generation, it won\'t require any increase in generating capacity because of the huge amounts of idle time of a significant portion of generating capacity.

In Australia, this reflects the fact that solar farms and wind turbines can produce more power - at times - than electricity users want to consume, and so far - there isn\'t enough grid storage available to soak it up until it is needed. Electric cars needing a recharge would be useful customers in this context, but so far there aren\'t nearly enough of them to make much difference.
Timing is also important. As I mentioned there are not enough charging facilities where the cars are during the day, mostly at work.

That\'s fairly easy to fix.
There may be some increase in peak time usage by EVs, but in the end that may be balanced by or even over compensated for by the reduction in electric usage by the gasoline distribution industry.

Electric vehicles don\'t load the grid when they are being used, only when being recharged, and since cars spend 95% of their time parked, the recharging time could be moved around to suit the grid, and probably will be as soon as there are enough of them to make worth making the effort.
They have to be parked somewhere they can be charged. You can talk about what is possible, but there is little incentive for employers to provide charging.

They wouldn\'t have to pay for the current. Providing the extra wiring in the car park wouldn\'t be a big deal, and employers have an interest in keeping their employees happy.

If they don\'t pay for the current they have to contract with someone to provide the setup. That is not something employers want to mess with. They prefer to run their businesses. We are a long way from there being any significant demand by employees to have charging available at work when they can just charge at home.

The more you talk about this the more I realize it will be a longer way off than I thought.

Also, like homeowners many locations aren\'t amenable to adding charging.. Too many employees and too much congestion. How many chargers does Tesla provide??? That\'s a real clue to what employers will be doing. If not Tesla, then who?

Tesla provides super-chargers, which can charge cars fast. Charging in the parking lot can take hours, which calls for much cheaper equipment.

Level 2 charging is around $1k per unit installed. When was the last time a company spent that much money on employees? Many companies won\'t give people offices because they cost too much. So they get cubes, a phone and the cheapest computer they can get away with.

The company could save money by allowing a third party to install expensive charging that none of the employees will use because they can charge at home for a fraction of the price.

So while there may be more electricity being utilized, it won\'t require added capacity.

It might not require added capacity, but that does depend where the power is coming from.

It simply requires more consistent usage of the resources on hand. In the end this lowers the cost of electricity for everyone.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/01/09/electric-cars-will-challenge-state-power-grids

They talk about a 38% increase in generating capacity.

Yes, they talk about it but they don\'t say it is required. They are speculating a demand on top of the peak load. As I have said a million times nearly all EV charging can be done at off peak times which uses wasted, idle peak capacity.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/26/national-grid-fossil-fuel-vehicle-ban-electric-cars-is-there-enough-electricity-

talks about needing an extra 18GW (on top of existing capacity of 60GW) to deal with a fully electric UK car fleet in 2050.

Yup, 18 GW that can be provided for the cost of the fuel by charging at night.

The big problem is that both of these reports conflate energy generation with power capacity. As you well know the two are not the same.

It would be good if it could be regulated to place the extra load at times when it was easy to deal with, but getting to be able to do that might be simple, but won\'t be trivial.

I think you just said this is a problem that needs addressing (or will need addressing). I think it is less of a problem than the 30% (fake news?) number indicates, but that is not to say no problem at all.

It wasn\'t a fake news number when I first found it, and it still seems to be in the right ball park, though it takes quite a lot of work to find useful links.

It doesn\'t stand up to the basic math test. It only takes some basic calculations to show the number is far below 30%.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

4.118 Billion kWh in 2019 for the total US.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1905.cfm

3.225 Trillion Miles In 2018

3,225 Billion miles / 4 mi/kWh = 806 billion kWh or

806 / 4,118 = 19.6%

How does less than 20% turn into 30%???

Even if you change the mileage number to 3 miles/kWh that gives about 25%, still far from 30%.

We don\'t have to burn any fossil carbon to generate electricity (though we do burn quite a lot in power generating plants at the moment) so the effect on the carbon footprint is uncertain.

In the short term most EV charging is done at home at night when the costs are lowest and the free generating capacity (free in both senses of the word since it\'s already there to use, just pay the marginal costs) is sitting idle. This is mostly petroleum or coal and will increase pollution for the short term. As the generating sources change and/or the day time production of solar is stored in batteries to be used at night (who saw that one coming?) the carbon impact will be less.

Setting up commuter parking so that electric cars can be charged up when the sun is shining is another option - probably a better one, and one that will have quite a lot of popular support, at least from people who know about anthropogenic gloal warming. The fossil carbon extraction industry is trying to make as many people as possible ignorant about this and their efforts have certainly worked on some of the people who post here.

\"Popular support\".... does that mean the government will pay to put it in?

Not usually.

Will they make the utilities install charging?

Why should they? You have to pay an electrician to wire up your house, and adding a charging socket in your garage or next to your drive would something you\'d have to pay for to. It wouldn\'t be all that expensive.

It is also irrelevant to the issue of \"commuter parking\".

While it would not be expensive per car really, since level 2 charging will do nicely, the aggregate amount will be considerable. Employers simply won\'t do it on their own.
Charging during the day can be encouraged as solar takes off. However providing a price advantage will be awkward unless it is done for all consumption. Adding extra meters to handle the billing will be costly

Not very costly at all. It\'s just smarter meters, and electricity companies can already make enough money out of them to pay for them themselves..

\"Smarter meters\"??? I don\'t know where you work, but most places provide parking and won\'t be willing to greatly increase this cost.

Owning or renting the land - or space - where the cars get parked is going to cost them a lot more. Adding charging points would add to their value.
It\'s an investment.

Lol!!! There are LOTS of investments. Burying money in car park charging is not one with much of a pay off.

Please stop be ridiculous about this. Companies won\'t buy car charging equipment unless there is a direct pay out even if it is in the form of employee happiness. But it has to be something employees need and ask for. Being able to charge at home is something they already have and doesn\'t require so many other parties to be involved with.

Maybe Australia is different from the US and employers put meters in their parking lots.

Not yet. Hardly any demand so far.

Bingo. Much demand will not develop. The only motivation will be lower electricity costs. The employer won\'t see that since the other alternative is to have zero costs. The employees won\'t see it because there\'s no real option for them to pay it other than through expensive third parties which defeat the point of the low cost day time electricity.

and homeowners will not want to pay for it.

They may not have to. It may help the generating business enough to persuade them to pay for it.

Not likely I think, but possible. If they really thought there was money in it, they would be working on that now. Instead other than Tesla the auto makers are dragging their heels and they have the most to gain from public meters.

It\'s the power generating companies that have most to gain.

If you mean the main stream power companies, not so much. They want to see people using their non-dispatchable energy sources at night as well as their underutilized dispatchable energy sources allowing better amortization.

It would be the solar generators that want to encourage day time charging. That will require them to either be more vertically integrated providing the end point charging facilities or getting involved in legislation which is often not good for anyone else.

I just realized the auto makers are losing out on this side of the EV market. While making cars may be their bread and butter, making money on charging is a continuing profit center. If they develop a market for charging that will be continuing cash flow.

Keeping thinking about the subject for a bit longer. Eventually you may catch up with what

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

was saying back in 2008, and has kept on being said since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

I don\'t see utilities getting into this unless they are forced to. They will be happy to be part of the problem though with various rate structures to make the chargers less profitable.

