Where will we get ALL that electricity whan most cars are electric?

[ZsoZso]

As has been pointed out in this discussion: There really are two issues - 1) Can the grid support it, and 2) Will the electricity generation feeding the grid be able to keep pace.

I suspect the answer is already that this is not on issue for many places. In my personal situation, my daily charging electricity needs are about 25% of what my daily house electrical usage is. The vast majority of my house electrical requirement is during the day. the car charges at night.

The unused generation and grid/distribution systems available at night is more than adequate for my charging needs by a factor of 2-3 times. Although the individual ratios will differ, I'd expect the vast majority of EV owners fall in to the same category.

That's with changing nothing today. As electricity is diverted from refiner consumption, more solar comes online, etc... the generation side might improve.

The night charging is a good and important point -- the grid and current generation capacity can handle EVs.
Additional solar installations do not help the night-time EV charging, but they can replace daytime coal/natural-gas generation that targets the peak usage currently. On the other hand, wind generation tends to be stronger at night, which is often a waste now due to low demand at night -- which is already handled by the baseline nuclear & hydro generation here in Ontario.

So major EV adoption can be handled and wind-power generation is a good match for the nightly charging.

 

[scaesare]

The night charging is a good and important point -- the grid and current generation capacity can handle EVs.
Additional solar installations do not help the night-time EV charging, but they can replace daytime coal/natural-gas generation that targets the peak usage currently. On the other hand, wind generation tends to be stronger at night, which is often a waste now due to low demand at night -- which is already handled by the baseline nuclear & hydro generation here in Ontario.

So major EV adoption can be handled and wind-power generation is a good match for the nightly charging.

Indeed.

There are also capacity-storage systems already in place (i.e. hydro-pumping) that can be used...

 

[PeterJA]

Solar PV is the future, with leveled power generation cost <$0.02/kWh I don't see anything that can compete. In a decade even a magic hot rock will be more expensive than solar PV since you still have to convert that heat to electricity.

This is incorrect.

If LPP's fusion technology works as predicted by all their science (which we'll know soon), fusion power will be an order of magnitude cheaper than solar PV. Unlike other fusion approaches, LPP's approach does NOT require conversion of heat to electricity, as I explained here:
Eric Lerner of Focus Fusion - Page 2

Unlike solar PV, LPP's technology (called Focus Fusion) will not require acres of machinery to generate 5 megawatts, and will not require energy storage to provide power 24-7. The machinery will fit in a small room, and should be mass-producible for $1-2M.

This huge cost advantage is why Focus Fusion supporters are so excited about its revolutionary promise (for stopping climate change, Third World poverty, etc.), in contrast to the evolutionary promise of solar PV.

LPP has done some careful cost analysis based on projected designs of the technology. I hope to post that analysis soon in the following thread:
LPP investment questions/discussion

 

[scaesare]

This is incorrect.

If LPP's fusion technology works as predicted by all their science (which we'll know soon), fusion power will be an order of magnitude cheaper than solar PV. Unlike other fusion approaches, LPP's approach does NOT require conversion of heat to electricity, as I explained here:
Eric Lerner of Focus Fusion - Page 2

Unlike solar PV, LPP's technology (called Focus Fusion) will not require acres of machinery to generate 5 megawatts, and will not require energy storage to provide power 24-7. The machinery will fit in a small room, and should be mass-producible for $1-2M.

This huge cost advantage is why Focus Fusion supporters are so excited about its revolutionary promise (for stopping climate change, Third World poverty, etc.), in contrast to the evolutionary promise of solar PV.

LPP has done some careful cost analysis based on projected designs of the technology. I hope to post that analysis soon in the following thread:
LPP investment questions/discussion

I don't think you get to categorically state somebody else's conjecture is "incorrect" and then start your post with "If xxxx works...".

 

[PeterJA]

I don't think you get to categorically state somebody else's conjecture is "incorrect" and then start your post with "If xxxx works...".

The part that is factually incorrect is the assertion that no power source can be cheaper than solar PV in a decade, not even a magic hot rock. Focus Fusion can be, if it works, because it is not a hot rock (heat source). Like 2-cent solar PV, it is a potential power source that generates electricity directly without converting from heat. I must state that categorically.

 

[scaesare]

The part that is factually incorrect is the assertion that no power source can be cheaper than solar PV in a decade, not even a magic hot rock. Focus Fusion can be, if it works, because it is not a hot rock (heat source). Like 2-cent solar PV, it is a potential power source that generates electricity directly without converting from heat. I must state that categorically.

