3 ms·

> You're excessively fixated on nameplate capacity. Sorry, my perspective is precisely the opposite. Nameplate capacity is a farce --I have said this much-- b

> You're excessively fixated on nameplate capacity. Sorry, my perspective is precisely the opposite. Nameplate capacity is a farce --I have said this much-- because it is only valid under ideal laboratory test conditions. Solar zealots are the ones who use nameplate ratings, or worse, solar radiation per square meter, to justify solar fantasies. Building and actually looking at the data from my system (something most solar panel owners don't do) delivered an education I probably could not have gotten any other way. If anything, it made me think and eventually decide I needed to to understand it the way I do any other engineering project I approach. > Nuclear isn't even free of the need for storage and backup. These are not problems. > Also why would you need 24/7 power to serve EVs? You'd have to model this in order to understand it. Beyond a certain threshold or concentration of EV's in an area, you eventually get to a situation where you have a massive number of vehicles plugged into the grid 24/7. That's the simplest way I can put it. Here's a simple attempt to show the mechanism at play: https://i.imgur.com/arNVRea.png https://i.imgur.com/arNVRea.png Again, super simplified. The idea is you have 25 vehicles, all charging for 12 hours. The charge start time is staggered by 1 hour. The bottom line shows how many cars are charging simultaneously. What this shows is that you eventually get to a peak simultaneous charge requirement that will remain pretty much constant 24/7. What if you rapid charge in 15 minutes, or 1 hour? Well, sure, the number of simultaneously charging vehicles will be reduced, however, the power and energy requirements will not. In fact, due to efficiencies and losses one might very well require more power under such scenarios. Power is the killer (not energy) because it has to be delivered instantaneously. The other thing this oversimplified illustration does not show is a distribution of vehicles of different types (from motorcycles to semi trucks) requiring more or less power, different charge durations, usage patterns (delivery van vs. working from home and barely driving) and varied power and energy demands from the grid. Including that requires writing a reasonably detailed simulation with hundreds of variables, which is what I did years ago in order to try and understand the relationship between EV's, power and energy. In short, we need to create a complete doubling of our entire power generation and distribution system. In some cases, more than double. We need at least 1200 GW of power; which is equivalent to 1200 nuclear power plants (this should give anyone pause and a real sense of proportion). My model predicted a range between 900 GW to 1400 GW. I believe this range represents a confidence of 95%. In other words, the real answer is in there. It is amazing to me that this isn't front-and-center in the national discourse. EV's at scale will not happen without the equivalent of about 1200 new nuclear power plants being built and the power distribution system adapting to delivery that power.

nostrademons 4y ago
Your model is simplistic. No sane electrical engineer would build a system where EVs charge on a uniform schedule evenly distributed across all 24 hours. Rather, you can build a system where EV chargers are basically the inverse of natural gas peaker power plants. They turn on when grid supply is high relative to demand (and hence get off-peak rates), and then turn off when grid demand is high. Most peoples' EVs would charge while they're plugged in at work; the few stragglers would charge late at night when everyone's lights are off. Unless you are about to make a cross-country trip overnight, there is no reason to charge an EV during peak hours between 5-9 PM. That's what GP is alluding to when they say EVs are storage. Technology for this is already being worked on: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378779620305009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03787... https://www.energy.gov/eere/evgrid-assist-accelerating-transition https://www.energy.gov/eere/evgrid-assist-accelerating-trans...
- robomartin 4y ago
  >Your model is simplistic. No sane electrical engineer would build a system where EVs charge on a uniform schedule evenly distributed across all 24 hours. Unbelievable. Your comments are pointless, insulting. Now you are calling me insane. My findings were confirmed by none other than Elon Musk --who I had the pleasure of working with for two years, BTW--. Here he is, confirming what I have stated when asked the question during a conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcI6FaaDp8g&t=3510s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcI6FaaDp8g&t=3510s Regarding my simplistic model: I went out of my way to point out that this model was "super simplified" and an "oversimplified illustration". We use oversimplified examples to illustrate points, not to provide precise models of reality. I further explained that creating a proper model "requires writing a reasonably detailed simulation with hundreds of variables" And then I said "which is what I did years ago in order to try and understand the relationship between EV's, power and energy." Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top. Stop insulting people with zero-effort, zero-knowledge comments. Instead, try asking questions, engaging in constructive dialog and, perhaps, learning a thing or two. You are arguing against conclusions that were confirmed by Elon Musk. Not sure what else to say other than, you might want to reflect on just how little of this topic might actually understand. This is why we go nowhere with this and other issues. On top of that you post nonsense links. What do you think you are going to accomplish, other than confirming you truly have no understanding of the problem? We have a 1200 GW deficit in power generation and distribution. No amount of intelligent management is going to make up for this. Not one bit. Not enough. Not even close. This isn't a rounding error, this is a serious hole in future power capacity; a precondition for EV deployment That's what you need to grok before continuing to post comments anyone with a reasonable command of the subject would easily classify as noise.

nostrademons 4y ago

Your model is simplistic. No sane electrical engineer would build a system where EVs charge on a uniform schedule evenly distributed across all 24 hours. Rather, you can build a system where EV chargers are basically the inverse of natural gas peaker power plants. They turn on when grid supply is high relative to demand (and hence get off-peak rates), and then turn off when grid demand is high. Most peoples' EVs would charge while they're plugged in at work; the few stragglers would charge late at night when everyone's lights are off. Unless you are about to make a cross-country trip overnight, there is no reason to charge an EV during peak hours between 5-9 PM. That's what GP is alluding to when they say EVs are storage. Technology for this is already being worked on: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378779620305009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03787... https://www.energy.gov/eere/evgrid-assist-accelerating-transition https://www.energy.gov/eere/evgrid-assist-accelerating-trans...

robomartin 4y ago
>Your model is simplistic. No sane electrical engineer would build a system where EVs charge on a uniform schedule evenly distributed across all 24 hours. Unbelievable. Your comments are pointless, insulting. Now you are calling me insane. My findings were confirmed by none other than Elon Musk --who I had the pleasure of working with for two years, BTW--. Here he is, confirming what I have stated when asked the question during a conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcI6FaaDp8g&t=3510s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcI6FaaDp8g&t=3510s Regarding my simplistic model: I went out of my way to point out that this model was "super simplified" and an "oversimplified illustration". We use oversimplified examples to illustrate points, not to provide precise models of reality. I further explained that creating a proper model "requires writing a reasonably detailed simulation with hundreds of variables" And then I said "which is what I did years ago in order to try and understand the relationship between EV's, power and energy." Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top. Stop insulting people with zero-effort, zero-knowledge comments. Instead, try asking questions, engaging in constructive dialog and, perhaps, learning a thing or two. You are arguing against conclusions that were confirmed by Elon Musk. Not sure what else to say other than, you might want to reflect on just how little of this topic might actually understand. This is why we go nowhere with this and other issues. On top of that you post nonsense links. What do you think you are going to accomplish, other than confirming you truly have no understanding of the problem? We have a 1200 GW deficit in power generation and distribution. No amount of intelligent management is going to make up for this. Not one bit. Not enough. Not even close. This isn't a rounding error, this is a serious hole in future power capacity; a precondition for EV deployment That's what you need to grok before continuing to post comments anyone with a reasonable command of the subject would easily classify as noise.