You do need to upgrade your crystal ball.

Actually, it provides a very realistic view. Utilities are limited to the extent of their businesses... they are a legal monopoly after all. As I\'ve pointed out above traditional utilities have a disincentive to discourage overnight charging because of their existing power generation base. The best we can expect from them is to provide economic incentives for overnight charging.

Charging at work will require additions to parking facilities, most of which are presently just sheets of asphalt. That won\'t happen any time soon either.

Your crystal ball probably needs to be updated - it doesn\'t seem to be looking at a particularly likely future right now.

Not sure what you are talking about. If you want charging at work the charging has to be added. Virtually no one supports that presently. What are you seeing?
I suspect the 30% number is not accurate.

You can suspect all you like. I told you where I got the number from when I first posted it, and it\'s probably a more reliable source than your intuitions.
I don\'t care what you posted some months ago that I can\'t find. The numbers are not hard to come up with as I have shown. Simple math really, showing 30% is wrong.
Taking an average annual mileage number of 12,000 miles and a typical energy consumption of 4 miles per kWh gives 3,000 kWh per year or just over 8 kWh per day. That is only half of my summer usage and I didn\'t turn on the AC this summer. Factor in that most people see their bills double or triple in the summer and those with heat pumps increase in the winter, none of which accounts for the commercial sector\'s electricity usage.

Not exactly a useful input.

I\'d like to see some numbers that show EVs using 30% of the current generation total.

You did, but you\'ve forgotten about it.

Just as many have said that there will not need to be any distribution infrastructure changes from EV home charging, I find it implausible that EVs will suck up 30% of the generation capacity or that it will require anything to be added other than site specific changes.

The distribution infrastructure has been changing more or less continuously since it was put in to support domestic electric lights. It\'s pretty flexible.

What is certain is the burning gasoline derived from crude oil is responsible for quite a bit of our carbon footprint, and that going over to electric vehicles would let us reduce it, if we went to the trouble of getting most of our electric power from renewable sources (which is not something that the fossil carbon extraction industry wants to happen) .

It will also require coordination of charging with production unless we want to charge batteries so the car batteries can be charged when convenient.

Non-dispatchable renewable power sources need grid storage. Pumped hydro is one way of getting it. Stacks of Tesla car batteries do the job in South Australia. The same batteries in parked electric cars is another option. There are others.

Just like other hydro, pumped has geographical limitations. Not the best solution really.

And your \"best solution\" is?

Ok, not a universal solution... ok? It can\'t be any solution if it is not available due to geographic issues.

The obvious solution for solar is to make day time charging the norm when the sun shines. Also using the reserve capacity at night.

It will be a while before we have to worry about it though.

I expect it will encourage people to install solar at home. If I had 2 kW on my house it would take care of my charging needs and also provide excess for the house. I might not need to use net metering at all. That\'s a low enough figure that between charging the car and supplying the house it will all get used up without involving the utility to act as my capacitor.. Add a small battery, say 10 kWh and I might not need to buy power from the utility until it gets cold.

Roof-top solar plus a battery is an increasingly popular option in Australia. It was 12% of the roof-top solar market in 2017.

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/Inputs-Assumptions-Methodologies/2019/2019-Projections-for-Small-Scale-Embedded-Technologies-Report-by-CSIRO.pdf

discusses this sort of stuff in great detail, but hasn\'t got any kind of clear take-away message, beyond the fact they aren\'t willing to stick their necks out at all.

This is an industry that is finding its footing. It will take time. While there has been a lot of press about renewables, the progress is only large relative to past progress. It\'s still a very small part of the grid in most places.

There are places where it supplies all the power generated - on good days.. Denmark is about 45% wind-powered, and aiming to get to 85%.

Yes, countries smaller than most US states. It would be the tenth smallest and around the mid point is size. Considering they have so much sea shore where wind power works very well, this is not unexpected.

None of this is at all relevant to other places where the geography is not so accommodating.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricketty C]

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 2:37:44 PM UTC-4, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:

On Saturday, 26 September 2020 at 01:33:02 UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:
...
They have to be parked somewhere they can be charged. You can talk about what is possible, but there is little incentive for employers to provide charging. Also, like homeowners many locations aren\'t amenable to adding charging. Too many employees and too much congestion. How many chargers does Tesla provide??? That\'s a real clue to what employers will be doing. If not Tesla, then who?

At Apple we have a couple of thousand Chargepoint charging stations for employees with more planned.

Many other companies such as Intel and Google also provide them.

kw

That\'s great. That\'s 2,000 out of 137,000... not bad for a start.

Who pays for the juice? I understand they cost between 40 and 80 cents per kwh or some 4 to 8 times what it costs at home. I think they actually bill by the minute, so how do that handle disconnecting to keep the bill down?

That\'s one issue with charging nearly any car other than a Tesla. Tesla rates are about twice the cost of charging at home, but everyone else is twice that again or even higher. By the time you pay for the service that provides the electricity, EVs aren\'t economical anymore... other than a Tesla.

That\'s a big reason why I didn\'t buy a Bolt. I asked about charging and the salesperson said something to the effect that, \"charging happens\" meaning GM has nothing to do with it. And they wonder why they aren\'t selling EVs.. Once they figure it out they may do better. Even if you plan to charge at home, people won\'t buy a car if they don\'t see clear paths for fueling.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 1:04:46 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 9:05:26 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 6:33:02 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:58:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 1:12:12 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 3:29:48 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ricketty Crazy Man wrote:

<snip>

They have to be parked somewhere they can be charged. You can talk about what is possible, but there is little incentive for employers to provide charging.

They wouldn\'t have to pay for the current. Providing the extra wiring in the car park wouldn\'t be a big deal, and employers have an interest in keeping their employees happy.

If they don\'t pay for the current they have to contract with someone to provide the setup. That is not something employers want to mess with. They prefer to run their businesses. We are a long way from there being any significant demand by employees to have charging available at work when they can just charge at home.

The idea that the car being charged will identify itself to the grid, and the cost of the charging current billed to that particular car doesn\'t seem to have registered with you. It would be perfectly simple to set up in the Internet-of-things world that we seem to be moving into.

> The more you talk about this the more I realize it will be a longer way off than I thought.

The more we talk about this the more I realise how little you have thought about it.

Also, like homeowners many locations aren\'t amenable to adding charging. Too many employees and too much congestion. How many chargers does Tesla provide??? That\'s a real clue to what employers will be doing. If not Tesla, then who?

Tesla provides super-chargers, which can charge cars fast. Charging in the parking lot can take hours, which calls for much cheaper equipment.

Level 2 charging is around $1k per unit installed.

Why would they install Level 2 chargers? Level 1 would be perferctly adequate for a car that would be parked for some eight hours. That\'s just a standard utility socket.

>When was the last time a company spent that much money on employees? Many companies won\'t give people offices because they cost too much. So they get cubes, a phone and the cheapest computer they can get away with.

Strawman argument.

> The company could save money by allowing a third party to install expensive charging that none of the employees will use because they can charge at home for a fraction of the price.

Why would the employees want expensive fast charging? Most people seem to work eight hour days.

So while there may be more electricity being utilized, it won\'t require added capacity.

It might not require added capacity, but that does depend where the power is coming from.

