4 ms·

A comment like this comes up in every discussion of renewables and needs to die. We don't need separate stationery storage, enormous storage capacity will be fr

A comment like this comes up in every discussion of renewables and needs to die. We don't need separate stationery storage, enormous storage capacity will be free as car batteries. EVs will have 17 times the battery capacity of stationary storage systems by 2030 [1]. By the time we completely transition to EVs, it will be 100s of times of storage. All this storage capacity is available at zero cost, people buy cars anyways. It is decentralized, no single point of failure. This is the sweetest kind of energy demand, can charge whenever electricity prices are negative or zero. Cars are parked nearly all the time, grid adaptations will evolve demand management. Cars will supply power back to the grid at its highest prices, providing a source of income for EV owners. [1] https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BloombergNEF-ZEV-Dashboard-Sep-2022.pdf https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BloombergNEF-Z...

londons_explore 4y ago
Power prices have been going negative and spiking up 100x in the UK for a decade or more. Yet the vast majority of EV's don't have the ability to discharge into the grid to earn money... Most can't even charge when power is negatively priced unless you pay for a third party charger and service. Basically, Car owners, charger owners, Utility companies, and EV manufacturers would all like to earn the money by charging/discharging your EV at times to earn the most money. But all of those people don't want someone else being able to take that sweet sweet revenue. So they put roadblocks in the way. EV's usually have the capability to charge into the grid, but firmware that won't allow it. Chargers (AC and DC) won't allow power to flow back into the grid, and will disconnect any car who tries. Utilities refuse to let home users take part in the minute by minute pricing - instead the best available is dynamic pricing set half hourly a day in advance. And users want to do this, but have three parties who've assembled roadblocks in the way. And there is no indication of that impasse ending anytime soon.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Utilities refuse to let home users take part in the minute by minute pricing - instead the best available is dynamic pricing set half hourly a day in advance. That seems reasonable considering what happened with griddy in texas.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    There are better approaches. For example a supplier could sell you 5 kWh per day at a fixed price, and anything extra you use is at instant market price, with some kind of pay-as-you-use system. Then if the prices go sky high, users who chose that plan at least get to use 5kWh each day. 5kWh is plenty to not freeze and to keep your phone charged and fridge going. If you want more, you can pay more. The UK already has a system of electricity meters that have a 'balance', and when the balance reaches zero it cuts off till more credit is added. Such a scheme integrates well with that, and means a user can never rack up a massive unexpected bill if the price goes crazy high or low.
    - gruez 4y ago
      > For example a supplier could sell you 5 kWh per day at a fixed price, and anything extra you use is at instant market price, with some kind of pay-as-you-use system. I suspect 5 kWh/day is way to little to keep the house warm and still be able to cook food. The exact number doesn't really matter here. What's more problematic is how the 5 kWh of guaranteed/insured/subsidized power would be allocated. If it's your first 5 kWh/day, it will be you'll blow past the quota by noon, and if there was a price spike in the evening you would pay the full price of it, or shut off your breaker until prices go down. Having it as a some sort of pool you can draw from anytime you want doesn't suffer from the above problem, but would make such a service very expensive to run for the counterparty due to adverse selection. Anyone using such a service would opt to use the market price when electricity is plentiful/cheap, and switch to fixed price when electricity is scarce/expensive. The net result is that the 5 kWh ends up always being the most expensive electricity for the day, and a service providing such a guarantee will be priced accordingly. In a competitive market, you would expect the price of a fixed price plan to be the same as the "5 kWh per day at fixed price and anything extra at instant market price" plan that you propose. You might be tempted to argue that utilities/the government can subsidize the latter plan as some sort of green energy initiative, but that would be be bad. The most expensive energy also tends to be the dirtiest, because peaker plants (power plants that can quickly turn on/off) tend to run on fossil fuels. Subsidizing such a scheme would also be subsidizing electricity consumption during peak hours, and therefore subsidizing fossil fuel plants.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Most of the benefit can be achieved in one step by putting an 'eco mode' button on home chargers that makes it dispense power if and only if there is curtailment (which can be looked up over network) or the car battery is critically low. Make this an overridable default with some messaging about owners doing their part for a greener future to make it palateable and you don't need the battery to feed back out for the EV to be acting as storage. This benefits the grid operator because they get to massively overcharge for curtailed energy. It benefits the EV manufacturer because they get to greenwash. And the consumer doesn't get a say because they don't actually own their DRM'd remote controlled car and charger.
pharmakom 4y ago
Hooking up the car to the roof solar is still very expensive. It needs to be done for every house. What if the car is at work and someone needs the battery power at home?
- missedthecue 4y ago
  Would you be drawing down the battery on your car every night and leaving in the morning on an empty tank?
mlindner 4y ago
Car batteries are not going to be a substantial source of grid energy. You need those for driving and additionally the battery chemistries used in cars isn't optimized for the kind of loading that a grid would put on it.
dTal 4y ago
>On a road trip >Stop for lunch, plug in car to recharge >Cloud passes in front of sun >Grid empties car People won't want to put their plans at the mercy of a fluctuating grid. There will never be a time when people are happy to plug in their car and come back to find it empty, electricity spot price be damned. It's my car, not your grid storage system.

