3 ms·

I am so tired of misinformation like this. I know they use the "may" get-out-of-jail-free card in the title, but no, nighttime EV charging will not overburden t

I am so tired of misinformation like this. I know they use the "may" get-out-of-jail-free card in the title, but no, nighttime EV charging will not overburden the grid by 2035, as the article purports, because "the grid" (?) will look dramatically different in 13 years. Plus, networked software solutions are already baked into EVs for time of day charging; as such, its a solved problem unworthy of a headline. The additional load will require new investment, but thats core to the business of providing power. If they can't adapt over a decade with software solutions helping them along, EVs aren't the problem... The actual report from NREL (1) linked to the article is far more informative and interesting and eludes that clickbait headline, but still makes ham-fisted assumptions that make the whole report a little goofy. To list a few: - "Absent systemic changes in customer behavior" (you mean no changes except mass customer purchasing of EVs? what's the point of assuming nothing changes) - Slide 18 shows, for high EV adoption with no charging logic, effectively, "everyone definitely plugs in their EVs at 9pm because thats when TOU kicks in", while also showing "Almost nobody charges at work during the day". Most people will plug in whenever they get home. With WFH, that is basically any random time of the day. Also, they acknowledge people respond to TOU, but dont acknowledge that TOU can change? - "At-work charging makes up a small portion of total EV charging, so the system benefits are likely to be small" (are they really assuming no changes here over a decade? I would love to charge at work but my office building has no services. These will become commonplace over time. Is this really their EDIT: this is fun! here's the actual model from the NREL report! This launches a virtual machine, which might take a minute to boot up. Once the model has opened, click on ‘Cell > Run All’ to initialize the script’ https://hub.gke2.mybinder.org/user/skoeb-co-ev-model-rkichrt0/notebooks/CO%20EV%20Model.ipynb https://hub.gke2.mybinder.org/user/skoeb-co-ev-model-rkichrt... (1) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73303.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73303.pdf

twblalock 4y ago
> "the grid" (?) will look dramatically different in 13 years. I don't think so. It takes forever for anything to get built in this country. I have zero confidence the grid will improve fast enough to make mass EV adoption practical in many parts of the US. During the intervening period we will see higher energy bills, rolling blackouts, and rationing. I mean, if our governments and utility companies were good at building this sort of thing, then why are the power grids in such a poor state today?
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Exactly. GP dismisses opinions as wild assertions, and then proceeds to make their own. It's pure wishful thinking. GP, why should we believe you?
- ethagknight 4y ago
  In the last few years my city Memphis demolished its primary coal plant and replaced it with several advanced combined cycle gas plants. TVA, which serves Memphis, is a reasonably middle of the road power provider. In the last few years in my Texas businesses we've started buying wind-only energy at commercial scale, which is cheaper but requires A certain demand use curve for low rates. Solar will continue rapid installation. EV charging will become more distributed. These are significant changes and have happened in the last 10 yrs. The grid can continue to make major changes. Nothing I've said is particularly wild or opinionated. The article and the report make a very plain fallacy of assuming a millions of EVs get dumped on the grid at the same time with no other material changes. It's just not a helpful discussion or presented conclusion/headline. Bold claims extrapolated from sparse data. Reminds me of the peak oil articles way back when, media sought to cast an image of cars stranded on apocalyptic interstates.
jjav 4y ago
> "the grid" (?) will look dramatically different in 13 years That feels dramatically optimistic. The California Camp Fire was started by PG&E transmission lines about a 100 years old that were not being maintained. That is the rate of change and maintenance on the electrical infrastructure. Now, sure, EVs are shaking up the electrical grid needs so perhaps the future will see faster evolution than a 100 year cycle. But dramatically different in 13 years? I don't think so.
- ethagknight 4y ago
  I would put PG&E at the bottom end of providers, at least based on headlines and the attitude of people here on HN. Exacerbated issues there are unique to California’s social climate, complicated by California’s environmental regulation and the standoff relationship between that power provider and the citizens it serves. Further more, if im reading the previous linked report correctly, energy demand has largely plateaued across the market since 2005 as energy efficiency has take a priority, led lighting, and other innovations. Back in 2005, I recall reports that our energy demands would double in the next 10 years as engineers and economists gleefully showed straight line projections. Peak oil, etc. Its just foolish to think the energy market is going to remain static over the next 10-15 years. But more broadly, the grid is evolving whether a Utility embraces it or not. On a residential basis, I have an EV and a backup generator. Software and policy are the primary inhibitors that prevent me from feeding a few kws back into the grid. But even if I never get to feed back into the grid, if the grid is insufficient, I can always kick on my gen to provide the power I need. That private generator is part of the grid, part of the network. Who is to say utilities or even EV supercharging stations don’t start installing large generators on site to shave demand. New Grid interconnects are possible between regions. These can be massive thousand mile deals or they can be across a river. People love to complain about their power utilities, and there have been some dramatic shortcomings in recent years across the country, but waving away the opportunity to adapt is a curious approach to me, especially for the HN crowd.