It simply requires more consistent usage of the resources on hand.. In the end this lowers the cost of electricity for everyone.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/01/09/electric-cars-will-challenge-state-power-grids

They talk about a 38% increase in generating capacity.

Yes, they talk about it but they don\'t say it is required. They are speculating a demand on top of the peak load. As I have said a million times nearly all EV charging can be done at off peak times which uses wasted, idle peak capacity.

Except that the \"idle capacity\" is coal fired or gas-fired generating stations, which we need to shut down as fast as possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/26/national-grid-fossil-fuel-vehicle-ban-electric-cars-is-there-enough-electricity-

talks about needing an extra 18GW (on top of existing capacity of 60GW) to deal with a fully electric UK car fleet in 2050.

Yup, 18 GW that can be provided for the cost of the fuel by charging at night.

If you\'ve got coal-fired, oil-fired and gas-fired generating stations that you can run at night. Wind power is available during the night, if the wind is blowing. Soalr power isn\'t.

The big problem is that both of these reports conflate energy generation with power capacity. As you well know the two are not the same.

It isn\'t a problem if you are only interested in the amount of extra power that will need to be generated. You were bitching about exact amount of extra power that would have to be generated when we went over completely to electric vehicles, and complaing that the 30% estimate was a \"fake number\".

It would be good if it could be regulated to place the extra load at times when it was easy to deal with, but getting to be able to do that might be simple, but won\'t be trivial.

I think you just said this is a problem that needs addressing (or will need addressing). I think it is less of a problem than the 30% (fake news?) number indicates, but that is not to say no problem at all.

It wasn\'t a fake news number when I first found it, and it still seems to be in the right ball park, though it takes quite a lot of work to find useful links.
It doesn\'t stand up to the basic math test. It only takes some basic calculations to show the number is far below 30%.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

4.118 Billion kWh in 2019 for the total US.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1905.cfm

3.225 Trillion Miles In 2018

3,225 Billion miles / 4 mi/kWh = 806 billion kWh or

806 / 4,118 = 19.6%

How does less than 20% turn into 30%???

Beat me. It\'s always been a ball-park estimate. Note that more efficient use of electric power has actually decreased the power used by some applications, and it could be that the extrapolation to 2040 or whenever electric vehicles actually get to dominate the market might include some allowance for a shrinking demand in other areas.

Even if you change the mileage number to 3 miles/kWh that gives about 25%, still far from 30%.

We don\'t have to burn any fossil carbon to generate electricity (though we do burn quite a lot in power generating plants at the moment) so the effect on the carbon footprint is uncertain.

In the short term most EV charging is done at home at night when the costs are lowest and the free generating capacity (free in both senses of the word since it\'s already there to use, just pay the marginal costs) is sitting idle. This is mostly petroleum or coal and will increase pollution for the short term. As the generating sources change and/or the day time production of solar is stored in batteries to be used at night (who saw that one coming?) the carbon impact will be less.

Setting up commuter parking so that electric cars can be charged up when the sun is shining is another option - probably a better one, and one that will have quite a lot of popular support, at least from people who know about anthropogenic global warming. The fossil carbon extraction industry is trying to make as many people as possible ignorant about this and their efforts have certainly worked on some of the people who post here.

\"Popular support\".... does that mean the government will pay to put it in?

Not usually.

Will they make the utilities install charging?

Why should they? You have to pay an electrician to wire up your house, and adding a charging socket in your garage or next to your drive would something you\'d have to pay for to. It wouldn\'t be all that expensive.

It is also irrelevant to the issue of \"commuter parking\".

While it would not be expensive per car really, since level 2 charging will do nicely, the aggregate amount will be considerable. Employers simply won\'t do it on their own.
Charging during the day can be encouraged as solar takes off. However providing a price advantage will be awkward unless it is done for all consumption. Adding extra meters to handle the billing will be costly

Not very costly at all. It\'s just smarter meters, and electricity companies can already make enough money out of them to pay for them themselves.

\"Smarter meters\"??? I don\'t know where you work, but most places provide parking and won\'t be willing to greatly increase this cost.

Owning or renting the land - or space - where the cars get parked is going to cost them a lot more. Adding charging points would add to their value.
It\'s an investment.

Lol!!! There are LOTS of investments. Burying money in car park charging is not one with much of a pay off.

Keeping employees happy can pay off hansomely. US enterprises seem to prefer to off-shore their employees.

Please stop be ridiculous about this. Companies won\'t buy car charging equipment unless there is a direct pay out even if it is in the form of employee happiness. But it has to be something employees need and ask for. Being able to charge at home is something they already have and doesn\'t require so many other parties to be involved with.

But being able to charge your car while the sun is shining makes solar power a lot easier to sell. This affects society as a whole.

Maybe Australia is different from the US and employers put meters in their parking lots.

Not yet. Hardly any demand so far.

Bingo. Much demand will not develop.

Wrong. We do have to move over to electric vehicles to get our CO2 output per head down. Electric vehicles are now cheaper to run, which means that they are selling in larger numbers which reduces the buying price - manufacturing ten times the volume typically halves the unit cost - so governments probably won\'t have to do anything much to make it happen.

>The only motivation will be lower electricity costs. The employer won\'t see that since the other alternative is to have zero costs. The employees won\'t see it because there\'s no real option for them to pay it other than through expensive third parties which defeat the point of the low cost day time electricity.

Who - exactly - are these \"expensive third parties\"? Anybody silly enough to want to put Level 2 chargers into commuter car parking, where Level 1 would be perfectly adequate would qualify, but they\'d go out of business very rapidly.

and homeowners will not want to pay for it.

They may not have to. It may help the generating business enough to persuade them to pay for it.

Not likely I think, but possible. If they really thought there was money in it, they would be working on that now. Instead other than Tesla the auto makers are dragging their heels and they have the most to gain from public meters.

It\'s the power generating companies that have most to gain.

If you mean the main stream power companies, not so much. They want to see people using their non-dispatchable energy sources at night as well as their underutilized dispatchable energy sources allowing better amortization.

Most of those under-utilised dispatchable energy sources are at the ends of their useful life. The Australian electricty generators are shutting them down rapidly much to the distress of the current adminstration who have a cozy relationship with the people who dig up the coal being burnt. The fact that the electricity being generated by burning fossil carbon is now more expensive than the output from solar farms and modern wind turbines doesn\'t help.

> It would be the solar generators that want to encourage day time charging.. That will require them to either be more vertically integrated providing the end point charging facilities or getting involved in legislation which is often not good for anyone else.

The people who dig up fossil carbon are deeply invovled in current legislation which isn\'t good for the rest of the community either.

> > > I just realized the auto makers are losing out on this side of the EV market. While making cars may be their bread and butter, making money on charging is a continuing profit center. If they develop a market for charging that will be continuing cash flow.

Bu they\'d be mad to put much effort into it. Electric vehicles are going to get charged relatively slowy at home or in commuter car parks.

Supercharging cars fast in the middle of a long trip is never going to be a mass market.

Keeping thinking about the subject for a bit longer. Eventually you may catch up with what

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

was saying back in 2008, and has kept on being said since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

I don\'t see utilities getting into this unless they are forced to. They will be happy to be part of the problem though with various rate structures to make the chargers less profitable.

You do need to upgrade your crystal ball.