londons_explore 4y ago

Power prices have been going negative and spiking up 100x in the UK for a decade or more. Yet the vast majority of EV's don't have the ability to discharge into the grid to earn money... Most can't even charge when power is negatively priced unless you pay for a third party charger and service. Basically, Car owners, charger owners, Utility companies, and EV manufacturers would all like to earn the money by charging/discharging your EV at times to earn the most money. But all of those people don't want someone else being able to take that sweet sweet revenue. So they put roadblocks in the way. EV's usually have the capability to charge into the grid, but firmware that won't allow it. Chargers (AC and DC) won't allow power to flow back into the grid, and will disconnect any car who tries. Utilities refuse to let home users take part in the minute by minute pricing - instead the best available is dynamic pricing set half hourly a day in advance. And users want to do this, but have three parties who've assembled roadblocks in the way. And there is no indication of that impasse ending anytime soon.

gruez 4y ago
>Utilities refuse to let home users take part in the minute by minute pricing - instead the best available is dynamic pricing set half hourly a day in advance. That seems reasonable considering what happened with griddy in texas.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  There are better approaches. For example a supplier could sell you 5 kWh per day at a fixed price, and anything extra you use is at instant market price, with some kind of pay-as-you-use system. Then if the prices go sky high, users who chose that plan at least get to use 5kWh each day. 5kWh is plenty to not freeze and to keep your phone charged and fridge going. If you want more, you can pay more. The UK already has a system of electricity meters that have a 'balance', and when the balance reaches zero it cuts off till more credit is added. Such a scheme integrates well with that, and means a user can never rack up a massive unexpected bill if the price goes crazy high or low.
  - gruez 4y ago
    > For example a supplier could sell you 5 kWh per day at a fixed price, and anything extra you use is at instant market price, with some kind of pay-as-you-use system. I suspect 5 kWh/day is way to little to keep the house warm and still be able to cook food. The exact number doesn't really matter here. What's more problematic is how the 5 kWh of guaranteed/insured/subsidized power would be allocated. If it's your first 5 kWh/day, it will be you'll blow past the quota by noon, and if there was a price spike in the evening you would pay the full price of it, or shut off your breaker until prices go down. Having it as a some sort of pool you can draw from anytime you want doesn't suffer from the above problem, but would make such a service very expensive to run for the counterparty due to adverse selection. Anyone using such a service would opt to use the market price when electricity is plentiful/cheap, and switch to fixed price when electricity is scarce/expensive. The net result is that the 5 kWh ends up always being the most expensive electricity for the day, and a service providing such a guarantee will be priced accordingly. In a competitive market, you would expect the price of a fixed price plan to be the same as the "5 kWh per day at fixed price and anything extra at instant market price" plan that you propose. You might be tempted to argue that utilities/the government can subsidize the latter plan as some sort of green energy initiative, but that would be be bad. The most expensive energy also tends to be the dirtiest, because peaker plants (power plants that can quickly turn on/off) tend to run on fossil fuels. Subsidizing such a scheme would also be subsidizing electricity consumption during peak hours, and therefore subsidizing fossil fuel plants.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Most of the benefit can be achieved in one step by putting an 'eco mode' button on home chargers that makes it dispense power if and only if there is curtailment (which can be looked up over network) or the car battery is critically low. Make this an overridable default with some messaging about owners doing their part for a greener future to make it palateable and you don't need the battery to feed back out for the EV to be acting as storage. This benefits the grid operator because they get to massively overcharge for curtailed energy. It benefits the EV manufacturer because they get to greenwash. And the consumer doesn't get a say because they don't actually own their DRM'd remote controlled car and charger.

pharmakom 4y ago

Hooking up the car to the roof solar is still very expensive. It needs to be done for every house. What if the car is at work and someone needs the battery power at home?

missedthecue 4y ago
Would you be drawing down the battery on your car every night and leaving in the morning on an empty tank?

mlindner 4y ago

Car batteries are not going to be a substantial source of grid energy. You need those for driving and additionally the battery chemistries used in cars isn't optimized for the kind of loading that a grid would put on it.

dTal 4y ago

>On a road trip >Stop for lunch, plug in car to recharge >Cloud passes in front of sun >Grid empties car People won't want to put their plans at the mercy of a fluctuating grid. There will never be a time when people are happy to plug in their car and come back to find it empty, electricity spot price be damned. It's my car, not your grid storage system.