The Future of EV Home Charging and the Grid

[nwdiver]

When we were an integrated utility (Generation -> meter) we designed rates to cover our costs with a little return for investors.
We designed a TOU rate for residential customers that was revenue neutral. That means that if we put every residential customer on that rate, we would receive the same annual revenue. If customers changed their usage habits so their bills went down, our costs would also decrease. It was not popular because people were afraid that they would pay more and there was not enough perceived value (incentive) to get them to change their usage habits. Until utilities get really expensive AND customers realize that they can save a lot of money (like with cell phones where many now bring their own phone to the plan instead of getting a 'free' phone every 2 years) I don't think things will change.I think deregulation has made it more difficult to support TOU because the costs are separated into generation and transmission/distribution.

I agree any TOU success needs to involve automatic system. Like scheduled charging in an EV. If I use ~20% of my battery for my daily commute the ~60%+ I have left when I get home is still enough to run errands and I'm not going to care if the car starts charging at 8pm or 2am so long as I'm back to 80% by 6am.

There are some enterprising companies in Texas like Griddy that find ways to pass TOU savings on to their customers. I think that aggregation will actually make things better. If a regulated utility owns (Generation => meter) there's a perverse incentive to make the case for more infrastructure. Additional expense is good because the regulated utility gets 10% of the $400M line upgrade...

First you have to increase capacity and transmission facilities to accommodate them.

??? For 2kW? Pretty sure the grid can handle a bunch of cars charging at 2kW.

It's distributed 'peaking power'. Here's a 30MW demo CAISO and EmotorWerks are working on.

 

[Feathermerchan]

No. Demand Response. If you have 2000 EVs collectively charging at 2kW each that's 4MW of peaking power available by telling those cars to stop charging. 4MW of lowered demand is the same as 4MW of increased supply.

It is 'LIKE' but not equal because you have to assume you'll have to make that energy at a later time. It's more like an energy loan.
More efficient equipment that can do the same job while saving 4 MW is far better because that 4 MW will never impact the grid.

We were required by our PUC to offer a commercial rate where on peak days we could interrupt them after having given notice. They would have the option to buy thru the interruption if they wanted. In exchange they got a lower demand rate because we would not need to build as much capacity. Guess what? they almost always bought through. For most businesses the cost of electricity is far down the list of expenses. They need it but it is a relatively small expense. Imagine having to close your store because you have no power.

 

[nwdiver]

It is 'LIKE' but not equal because you have to assume you'll have to make that energy at a later time. It's more like an energy loan.
More efficient equipment that can do the same job while saving 4 MW is far better because that 4 MW will never impact the grid.

To some degree. It's too early to tell since we don't have any good large scale programs in place but I can imagine a scenario where someone has a 4+ day buffer before they need to charge since their car has a 300 mile range and they have a 10 mile commute. We're getting pretty good at predicting load, solar generation and wind generation up to a week out. Time will tell but I expect demand response to be >90% as effective as peaking power. Grid storage is a 'loan' too since the batteries have to be recharged at some point and they're already replacing peakers. Properly synchronized EV charging could be just as effective at a fraction of the cost.

 

[mspohr]

Intermittency is a faux-problem
Getting energy to where it is needed is a moderately trivial exercise, although one that people keep bringing up as if a tiny town in Alaska or an isolated island is where everyone lives. The current reality is continent-scale grids bringing electricity from near the Arctic Circle in Canada and Scandinavia into New York and Paris, wind generation from the Prairies and offshore to the populated coasts and solar generation from the south to the north. High voltage direct current (HVDC) is going from strength to strength, with China just unveiling a massive new 1.1 KV HVDC transmission line using ABB transformers. China is even proposing seriously, at a very high level, a global polar HVDC continental backbone to share electricity around the more populous northern hemisphere.

An All-Renewable Grid Is Economically Superior To Mixed Generation | CleanTechnica

 

[Feathermerchan]

I expect grid scale batteries to be cheaper than using someone's battery in their car.
Grid scale batteries don't have to be mobile and can be monitored more closely for less $.
We have at least one in West Texas where land is very inexpensive. One big part of electricity cost is the fact that you cannot economically store it. The system has to be built based on maximum demand. Imagine a shoe business with no inventory. You have to build and deliver almost instantly to order. Very expensive. Battery storage could reduce electricity costs significantly. Especially with more solar and wind generation.