Actually, it provides a very realistic view.

A crystal ball can\'t provide a \"realistic\" view. It\'s always an extrapolation of current, and your doesn\'t seem to know enoguh about current trends to be worth much.

> Utilities are limited to the extent of their businesses... they are a legal monopoly after all. As I\'ve pointed out above traditional utilities have a disincentive to discourage overnight charging because of their existing power generation base. The best we can expect from them is to provide economic incentives for overnight charging.

Ho hum. The Australian utilties are getting rid of their existing power generation base as fast as they can. Renewable power is cheaper per h\\kilowatt hour, when it is there, and the utilities are starting to order grid storage so that they can use more of it when the sun isn\'t shining.

Charging at work will require additions to parking facilities, most of which are presently just sheets of asphalt. That won\'t happen any time soon either.

Your crystal ball probably needs to be updated - it doesn\'t seem to be looking at a particularly likely future right now.

Not sure what you are talking about. If you want charging at work the charging has to be added. Virtually no one supports that presently. What are you seeing?
I suspect the 30% number is not accurate.

You can suspect all you like. I told you where I got the number from when I first posted it, and it\'s probably a more reliable source than your intuitions.
I don\'t care what you posted some months ago that I can\'t find. The numbers are not hard to come up with as I have shown. Simple math really, showing 30% is wrong.
Taking an average annual mileage number of 12,000 miles and a typical energy consumption of 4 miles per kWh gives 3,000 kWh per year or just over 8 kWh per day. That is only half of my summer usage and I didn\'t turn on the AC this summer. Factor in that most people see their bills double or triple in the summer and those with heat pumps increase in the winter, none of which accounts for the commercial sector\'s electricity usage.

Not exactly a useful input.

I\'d like to see some numbers that show EVs using 30% of the current generation total.

You did, but you\'ve forgotten about it.

Just as many have said that there will not need to be any distribution infrastructure changes from EV home charging, I find it implausible that EVs will suck up 30% of the generation capacity or that it will require anything to be added other than site specific changes.

The distribution infrastructure has been changing more or less continuously since it was put in to support domestic electric lights. It\'s pretty flexible.

What is certain is the burning gasoline derived from crude oil is responsible for quite a bit of our carbon footprint, and that going over to electric vehicles would let us reduce it, if we went to the trouble of getting most of our electric power from renewable sources (which is not something that the fossil carbon extraction industry wants to happen) .

It will also require coordination of charging with production unless we want to charge batteries so the car batteries can be charged when convenient.

Non-dispatchable renewable power sources need grid storage. Pumped hydro is one way of getting it. Stacks of Tesla car batteries do the job in South Australia. The same batteries in parked electric cars is another option. There are others.

Just like other hydro, pumped has geographical limitations. Not the best solution really.

And your \"best solution\" is?

Ok, not a universal solution... ok? It can\'t be any solution if it is not available due to geographic issues.

If you\'ve got a \"best solution\" you do need to be able to specify what it is.

The obvious solution for solar is to make day time charging the norm when the sun shines. Also using the reserve capacity at night.

It will be a while before we have to worry about it though.

I expect it will encourage people to install solar at home. If I had 2 kW on my house it would take care of my charging needs and also provide excess for the house. I might not need to use net metering at all. That\'s a low enough figure that between charging the car and supplying the house it will all get used up without involving the utility to act as my capacitor. Add a small battery, say 10 kWh and I might not need to buy power from the utility until it gets cold.

Roof-top solar plus a battery is an increasingly popular option in Australia. It was 12% of the roof-top solar market in 2017.

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/Inputs-Assumptions-Methodologies/2019/2019-Projections-for-Small-Scale-Embedded-Technologies-Report-by-CSIRO.pdf

discusses this sort of stuff in great detail, but hasn\'t got any kind of clear take-away message, beyond the fact they aren\'t willing to stick their necks out at all.

This is an industry that is finding its footing. It will take time. While there has been a lot of press about renewables, the progress is only large relative to past progress. It\'s still a very small part of the grid in most places.

There are places where it supplies all the power generated - on good days. Denmark is about 45% wind-powered, and aiming to get to 85%.
Yes, countries smaller than most US states. It would be the tenth smallest and around the mid point is size. Considering they have so much sea shore where wind power works very well, this is not unexpected.

But you didn\'t seem to know about it.

> None of this is at all relevant to other places where the geography is not so accommodating.

As you say, there are other solutions, and they do seem to be able to work if you put in the effort to make them work.

The one thing that is constant is that the fossil carbon extraction industry is going to make a lot less money when this happens, and are willing to spend big on propaganda aimed at slowing down the transition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

There is an industry devoted to producing that kind of propaganda, initially set up in the 1970s to serve the tobacco companies, but it has diversified since then.
John Larkin seems to be addicted their product, which comes with added extra flattery.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 1:13:51 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 2:37:44 PM UTC-4, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Saturday, 26 September 2020 at 01:33:02 UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:
...
They have to be parked somewhere they can be charged. You can talk about what is possible, but there is little incentive for employers to provide charging. Also, like homeowners many locations aren\'t amenable to adding charging. Too many employees and too much congestion. How many chargers does Tesla provide??? That\'s a real clue to what employers will be doing. If not Tesla, then who?

At Apple we have a couple of thousand Chargepoint charging stations for employees with more planned.

Many other companies such as Intel and Google also provide them.

That\'s great. That\'s 2,000 out of 137,000... not bad for a start.

Intel and Google are industry leaders - early adopters in this context.

> Who pays for the juice? I understand they cost between 40 and 80 cents per kwh or some 4 to 8 times what it costs at home. I think they actually bill by the minute, so how do that handle disconnecting to keep the bill down?

Electricity is completely interchangeable. It may cost more if you get it out of a fast charger, but commuter parking would only need level 1 chargers, and they aren\'t expensive.

> That\'s one issue with charging nearly any car other than a Tesla. Tesla rates are about twice the cost of charging at home, but everyone else is twice that again or even higher. By the time you pay for the service that provides the electricity, EVs aren\'t economical anymore... other than a Tesla.

If you don\'t charge at home or from a level 1 charger at work.

> That\'s a big reason why I didn\'t buy a Bolt. I asked about charging and the salesperson said something to the effect that, \"charging happens\" meaning GM has nothing to do with it. And they wonder why they aren\'t selling EVs.. Once they figure it out they may do better. Even if you plan to charge at home, people won\'t buy a car if they don\'t see clear paths for fueling.

Choosing not to be an early adopter isn\'t the same kind of choice that needs to be made when electric vehicles have become more popular.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricketty C]

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 12:40:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 1:04:46 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 9:05:26 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 6:33:02 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:58:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 1:12:12 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 3:29:48 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ricketty Crazy Man wrote:

snip

They have to be parked somewhere they can be charged. You can talk about what is possible, but there is little incentive for employers to provide charging.

They wouldn\'t have to pay for the current. Providing the extra wiring in the car park wouldn\'t be a big deal, and employers have an interest in keeping their employees happy.

If they don\'t pay for the current they have to contract with someone to provide the setup. That is not something employers want to mess with. They prefer to run their businesses. We are a long way from there being any significant demand by employees to have charging available at work when they can just charge at home.