twblalock 4y ago

> "the grid" (?) will look dramatically different in 13 years. I don't think so. It takes forever for anything to get built in this country. I have zero confidence the grid will improve fast enough to make mass EV adoption practical in many parts of the US. During the intervening period we will see higher energy bills, rolling blackouts, and rationing. I mean, if our governments and utility companies were good at building this sort of thing, then why are the power grids in such a poor state today?

nathanaldensr 4y ago
Exactly. GP dismisses opinions as wild assertions, and then proceeds to make their own. It's pure wishful thinking. GP, why should we believe you?
ethagknight 4y ago
In the last few years my city Memphis demolished its primary coal plant and replaced it with several advanced combined cycle gas plants. TVA, which serves Memphis, is a reasonably middle of the road power provider. In the last few years in my Texas businesses we've started buying wind-only energy at commercial scale, which is cheaper but requires A certain demand use curve for low rates. Solar will continue rapid installation. EV charging will become more distributed. These are significant changes and have happened in the last 10 yrs. The grid can continue to make major changes. Nothing I've said is particularly wild or opinionated. The article and the report make a very plain fallacy of assuming a millions of EVs get dumped on the grid at the same time with no other material changes. It's just not a helpful discussion or presented conclusion/headline. Bold claims extrapolated from sparse data. Reminds me of the peak oil articles way back when, media sought to cast an image of cars stranded on apocalyptic interstates.

jjav 4y ago

> "the grid" (?) will look dramatically different in 13 years That feels dramatically optimistic. The California Camp Fire was started by PG&E transmission lines about a 100 years old that were not being maintained. That is the rate of change and maintenance on the electrical infrastructure. Now, sure, EVs are shaking up the electrical grid needs so perhaps the future will see faster evolution than a 100 year cycle. But dramatically different in 13 years? I don't think so.

ethagknight 4y ago
I would put PG&E at the bottom end of providers, at least based on headlines and the attitude of people here on HN. Exacerbated issues there are unique to California’s social climate, complicated by California’s environmental regulation and the standoff relationship between that power provider and the citizens it serves. Further more, if im reading the previous linked report correctly, energy demand has largely plateaued across the market since 2005 as energy efficiency has take a priority, led lighting, and other innovations. Back in 2005, I recall reports that our energy demands would double in the next 10 years as engineers and economists gleefully showed straight line projections. Peak oil, etc. Its just foolish to think the energy market is going to remain static over the next 10-15 years. But more broadly, the grid is evolving whether a Utility embraces it or not. On a residential basis, I have an EV and a backup generator. Software and policy are the primary inhibitors that prevent me from feeding a few kws back into the grid. But even if I never get to feed back into the grid, if the grid is insufficient, I can always kick on my gen to provide the power I need. That private generator is part of the grid, part of the network. Who is to say utilities or even EV supercharging stations don’t start installing large generators on site to shave demand. New Grid interconnects are possible between regions. These can be massive thousand mile deals or they can be across a river. People love to complain about their power utilities, and there have been some dramatic shortcomings in recent years across the country, but waving away the opportunity to adapt is a curious approach to me, especially for the HN crowd.