 

[nwdiver]

I expect grid scale batteries to be cheaper than using someone's battery in their car.
Grid scale batteries don't have to be mobile and can be monitored more closely for less $.
We have at least one in West Texas where land is very inexpensive. One big part of electricity cost is the fact that you cannot economically store it. The system has to be built based on maximum demand. Imagine a shoe business with no inventory. You have to build and deliver almost instantly to order. Very expensive. Battery storage could reduce electricity costs significantly. Especially with more solar and wind generation.

I don't think you understand how demand response will be used; Emotorwerks is demoing a 30MW demand response program using ~6k EVs. That's ~$150M worth of batteries for however much the software costs. The cheapest watt is always the one that you don't use (or use when it's more convenient). The limitation of demand response is scale not cost. I can't imagine grid storage being anywhere near as cheap as demand response. I can image the need for 100MW but you only have the equivalent of 50MW participating.

This isn't bi-directional. It's simply varying the charge rate of the fleet to stabilize supply and demand.

 

[electricar]

On the contrary. EVs are essentially dispatchable demand, the perfect match for non-dispatchable and super cheap renewables. Of which we are adding a lot of. Also completely destroys the argument for absurdly expensive thermal 'base-load' like nuclear.

I found this article rather compelling - you might read it. www.wsj.com/articles/only-nuclear-energy-can-save-the-planet-11547225861?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=8

 

[nwdiver]

I found this article rather compelling - you might read it. www.wsj.com/articles/only-nuclear-energy-can-save-the-planet-11547225861?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=8

Yeah. I read it. They're assuming magic with nuclear and ignoring the affordability of wind and solar. Nuclear is not a viable solution.

We don't even have the skilled labor to build 1 nuclear plant over 10 years... how in the world are we going to build dozens over the next 12 years?! It's literally impossible. Wind and Solar are the only options that can possibly work.

Solar and Wind are ~90% cheaper than nuclear on a MW basis and ~70% cheaper on a MWh basis.... How wide does this disparity have to get before people finally wake up to the nuclear scam?????

 

[electricar]

Read it again - the Georgia Power example that you cite is only a case study in how not to build a plant. If you travel to South Korea or France you will see the proper way to do it.

 

[nwdiver]

Read it again - the Georgia Power example that you cite is only a case study in how not to build a plant. If you travel to South Korea or France you will see the proper way to do it.

30 years ago that argument had merit. Koreas nuclear industry didn't atrophy to nothing and you can't rebuild an industry in ~12 years. France hasn't built a new nuclear plant in ~18 years and it's unlikely they could build more at the pace we need. The standards have also changed. Every failure is a lesson. We implement these lessons to make nuclear safer... and more expensive. Now we have a super safe and super expensive technology that simply isn't cost effective.

It's not just Vogtle. The US has squandered $100s of BILLIONS on nuclear boondoggles over the past ~40 years. I don't think a single nuclear plant has been built in the US for <2x it's projected budget since 1975. It's sad. This is literally like 'beaten wife syndrome' how many more failures before we accept reality and decide enough is enough???? Nuclear has been saying it's gonna change, it's gonna get better, for ~40 years we've heard the same story. It's only gotten worse. Time to leave.

We gave it a 4th chance in ~2008. That was a >$50B lesson. Still haven't learned? Really???

 

[electricar]

The developing world will be the tipping point for climate change ( if we aren't already there ). It really doesn't matter what the cost equation is for the US. You might consider the number of nuclear plants now under construction in China and India.

 

[nwdiver]

The developing world will be the tipping point for climate change ( if we aren't already there ). It really doesn't matter what the cost equation is for the US. You might consider the number of nuclear plants now under construction in China and India.

Since 2014 India has added ~2GW of nuclear which took ~12 years to build, cost $5B and deliver electricity for ~$64/MWh (not bad)....

Since 2014 India has added 19GW of solar which took... well... it takes a few months really. It's cumulative. Costs ~$1/w and deliver electricity for ~$37/MWh.

 

[Feathermerchan]

RE your demand response post, how are they getting the car owners permission to affect their charging?
They would have to pay me and I'm smart enough to know how much. I'd be stupid to give it away.

Instead of installing solar on my house, how about I invest in a company that builds solar plants and then get my power for free? Wouldn't that be a great way to make use of economies of scale?