The idea that the car being charged will identify itself to the grid, and the cost of the charging current billed to that particular car doesn\'t seem to have registered with you. It would be perfectly simple to set up in the Internet-of-things world that we seem to be moving into.

I like the way you wave your hand at the many issues of installing the chargers at employer\'s sites by chanting three times, \"Internet of things\". That is a very silly answer to the many issues involved.

The main issue it doesn\'t change is that the their party charging facilities are very expensive to use, and so a very strong disincentive to the user who can charge very cheaply at home.

Your ideas are only a solution to a problem in your mind. No one who\'s participation is actually required in order to make this all work has an incentive to make it so.

The more you talk about this the more I realize it will be a longer way off than I thought.

The more we talk about this the more I realise how little you have thought about it.

As you so often do, you must fall back on ad hominem attacks when your arguments fall short.

Also, like homeowners many locations aren\'t amenable to adding charging. Too many employees and too much congestion. How many chargers does Tesla provide??? That\'s a real clue to what employers will be doing. If not Tesla, then who?

Tesla provides super-chargers, which can charge cars fast. Charging in the parking lot can take hours, which calls for much cheaper equipment.

Level 2 charging is around $1k per unit installed.

Why would they install Level 2 chargers? Level 1 would be perferctly adequate for a car that would be parked for some eight hours. That\'s just a standard utility socket.

Level 1 charging is only 1 kW after the various factors... or 4 mph/32 miles for the work day. Not worth doing if you aren\'t plugged in overnight. For many people that\'s not even enough to drive to work and back home. Certainly it\'s not enough to make much of a dent in the mid-day excess energy generation. It\'s also rather wasteful of electricity since a significant portion of the power is lost in the conversion electronics. You can argue the cars can be optimized for low speed charging, but they aren\'t and I won\'t acknowledge that is a very realistic goal when nearly no one uses level 1 charging... other than perhaps Win who drives something like 25 miles a day and actually charges overnight.

When was the last time a company spent that much money on employees? Many companies won\'t give people offices because they cost too much. So they get cubes, a phone and the cheapest computer they can get away with.

Strawman argument.

A labeling argument. This is a real issue for most companies. They aren\'t going to spend a kilobuck on each employee when the employees don\'t demand it and there is no incentive by the employees to ask for it rather than asking for more useful benefits like higher pay!

You are in denial about all the motivations and keep talking about bits and pieces of the issue in isolation. No one in the chain of stake holders have an incentive for this effort. No one. People can be motivated to charge during the day by cheaper electricity rates, but there is no way for those rates to be passed onto the consumers unless the company deals with the capital investment issues. Perhaps in 10 or 20 years after EVs become the norm this will change. But in the next five years there won\'t be enough EVs on the road to make employers blink about this issue. In fact, one company I used to work for was providing free charging to an employee and others were jealous and complained they wanted a perk to match.

The company could save money by allowing a third party to install expensive charging that none of the employees will use because they can charge at home for a fraction of the price.

Why would the employees want expensive fast charging? Most people seem to work eight hour days.

Not fast, level 2. Level 1 is not worth using unless you are charging for a day or two. That\'s what I\'m doing right now. I used to not bother with home charging because it wasn\'t effective in my weekly routine. But I\'m not doing that so often so I charge for a couple of days to get some real charge on the car.

The idea that level 1 charging is effective for the shifting of energy consumption is a bit silly and doesn\'t match the facts.

So while there may be more electricity being utilized, it won\'t require added capacity.

It might not require added capacity, but that does depend where the power is coming from.

It simply requires more consistent usage of the resources on hand. In the end this lowers the cost of electricity for everyone.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/01/09/electric-cars-will-challenge-state-power-grids

They talk about a 38% increase in generating capacity.

Yes, they talk about it but they don\'t say it is required. They are speculating a demand on top of the peak load. As I have said a million times nearly all EV charging can be done at off peak times which uses wasted, idle peak capacity.

Except that the \"idle capacity\" is coal fired or gas-fired generating stations, which we need to shut down as fast as possible.

Not if it is nuclear. Nuclear has the issue of not being able to be dispatched on demand. So they need consumers at night as well as at day. Good match for EV charging. Similar with wind power that needs to be used when the wind blows.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/26/national-grid-fossil-fuel-vehicle-ban-electric-cars-is-there-enough-electricity-

talks about needing an extra 18GW (on top of existing capacity of 60GW) to deal with a fully electric UK car fleet in 2050.

Yup, 18 GW that can be provided for the cost of the fuel by charging at night.

If you\'ve got coal-fired, oil-fired and gas-fired generating stations that you can run at night. Wind power is available during the night, if the wind is blowing. Soalr power isn\'t.

How is this relevant??? They are talking about adding 18 GW of generation. So they will build enough fossil fuel generation to cover that during the day??? Adding solar and wind only cover the demand when they can supply it. So not a great solution to any energy problem without massive storage. But that\'s not the issue really. The point is day charging of EVs is not tenable for other reasons.

The big problem is that both of these reports conflate energy generation with power capacity. As you well know the two are not the same.

It isn\'t a problem if you are only interested in the amount of extra power that will need to be generated. You were bitching about exact amount of extra power that would have to be generated when we went over completely to electric vehicles, and complaing that the 30% estimate was a \"fake number\"..

I wasn\'t bitching about anything. I was pointing out your numbers are suspect and you have not supported them in any way. The reports you provide don\'t actually say what you seem to be claiming, that the generating capacity must be increased by 30%. So the claim is wrong even if the number is right and the number is wrong on top.

It would be good if it could be regulated to place the extra load at times when it was easy to deal with, but getting to be able to do that might be simple, but won\'t be trivial.

I think you just said this is a problem that needs addressing (or will need addressing). I think it is less of a problem than the 30% (fake news?) number indicates, but that is not to say no problem at all.

It wasn\'t a fake news number when I first found it, and it still seems to be in the right ball park, though it takes quite a lot of work to find useful links.
It doesn\'t stand up to the basic math test. It only takes some basic calculations to show the number is far below 30%.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

4.118 Billion kWh in 2019 for the total US.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1905.cfm

3.225 Trillion Miles In 2018

3,225 Billion miles / 4 mi/kWh = 806 billion kWh or

806 / 4,118 = 19.6%

How does less than 20% turn into 30%???

Beat me. It\'s always been a ball-park estimate. Note that more efficient use of electric power has actually decreased the power used by some applications, and it could be that the extrapolation to 2040 or whenever electric vehicles actually get to dominate the market might include some allowance for a shrinking demand in other areas.

Wow! That\'s quite a stretch. So regardless, the 30% number is busted and meaningless in terms of generating capacity anyway since lots of capacity is idle at night and can easily be used to charge EVs.

Even if you change the mileage number to 3 miles/kWh that gives about 25%, still far from 30%.

We don\'t have to burn any fossil carbon to generate electricity (though we do burn quite a lot in power generating plants at the moment) so the effect on the carbon footprint is uncertain.

In the short term most EV charging is done at home at night when the costs are lowest and the free generating capacity (free in both senses of the word since it\'s already there to use, just pay the marginal costs) is sitting idle. This is mostly petroleum or coal and will increase pollution for the short term. As the generating sources change and/or the day time production of solar is stored in batteries to be used at night (who saw that one coming?) the carbon impact will be less.

