4 ms·

We're talking as you say a doubling or tripling of demand for electricity in that case. The costs to replace the current transmission and distribution grids in

We're talking as you say a doubling or tripling of demand for electricity in that case. The costs to replace the current transmission and distribution grids in the US are estimated at $500 billion and $1800 billion, respectively. So we're talking ballpark $5 trillion to enable a tripling in electricity demand. Over a ten year period, this corresponds approximately to the entire US defense budget. We're literally talking about digging up all of the streets, everywhere. I don't want to be negative, but that's what we are talking about.

aidenn0 8y ago
> We're literally talking about digging up all of the streets, everywhere. I don't want to be negative, but that's what we are talking about. Aren't the vast majority of power lines above ground?
torpfactory 8y ago
I was thinking about this very problem the other day and I think it actually may be the best reason why residential storage batteries (as opposed to grid-scale) make sense. It might be easier to keep your transmission system and then trickle charge a whole bunch of small batteries to power end uses.
wongarsu 8y ago
The increase wouldn't be evenly distributed though. Industrial areas where huge buildings need to be heated and a lot of freight traffic happens might see a much larger increase in power demand than a remote farm. If we manage to coordinate the charging patterns of cars (for example with electricity prices that change by the minute based on local demand) we might not even need to replace most of the residential grid: Personal vehicles are mostly charged over night when load is currently at 1/4 of the peak handeled in the evening. A lot of other uses like heating can also be shifted with the right incentives to not occur at times of peak usage, further reducing the load increase.
Brakenshire 8y ago
I don’t think that’s actually true, transmission grids are built to handle peak demand, and a doubling or a tripling of total electricity use does not mean a doubling or tripling of peak usage. In temperate climates for instance charging of cars will almost entirely happen overnight, with a significant rate discount. The basic existence of such a large battery will smooth out the peaks as well as add to them. In fact you’re likely to get far better utilization out of the existing infrastructure, and any new infrastructure which is built, which will bring the per unit costs down. And in any case, the electricity grid pays for itself, if people are willing to pay the going rate then the infrastructure can be built to satisfy that demand. What is the amount of money spent each year on maintaining and upgrading oil and gas infrastructure? For that matter what is spent maintaining the existing grid? These are huge figures, electricity companies will not be doing this for free, they are happy to maintain the grid in exchange for the revenues that come from it, and they will be only too happy to grow into competitor markets and use what was their competitors’ revenues to fund their expansion.
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  > transmission grids are built to handle peak demand, and a doubling or a tripling of total electricity use does not mean a doubling or tripling of peak usage. Well, in theory no. But in practice, if you look at the duck curve [1] of any electrical distribution system, you find that the difference between lowest and highest load during the day is pretty small, maybe 30% of peak load. So really there is a very limited potential to be had by smoothing out the curve, maybe you can get a 20% increase in total electricity use, but certainly not a 200% increase. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve > What is the amount of money spent each year on maintaining and upgrading oil and gas infrastructure? For that matter what is spent maintaining the existing grid? Annual maintenance cost for the US T&D grid is $40 billion. We're talking "increase it by a factor of 10". If you assume the power companies pass this cost onto customers with zero profit margin, it's an increase in the electricity price of 9 cents per kWh. Current national average price is 10 cents per kWh. So it's doubling the price of electricity, while saying "we will use 2x-3x as much of it". An increase of 4x to 6x in your electricity bill.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
That's really not the case, and plenty of utilities have come out saying that residential electric cars won't cause much issue for them. That's not to say there won't be some costs, but it's not nearly so dramatic. The main issue is peak vs. base load on the grid. BEV charging affects base load, and with variable pricing, won't affect peak load much at all. When you further consider that most infrastructure has some margin to accommodate increased loads, along with on-site generation with rooftop solar and 'powerwall' batteries, you'll see that there's a lot of room for growth. Even in cases where substantial capacity increases are required, it doesn't amount to a wholesale replacement of current infrastructure. It means adding more 'backbone' transmission capacity, some substations, and a few key distribution overhauls. The expensive 'last mile' stuff won't need significant changes.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

aidenn0 8y ago

> We're literally talking about digging up all of the streets, everywhere. I don't want to be negative, but that's what we are talking about. Aren't the vast majority of power lines above ground?

torpfactory 8y ago

I was thinking about this very problem the other day and I think it actually may be the best reason why residential storage batteries (as opposed to grid-scale) make sense. It might be easier to keep your transmission system and then trickle charge a whole bunch of small batteries to power end uses.

wongarsu 8y ago

The increase wouldn't be evenly distributed though. Industrial areas where huge buildings need to be heated and a lot of freight traffic happens might see a much larger increase in power demand than a remote farm. If we manage to coordinate the charging patterns of cars (for example with electricity prices that change by the minute based on local demand) we might not even need to replace most of the residential grid: Personal vehicles are mostly charged over night when load is currently at 1/4 of the peak handeled in the evening. A lot of other uses like heating can also be shifted with the right incentives to not occur at times of peak usage, further reducing the load increase.

Brakenshire 8y ago

I don’t think that’s actually true, transmission grids are built to handle peak demand, and a doubling or a tripling of total electricity use does not mean a doubling or tripling of peak usage. In temperate climates for instance charging of cars will almost entirely happen overnight, with a significant rate discount. The basic existence of such a large battery will smooth out the peaks as well as add to them. In fact you’re likely to get far better utilization out of the existing infrastructure, and any new infrastructure which is built, which will bring the per unit costs down. And in any case, the electricity grid pays for itself, if people are willing to pay the going rate then the infrastructure can be built to satisfy that demand. What is the amount of money spent each year on maintaining and upgrading oil and gas infrastructure? For that matter what is spent maintaining the existing grid? These are huge figures, electricity companies will not be doing this for free, they are happy to maintain the grid in exchange for the revenues that come from it, and they will be only too happy to grow into competitor markets and use what was their competitors’ revenues to fund their expansion.

semi-extrinsic 8y ago
> transmission grids are built to handle peak demand, and a doubling or a tripling of total electricity use does not mean a doubling or tripling of peak usage. Well, in theory no. But in practice, if you look at the duck curve [1] of any electrical distribution system, you find that the difference between lowest and highest load during the day is pretty small, maybe 30% of peak load. So really there is a very limited potential to be had by smoothing out the curve, maybe you can get a 20% increase in total electricity use, but certainly not a 200% increase. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve > What is the amount of money spent each year on maintaining and upgrading oil and gas infrastructure? For that matter what is spent maintaining the existing grid? Annual maintenance cost for the US T&D grid is $40 billion. We're talking "increase it by a factor of 10". If you assume the power companies pass this cost onto customers with zero profit margin, it's an increase in the electricity price of 9 cents per kWh. Current national average price is 10 cents per kWh. So it's doubling the price of electricity, while saying "we will use 2x-3x as much of it". An increase of 4x to 6x in your electricity bill.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago

That's really not the case, and plenty of utilities have come out saying that residential electric cars won't cause much issue for them. That's not to say there won't be some costs, but it's not nearly so dramatic. The main issue is peak vs. base load on the grid. BEV charging affects base load, and with variable pricing, won't affect peak load much at all. When you further consider that most infrastructure has some margin to accommodate increased loads, along with on-site generation with rooftop solar and 'powerwall' batteries, you'll see that there's a lot of room for growth. Even in cases where substantial capacity increases are required, it doesn't amount to a wholesale replacement of current infrastructure. It means adding more 'backbone' transmission capacity, some substations, and a few key distribution overhauls. The expensive 'last mile' stuff won't need significant changes.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]