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by nwdiver
I don't see anything that can compete.

 

[PeterJA]

Citation needed.

Well, you could start with my reply to nwdiver last February, which I already linked. After that, my article (linked below) has an explanation of the technology, including diagrams of the device.

With that background, you might better understand the LPP Evaluation Report by an independent committee of senior fusion scientists, chaired by a former director of US fusion research. Page 3 says (emphasis added):

<<After the pinch disassembles, Lerner believes that plasma ions will be exhausted along the axis of the device, carrying roughly two-thirds of the plasma energy, allowing efficient direct energy conversion to electric power.>>
http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/images/lpp_review_committee_evaluation-nov_28_2013.pdf

 

[scaesare]

Well, you could start with my reply to nwdiver last February, which I already linked. After that, my article (linked below) has an explanation of the technology, including diagrams of the device.

With that background, you might better understand the LPP Evaluation Report by an independent committee of senior fusion scientists, chaired by a former director of US fusion research. Page 3 says (emphasis added):

<<After the pinch disassembles, Lerner believes that plasma ions will be exhausted along the axis of the device, carrying roughly two-thirds of the plasma energy, allowing efficient direct energy conversion to electric power.>>
http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/images/lpp_review_committee_evaluation-nov_28_2013.pdf

No. Citation supporting your assertion that he said what you claimed.

 

[PeterJA]

No. Citation supporting your assertion that he said what you claimed.

I see. So you are scolding me because he said:
"Solar PV is the future... I don't see anything that can compete."
rather than:
"Solar PV is the future... there isn't anything that can compete."

My mistake.

 

[AC1K]

ill add another light to the discussion...

drilling for oil requires intimate knowledge of the ground so you know where exactly to drill, this requires million of man hours to calculate using data from ground radar, countless simulations, core samples, its a huge freaking list.

now, each geologist/geophysicist has a workstation grade machine (this is absolutely mandatory)
it has a crazy processor and more times than not, dual hex core hyper threaded xeon procs, thats 24 logical processors in ONE box
it usually has anywhere between 16GB - 64GB of ram
HDDs are server grade 7K-10K RPM disks in raid 1, 5 or 6
video card is generally a high end nvidia quadro that requires dual 6 or 8 pin power connectors (again, highest end stuff)
power supply is the kicker, its at least 850W - 1200W

when running simulations, everything goes to maximum power, full cpu, full video, full ram, disks are working constantly and they sometimes run for DAYS, its a lot of data to process.

these machines NEVER SHUT OFF so all the G&G folk are sucking 1kW of power when running simulations for days x the number of staff. so lets say you have 12 G&G employees, they leave their machines on for 1 week running simulations and what not.

7 days x 24h x 1kW x 12 wkstn = 2016kWh of electricity consumed by the workstations. or 11,858 km of range in a Tesla (nearly half a year of driving!)

so to think that 4-8kWh is all the power needed for a Gal of fuel is pretty short sighted.

EDIT: i didnt even add in the dual 30" monitors hooked up to each workstation or any thing plugged into the computer (usually backup drives), oh yeah, and the data center to support the terabytes of satellite imagery and seismic data and other supporting stuff required for the simulations

Edit again: also all those companies that make the software have power requirements too for their software programmers.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I see. So you are scolding me because he said:
"Solar PV is the future... I don't see anything that can compete."
rather than:
"Solar PV is the future... there isn't anything that can compete."

My mistake.

Posts are bordering on snappiness, folks. Let's step back.

Advocates of any form of renewable energy would be wise to remember that "all of the above" is probably the right answer. The critical goal must be to reduce the use of polluting fuels, as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. We can do solar and onshore wind today, relatively cheaply in many places. So, we should. But neither of these sources are a complete solution; they have neither the energy density nor reliability needed to fully replace today's fossil generators. So, we need to continue research on new technologies, be they storage, ocean-based renewables, fusion, and other promising ideas.

The great promise of EVs is that they get cleaner as the grid gets cleaner, while gas and diesel cars at capped at their out-of-the-factory efficiency. So, let's work together to clean up the grid, rather than fighting about which tech may eventually win. If we don't get a strong policy framework in place to foster energy innovation, we are all going to lose.