Setting up commuter parking so that electric cars can be charged up when the sun is shining is another option - probably a better one, and one that will have quite a lot of popular support, at least from people who know about anthropogenic global warming. The fossil carbon extraction industry is trying to make as many people as possible ignorant about this and their efforts have certainly worked on some of the people who post here.

\"Popular support\".... does that mean the government will pay to put it in?

Not usually.

Will they make the utilities install charging?

Why should they? You have to pay an electrician to wire up your house, and adding a charging socket in your garage or next to your drive would something you\'d have to pay for to. It wouldn\'t be all that expensive.

It is also irrelevant to the issue of \"commuter parking\".

While it would not be expensive per car really, since level 2 charging will do nicely, the aggregate amount will be considerable. Employers simply won\'t do it on their own.
Charging during the day can be encouraged as solar takes off. However providing a price advantage will be awkward unless it is done for all consumption. Adding extra meters to handle the billing will be costly

Not very costly at all. It\'s just smarter meters, and electricity companies can already make enough money out of them to pay for them themselves.

\"Smarter meters\"??? I don\'t know where you work, but most places provide parking and won\'t be willing to greatly increase this cost.

Owning or renting the land - or space - where the cars get parked is going to cost them a lot more. Adding charging points would add to their value.
It\'s an investment.

Lol!!! There are LOTS of investments. Burying money in car park charging is not one with much of a pay off.

Keeping employees happy can pay off hansomely. US enterprises seem to prefer to off-shore their employees.

And as I have pointed out many times employees won\'t be asking for EV charging at work because they can charge more kWh very cheaply at night at home.

Please stop be ridiculous about this. Companies won\'t buy car charging equipment unless there is a direct pay out even if it is in the form of employee happiness. But it has to be something employees need and ask for. Being able to charge at home is something they already have and doesn\'t require so many other parties to be involved with.

But being able to charge your car while the sun is shining makes solar power a lot easier to sell. This affects society as a whole.

Yeah, lots of things impact society as a whole, but are never optimized because the incentives are not there. This is exactly that problem.

Maybe Australia is different from the US and employers put meters in their parking lots.

Not yet. Hardly any demand so far.

Bingo. Much demand will not develop.

Wrong. We do have to move over to electric vehicles to get our CO2 output per head down. Electric vehicles are now cheaper to run, which means that they are selling in larger numbers which reduces the buying price - manufacturing ten times the volume typically halves the unit cost - so governments probably won\'t have to do anything much to make it happen.

Make what happen??? You seem to be waving hands again. EVs are not going to drop in price by a factor of 2. They are not twice as expensive as similar ICE vehicles. The 2x factor can only apply to the parts that are not pretty well established, i.e. the battery. The rest of the car remains the same as everyone else who do make 10 times more cars, a lot more than 10x more.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with charging at work. EV owners are happy charging at home, especially when only using level 1 charging at work.

The only motivation will be lower electricity costs. The employer won\'t see that since the other alternative is to have zero costs. The employees won\'t see it because there\'s no real option for them to pay it other than through expensive third parties which defeat the point of the low cost day time electricity.

Who - exactly - are these \"expensive third parties\"? Anybody silly enough to want to put Level 2 chargers into commuter car parking, where Level 1 would be perfectly adequate would qualify, but they\'d go out of business very rapidly.

Level 1 charging is simply not good enough for most people. Do the math. 8 hours of level 1 charging is very marginal for most drivers. When they can charge at home at very low rates there is no incentive to worry with charging at work.

and homeowners will not want to pay for it.

They may not have to. It may help the generating business enough to persuade them to pay for it.

Not likely I think, but possible. If they really thought there was money in it, they would be working on that now. Instead other than Tesla the auto makers are dragging their heels and they have the most to gain from public meters.

It\'s the power generating companies that have most to gain.

If you mean the main stream power companies, not so much. They want to see people using their non-dispatchable energy sources at night as well as their underutilized dispatchable energy sources allowing better amortization.

Most of those under-utilised dispatchable energy sources are at the ends of their useful life. The Australian electricty generators are shutting them down rapidly much to the distress of the current adminstration who have a cozy relationship with the people who dig up the coal being burnt. The fact that the electricity being generated by burning fossil carbon is now more expensive than the output from solar farms and modern wind turbines doesn\'t help.

Yeah, but wind and solar are also non-dispatchable in that you can only use them when they are being supplied. So there is a long road to making them usable on large scales. It would be great if there were effective ways to incentivize charging with solar, but it won\'t involve level 1 charging at work.

Perhaps a tax on solar power could be used to pay for day time level 2 charging facilities where people work. Then charging can happen on the days when the sun shines and the cars operate the rest of the week. Just hoping \"charging happens\" won\'t cut it.

It would be the solar generators that want to encourage day time charging. That will require them to either be more vertically integrated providing the end point charging facilities or getting involved in legislation which is often not good for anyone else.

The people who dig up fossil carbon are deeply invovled in current legislation which isn\'t good for the rest of the community either.

A red herring. They don\'t need to oppose solar car charging when it won\'t be reaching many cars during the day.

I just realized the auto makers are losing out on this side of the EV market. While making cars may be their bread and butter, making money on charging is a continuing profit center. If they develop a market for charging that will be continuing cash flow.

Bu they\'d be mad to put much effort into it. Electric vehicles are going to get charged relatively slowy at home or in commuter car parks.

Non-sequitur... charging is charging. There is money to be made from it no matter where or how fast it happens.


> Supercharging cars fast in the middle of a long trip is never going to be a mass market.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Of course it will be a significant market. There are thousands of Superchargers in the US already and they are just getting started.

Keeping thinking about the subject for a bit longer. Eventually you may catch up with what

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

was saying back in 2008, and has kept on being said since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

I don\'t see utilities getting into this unless they are forced to. They will be happy to be part of the problem though with various rate structures to make the chargers less profitable.

You do need to upgrade your crystal ball.

Actually, it provides a very realistic view.

A crystal ball can\'t provide a \"realistic\" view. It\'s always an extrapolation of current, and your doesn\'t seem to know enoguh about current trends to be worth much.

Utilities are limited to the extent of their businesses... they are a legal monopoly after all. As I\'ve pointed out above traditional utilities have a disincentive to discourage overnight charging because of their existing power generation base. The best we can expect from them is to provide economic incentives for overnight charging.

Ho hum. The Australian utilties are getting rid of their existing power generation base as fast as they can. Renewable power is cheaper per h\\kilowatt hour, when it is there, and the utilities are starting to order grid storage so that they can use more of it when the sun isn\'t shining.

\"When it is there\" and \"more of it\" are weasel words that show your statements fall short of their implications. You can talk about removing fossil fuel generation but we are still a long way off from getting rid of it.

Charging at work will require additions to parking facilities, most of which are presently just sheets of asphalt. That won\'t happen any time soon either.

Your crystal ball probably needs to be updated - it doesn\'t seem to be looking at a particularly likely future right now.

Not sure what you are talking about. If you want charging at work the charging has to be added. Virtually no one supports that presently. What are you seeing?
I suspect the 30% number is not accurate.

