3 ms·

> "There is no spare even 4KW for every house and never has been" Yes, there is. It's just the timing that matters. Domestic electricity demand during off-peak

> "There is no spare even 4KW for every house and never has been" Yes, there is. It's just the timing that matters. Domestic electricity demand during off-peak overnight hours is as little as 1/3 as it is at peak time. If all those houses can run 4 kW of air conditioning, or heating, or electric ovens at 6PM, then there is 4 kW to spare at 2AM. This issue has actually been studied in some detail by the UK's National Grid. The conclusion was that additional demand from millions of electric vehicles would cause issues if they all were charged at peak times. But, provided demand can be managed, existing grid infrastructure can cope with an entirely electric vehicle fleet with modest investments in the coming years/decades. Fun fact: UK grid demand used to be significantly higher than it is today. It peaked at 62 GW in 2002, but it now rarely gets above 45 GW, despite significant population growth! Much of this reduction in demand is due to improved energy efficiency. If we could handle 62 GW in 2002, then there's no reason that we can't handle 62 GW again in, say, 2042.

lstodd 6y ago
> If we could handle 62 GW in 2002, then there's no reason that we can't handle 62 GW again in, say, 2042. There is - supply and grid maintenance was scaled down with demand. The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap. The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation.
- Reason077 6y ago
  > "The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap." It doesn't need "rebuilding". The grid, broadly speaking, hasn't changed since 2002. Generation has changed dramatically, but generally the transmission lines that served old power plants do not get removed when the plants close. They're still there, still active, and are often reused (for example, off-shore wind farm built off the coast from closed coal plant). > "The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation." First you were talking about lines, now you are talking about generation. But it's the same story. Power plants get turned off and curtailed at night because there is less demand. If demand increases at night? Plenty of spare capacity available, they just need to run for longer.

lstodd 6y ago

> If we could handle 62 GW in 2002, then there's no reason that we can't handle 62 GW again in, say, 2042. There is - supply and grid maintenance was scaled down with demand. The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap. The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation.

Reason077 6y ago
> "The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap." It doesn't need "rebuilding". The grid, broadly speaking, hasn't changed since 2002. Generation has changed dramatically, but generally the transmission lines that served old power plants do not get removed when the plants close. They're still there, still active, and are often reused (for example, off-shore wind farm built off the coast from closed coal plant). > "The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation." First you were talking about lines, now you are talking about generation. But it's the same story. Power plants get turned off and curtailed at night because there is less demand. If demand increases at night? Plenty of spare capacity available, they just need to run for longer.