 

[nwdiver]

RE your demand response post, how are they getting the car owners permission to affect their charging?
They would have to pay me and I'm smart enough to know how much. I'd be stupid to give it away.

Instead of installing solar on my house, how about I invest in a company that builds solar plants and then get my power for free? Wouldn't that be a great way to make use of economies of scale?

Not sure how those two comments relate but the simplest way to encourage participation would be a lower electric rate. Participate in our program and you get your electricity for $0.06/kWh instead of $0.09/kWh. If you watch the spot prices on the grid there can be enormous fluctuations so there's an incredible opportunity for arbitrage. The incentive doesn't have to be much since it really doesn't require much if any effort on the part of the participant and all of this scheduled charging can be over ridden if needed. A lot of people may join just because it's the right thing to do...

Here's another demand response program.

 

[mspohr]

RE your demand response post, how are they getting the car owners permission to affect their charging?
They would have to pay me and I'm smart enough to know how much. I'd be stupid to give it away.

Instead of installing solar on my house, how about I invest in a company that builds solar plants and then get my power for free? Wouldn't that be a great way to make use of economies of scale?

Usually you get a lower electricity rate.
You can also install solar and get low cost daytime charging or add a battery and shift consumption. (If you're smart enough.)

 

[Feathermerchan]

So I thought of an analogy.
How did the infrastructure for fueling ICE vehicles get built? There was enough demand to be able to profit from building refineries, pipelines, trucks and trucking companies, stations, and pumps. So it was all built. Does anyone go to the gas station to fill up at midnight because it is off peak and so makes better use of their capacity? No. Why? It's not worth it for the consumer.
As long as we allow utilities to make profits serving their customers and make sure they do it right (just like refineries, and pipeline companies) they will build the required capacity.

I'm in favor of solar and wind and other renewables but I live in a competitive area and so can buy renewable power by choosing my provider and am out no capital expense. If I move I can 'take it with me'. If I want to have shade trees its OK.

 

[Ampster]

Instead of installing solar on my house, how about I invest in a company that builds solar plants and then get my power for free? Wouldn't that be a great way to make use of economies of scale?

I suspect we will see this in California in the future. Personally I find investing in solar on my roof a great hedge against energy price increases and a great way to charge my Tesla. In particular I like selling my solar production at peak rates and buying tha energy back at cheap rates when I charge my cars.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It is 'LIKE' but not equal because you have to assume you'll have to make that energy at a later time. It's more like an energy loan.
More efficient equipment that can do the same job while saving 4 MW is far better because that 4 MW will never impact the grid.

We were required by our PUC to offer a commercial rate where on peak days we could interrupt them after having given notice. They would have the option to buy thru the interruption if they wanted. In exchange they got a lower demand rate because we would not need to build as much capacity. Guess what? they almost always bought through. For most businesses the cost of electricity is far down the list of expenses. They need it but it is a relatively small expense. Imagine having to close your store because you have no power.

No, it's shifting demand to match whatever you want it to match. It could match with other demand to smooth out production, or it could match with other demand to follow production.

As many people, including JB Straubel have said, using EVs as production-following/demand-response is only a software problem. No additional hardware required at the user end. There is so much leeway. For example, if I were commuting in a long-range BEV with a 7.2kW charger I'd be able to replace the charge used on my commute in less than 3 hours, even after a cold winter day. My car is normally parked from before 6pm to about 7am. Less than 3 hours of charging required with a 13 hour window. It's begging to be used in a smart way. The data transmission required would be a blip in the mass of streaming video.

And because, at high volume, charging demand from EVs could be very high in total, it's desirable to do something about it anyway. Smart charging turns a problem into a resource.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Not sure how those two comments relate but the simplest way to encourage participation would be a lower electric rate. Participate in our program and you get your electricity for $0.06/kWh instead of $0.09/kWh. If you watch the spot prices on the grid there can be enormous fluctuations so there's an incredible opportunity for arbitrage. The incentive doesn't have to be much since it really doesn't require much if any effort on the part of the participant and all of this scheduled charging can be over ridden if needed. A lot of people may join just because it's the right thing to do...

Here's another demand response program.

You could probably get a bunch of people to join in just by asking nicely.

 

[Feathermerchan]

It's not about.... - Ask nicely? To give away something of value? How about limiting your cell phone data when things on the network get busy so the carrier does not have to build as much capacity? You would do that for free?
Historically programs like that have been a failure. I should expect to be paid for giving up something of value.