You can suspect all you like. I told you where I got the number from when I first posted it, and it\'s probably a more reliable source than your intuitions.
I don\'t care what you posted some months ago that I can\'t find. The numbers are not hard to come up with as I have shown. Simple math really, showing 30% is wrong.
Taking an average annual mileage number of 12,000 miles and a typical energy consumption of 4 miles per kWh gives 3,000 kWh per year or just over 8 kWh per day. That is only half of my summer usage and I didn\'t turn on the AC this summer. Factor in that most people see their bills double or triple in the summer and those with heat pumps increase in the winter, none of which accounts for the commercial sector\'s electricity usage.

Not exactly a useful input.

I\'d like to see some numbers that show EVs using 30% of the current generation total.

You did, but you\'ve forgotten about it.

Just as many have said that there will not need to be any distribution infrastructure changes from EV home charging, I find it implausible that EVs will suck up 30% of the generation capacity or that it will require anything to be added other than site specific changes.

The distribution infrastructure has been changing more or less continuously since it was put in to support domestic electric lights. It\'s pretty flexible.

What is certain is the burning gasoline derived from crude oil is responsible for quite a bit of our carbon footprint, and that going over to electric vehicles would let us reduce it, if we went to the trouble of getting most of our electric power from renewable sources (which is not something that the fossil carbon extraction industry wants to happen) .

It will also require coordination of charging with production unless we want to charge batteries so the car batteries can be charged when convenient.

Non-dispatchable renewable power sources need grid storage. Pumped hydro is one way of getting it. Stacks of Tesla car batteries do the job in South Australia. The same batteries in parked electric cars is another option. There are others.

Just like other hydro, pumped has geographical limitations. Not the best solution really.

And your \"best solution\" is?

Ok, not a universal solution... ok? It can\'t be any solution if it is not available due to geographic issues.

If you\'ve got a \"best solution\" you do need to be able to specify what it is.

The obvious solution for solar is to make day time charging the norm when the sun shines. Also using the reserve capacity at night.

It will be a while before we have to worry about it though.

I expect it will encourage people to install solar at home. If I had 2 kW on my house it would take care of my charging needs and also provide excess for the house. I might not need to use net metering at all. That\'s a low enough figure that between charging the car and supplying the house it will all get used up without involving the utility to act as my capacitor. Add a small battery, say 10 kWh and I might not need to buy power from the utility until it gets cold.

Roof-top solar plus a battery is an increasingly popular option in Australia. It was 12% of the roof-top solar market in 2017.

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/Inputs-Assumptions-Methodologies/2019/2019-Projections-for-Small-Scale-Embedded-Technologies-Report-by-CSIRO.pdf

discusses this sort of stuff in great detail, but hasn\'t got any kind of clear take-away message, beyond the fact they aren\'t willing to stick their necks out at all.

This is an industry that is finding its footing. It will take time. While there has been a lot of press about renewables, the progress is only large relative to past progress. It\'s still a very small part of the grid in most places.

There are places where it supplies all the power generated - on good days. Denmark is about 45% wind-powered, and aiming to get to 85%.
Yes, countries smaller than most US states. It would be the tenth smallest and around the mid point is size. Considering they have so much sea shore where wind power works very well, this is not unexpected.

But you didn\'t seem to know about it.

None of this is at all relevant to other places where the geography is not so accommodating.

As you say, there are other solutions, and they do seem to be able to work if you put in the effort to make them work.

Again weasel words, \"if you put in the effort\". Renewables can help with some issues, but they mostly create larger issues and don\'t solve any problems in a meaningful way.

The one thing that is constant is that the fossil carbon extraction industry is going to make a lot less money when this happens, and are willing to spend big on propaganda aimed at slowing down the transition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

There is an industry devoted to producing that kind of propaganda, initially set up in the 1970s to serve the tobacco companies, but it has diversified since then.
John Larkin seems to be addicted their product, which comes with added extra flattery.

Yeah, it seems odd they would bother with that when they only need to convey the facts to make their case.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 4:07:23 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 12:40:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 1:04:46 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 9:05:26 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 6:33:02 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:58:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 1:12:12 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 3:29:48 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ricketty Crazy Man wrote:

snip

They have to be parked somewhere they can be charged. You can talk about what is possible, but there is little incentive for employers to provide charging.

They wouldn\'t have to pay for the current. Providing the extra wiring in the car park wouldn\'t be a big deal, and employers have an interest in keeping their employees happy.

If they don\'t pay for the current they have to contract with someone to provide the setup. That is not something employers want to mess with. They prefer to run their businesses. We are a long way from there being any significant demand by employees to have charging available at work when they can just charge at home.

The idea that the car being charged will identify itself to the grid, and the cost of the charging current billed to that particular car doesn\'t seem to have registered with you. It would be perfectly simple to set up in the Internet-of-things world that we seem to be moving into.

I like the way you wave your hand at the many issues of installing the chargers at employer\'s sites by chanting three times, \"Internet of things\". That is a very silly answer to the many issues involved.

It\'s a very specific answer to the question of who pays for the current.

Google and Intel apparently provide charging in their employee car parks already. so it doesn\'t seem to be quite as much of problem as you want to imagine.

The main issue it doesn\'t change is that the their party charging facilities are very expensive to use, and so a very strong disincentive to the user who can charge very cheaply at home.

You seem to think that employee car parks would need Level 2 chargers, which might be expensive to use. In reality, The same Level 1 chargers that the employees would have at home would be perfectly adequate.

Your ideas are only a solution to a problem in your mind. No one who\'s participation is actually required in order to make this all work has an incentive to make it so.
The more you talk about this the more I realize it will be a longer way off than I thought.

The more we talk about this the more I realise how little you have thought about it.

As you so often do, you must fall back on ad hominem attacks when your arguments fall short.

Since the point was the fact that your own arguments fall short more or less nonstop, it is ad hominem, but perfectly legitimate.

Also, like homeowners many locations aren\'t amenable to adding charging. Too many employees and too much congestion. How many chargers does Tesla provide??? That\'s a real clue to what employers will be doing. If not Tesla, then who?

Tesla provides super-chargers, which can charge cars fast. Charging in the parking lot can take hours, which calls for much cheaper equipment.

Level 2 charging is around $1k per unit installed.

Why would they install Level 2 chargers? Level 1 would be perfectly adequate for a car that would be parked for some eight hours. That\'s just a standard utility socket.

Level 1 charging is only 1 kW after the various factors... or 4 mph/32 miles for the work day.

It\'s 20A at 110V - 2.2kW. You might not be able to get this out of the current generation of chargers - 12 to 16A seems to be what\'s easily available - but the next generation is going to come a lot closer to what it could and should deliver. 6.5 miles of range per hour would be 52 miles of range in an eight hour day. That more than the average twenty minute commute.

> Not worth doing if you aren\'t plugged in overnight.

Solar power is going to be cheaper during the day. That might make it well worth doing.

<snipped the rest. Life\'s too short>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Saturday, 26 September 2020 at 20:13:51 UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:
....

At Apple we have a couple of thousand Chargepoint charging stations for employees with more planned.

Many other companies such as Intel and Google also provide them.

kw
That\'s great. That\'s 2,000 out of 137,000... not bad for a start.

That probably covers 5 or 6 times as many cars as chargers as we operate ChargePoint\'s queuing system with a maximum of 4 hours charging. Since many cars don\'t charge every day that improves the usage.