 

[nwdiver]

I agree with PeterJA that if focus fusion can indeed generate electricity directly w/o a steam plant then perhaps it can compete w/ PV. That has not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale. We don't have the luxury of waiting for "miracles"; The evidence shows that we are out of time... We need to deploy solutions we KNOW work. Solar and Wind WORK. More emphasis is needed in expanding their use.

R & D on new tech is important but not to the detriment of deploying what we have. Thermal solutions for grid power are largely a lost cause.

My point is that if you're hesitant to pull the trigger on that 10 Kw array because we're 5 years away from some breakthrough that's going to make solar obsolete you are wrong.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I agree with PeterJA that if focus fusion can indeed generate electricity directly w/o a steam plant then perhaps it can compete w/ PV. That has not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale. We don't have the luxury of waiting for "miracles"; The evidence shows that we are out of time... We need to deploy solutions we KNOW work. Solar and Wind WORK. More emphasis is needed in expanding their use.

R & D on new tech is important but not to the detriment of deploying what we have. Thermal solutions for grid power are largely a lost cause.

My point is that if you're hesitant to pull the trigger on that 10 Kw array because we're 5 years away from some breakthrough that's going to make solar obsolete you are wrong.

Thermal solutions are absolutely not a lost cause. Thermal's the vast majority of the grid and there have been multiple improvements in thermal, and CHP advances are likely responsible for part of the rush on NG. Realistically any 100% renewable solution is going to include biomethane and methanation so that we have sufficient energy storage. We're not going to get through cold, cloudy winters without dense energy storage.

 

[ZsoZso]

Yes, energy storage is required to shift wind/solar renewable energy production vs demand time differences, but there are ways other than batteries to do that, e.g. flywheels provide large scale solutions:

VYCON - UPS/Power Quality
Flywheel UPS Technology | POWERTHRU | Clean Flywheel Energy Storage
Turn Up the Juice: New Flywheel Raises Hopes for Energy Storage Breakthrough - Scientific American
Will Energy Storage Play a Big Role in the Electric Grid? - Scientific American
Carbon Fiber Flywheels | Beacon Power

 

[PonoBill]

Yes, energy storage is required to shift wind/solar renewable energy production vs demand time differences, but there are ways other than batteries to do that, e.g. flywheels provide large scale solutions:

Not likely. Part of the answer for energy storage is in the car you're driving. Suppose your neighborhood had 100 electric cars--all of them with different use patterns. With just a little system intelligence they can be used as a storage source. And their availability coincides with peak use. A big energy consumer (you) departs when your car is disconnected from the grid. Once you're safely asleep your car can be charged. Yes, you need some static sotrage as well, but with the majority of the investment in development and production going toward batteries, how likely is that static storage to be anything but? There still will be a lot of thermal plants--meaning coal and combined-cycle natural gas--but grid-based storage opens the doors for utilities to make primary investments in renewable sources without getting creamed by reliability issues in violation of their public franchise.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, for what it's worth, personal EV installations are being held back in many locations because of the potential for grid instability. EV charging actually mitigates that whether or not the EV is part of a smartgrid, even though a lot of EV charging happens at night. My wife has a Chevy Volt in Maui (great car by the way) which is charged primarily by our PV array. We were fortunate enough to get our grid-tie agreement and permits before the utility and government clamped down.

 

[nwdiver]

Originally Posted by FlasherZ
Out here, it doesn't really work out. At commercial prices of ~4 cents per kWh, even with incentives and projections of power cost increases, installed systems don't beat ROI on other investments.



The killer for a lot of commercial systems is the way the rates are structured. A common commercial plan is $6/kW PEAK and $0.03/kWh so solar w/o batteries has a very minimal impact on the electric bill...

Originally Posted by ItsNotAboutTheMoney
Thermal solutions are absolutely not a lost cause. Thermal's the vast majority of the grid and there have been multiple improvements in thermal, and CHP advances are likely responsible for part of the rush on NG. Realistically any 100% renewable solution is going to include biomethane and methanation so that we have sufficient energy storage. We're not going to get through cold, cloudy winters without dense energy storage.



I agree that we're going to need EXISTING thermal power for a few more decades... however if you look at the tech roadmap I don't see further investment in R&D or construction of new thermal plants (with the exception of NG combined cycle) as being a good idea. Solar PV is very likely to be <$1/w installed by 2020. Our efforts should be geared toward finding ways to store excess solar energy not building more plants that are going to be reduced to "stranded capital" by dirt cheap solar energy.