> Who pays for the juice? I understand they cost between 40 and 80 cents per kwh or some 4 to 8 times what it costs at home. I think they actually bill by the minute, so how do that handle disconnecting to keep the bill down?

The employer pays for the power at their normal rates - probably 10-20cents/kWh for California. Much of the power at Apple and Google is provided by solar.

The \"Bill by the minute\" for public chargers is gradually going away - it was mainly a result of utility regulations - a company couldn\'t sell by the kWh unless they followed the rules for being regulated as a utility. I gather about 30 states now allow charging by the kWh.

That\'s one issue with charging nearly any car other than a Tesla. Tesla rates are about twice the cost of charging at home, but everyone else is twice that again or even higher. By the time you pay for the service that provides the electricity, EVs aren\'t economical anymore... other than a Tesla.

In California Tesla charges only slightly more than it costs me at home - 28 cents vs ~25cents/kWh.

....

kw

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Saturday, 26 September 2020 at 23:07:23 UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:
.....

> Level 1 charging is only 1 kW after the various factors... or 4 mph/32 miles for the work day. Not worth doing if you aren\'t plugged in overnight. For many people that\'s not even enough to drive to work and back home.

According to multiple sources the average US commute is only about 16 miles.

Being able to charge 32 miles would enable the majority of drivers to cover their daily usage.

(https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100621425.pdf, https://itstillruns.com/far-americans-drive-work-average-7446397.html)
.....

kw

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Saturday, 26 September 2020 at 23:38:25 UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
....

Level 2 charging is around $1k per unit installed.

Why would they install Level 2 chargers? Level 1 would be perfectly adequate for a car that would be parked for some eight hours. That\'s just a standard utility socket.

Actually in the US it can be cheaper to provide 240V charging (normally referee to as level 2) because the higher currents required for level 1 (120V) require more copper in the wiring.

A level 2 charging system but configured to only provide say 16A rather than 32A (the usual setting for level 2) might be a better option for controlling cost as well as increasing the available power to ~3.5kW. For the same percentage loss in the wiring only half the copper would be required.

The charger itself (strictly speaking the EVSE) would probably not be any different in cost as many mobile EVSEs already support both 120V and 240V.

This would also improve the efficiency of the charger in the car:

On my Model 3 Tesla charging off 120V is about 75% efficient (AC to battery). Charging at 240V 6.6kW is about 90% efficient. 240V @ 3.3kW would probably be ~85% efficient. I have measured similar efficiencies on other cars.

The main reason for the lower efficiency at lower charging rates is the parasitic load of the cars charging system - cooling pumps, computer system, fans etc that require the same power whether charging at high or low rates. This typically adds up to about 200-300W.
....

kw

 

[server]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:19:08 -0700, boB <boB@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:49:32 -0700 (PDT), Ricketty C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 12:45:39 PM UTC-4, Ricketty C wrote:
On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:53:19 AM UTC-4, boB wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 21:14:52 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:04:33 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:05:27 -0700, Robert Baer
rober...@localnet.com> wrote:

Today, (Sep 16) global energy giant BP (BP) wrapped up its three-day
investor event, in which it \"said the relentless growth of oil demand is
over, becoming the first supermajor to call the end of an era many
thought would last another decade or more.\" This is a big deal, as this
Bloomberg article highlights: BP [...]
I guess they want us (and the car-buying and house-lighting folks in
India and Africa and South America) to buy our oil and gas somewhere
else. We can do that.

But you need a different plant to burn it on. You should emigrate to Venus, where global warming has already run its course.

What you ought to do is fuel your electric cars with renewable energy generated by windmills and solar panels, and heat your houses with reverse cycle air-conditioners, also powered from renewable sources.

The fossil carbon extraction industry would lose a lot of it\'s income when that happened, and they want to put it off as long as possible. One of the ways they do that is by spending a lot of money on climate change denial propaganda. There\'s a whole industry devoted to doing this kind of work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

The output isn\'t all that plausible but there are enough gullible twits like you to make it worth doing. As Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time.


I think that long haul trucks still use quite a bit of fossil fuels
along with lots of jets and ships. It will be quite a quite a while I
think before we are anywhere near where we need to be to reduce
emissions to make a dent.

I think you are in denial or at least lacking accurate facts. In 2018 gasoline production accounted for 9.3 million barrels of oil a day. Fuel oil was 4.1 million. Jet fuel was 1.7 million. So auto use dominates. I believe we can put a pretty sizable dent in this with EVs, both autos and trucks. The trucking industry is focused on costs like most. EVs present lower operating costs and will be worth swapping out fleets of vehicles to get those lower costs. It won\'t happen over night because there will need to be infrastructure built specifically for trucks. But there are no fundamental obstacles and it will happen. By 2030 the majority of trucks on the road will be quiet, non-poluting EVs mostly charged by renewable resources.

Notice on the chart that only 0.11 million barrels of oil a day are accounted for by electricity generation. So it is unlikely increases in EV use will add to the carbon footprint.


This, I believe, (in my possibly wrong opinion) is where capitalism
can and is helping to further the renewable energy way of the future
because they will be rewarded for their efforts. Enough people do
understand the necessity of buying and using the RE produts and it
makes them feel good about \"helping the planet\". The guvnmnt isn\'t
going to pay for it all. Maybe some though.

There is no real need for considering the ecological benefits of EVs to justify buying EVs. They are on the cusp at the moment, with Tesla claiming lower cost of ownership for EVs. Going forward as battery costs drop it will become clear that EVs are a less expensive means of personal transportation and a MUCH less expensive means of commercial transportation. The government isn\'t paying anyone to buy Teslas anymore. Tesla has reached a point of independence where they are competing head to head with ICE manufacturers and winning. The ICE manufacturers completely get this and are working feverishly to catch up and establish their positions in the race.

By 2025 people won\'t be having these discussions anymore. It will be about whether Chevy, Ford, VW, Honda or Tesla is going to build the EV in your driveway. Even JL will have an EV because California will impose a $2,000 a year ICE tax. I could be wrong about that. It could be $5,000 a year.

Forgot the link...

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/petroleum.pdf





Diesel
Fuel Oil maybe ?

Transportation ?

Etc... ?

https://babylonbee.com/news/state-with-no-electricity-orders-everyone-to-drive-cars-that-run-on-electricity

Fortunately, our airhead governor won\'t be in power by 2035, and his
proclamation doesn\'t have the force of law anyhow.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 4:03:10 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:19:08 -0700, boB <b...@K7IQ.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:49:32 -0700 (PDT), Ricketty C
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 12:45:39 PM UTC-4, Ricketty C wrote:
On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:53:19 AM UTC-4, boB wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 21:14:52 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:04:33 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:05:27 -0700, Robert Baer
rober...@localnet.com> wrote:

<snip>

https://babylonbee.com/news/state-with-no-electricity-orders-everyone-to-drive-cars-that-run-on-electricity

Fortunately, our airhead governor won\'t be in power by 2035, and his
proclamation doesn\'t have the force of law anyhow.

Gavin Newsom may be an airhead, but John Larkin on anthropogenic global warming is gullible sucker for denialist propaganda.

The immediate consequences of global warming are making life difficult in California right now - though John Larkin can\'t see the connection - and making electric cars mandatory would be a contribution to reducing anthropogenic global warming. They are also going to be cheaper to run, so they are going to take over the market anyway.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney