EV - not ready for the masses?

[Geoarch]

No. Considering it.

I don't know how supportive AZ is. New Mexico is very supportive, at least with the current administration.

Sponsored

 

[MPMB]

This is ignoring the time of use factor; a quick google search is telling me that there is a much greater difference than 21% between peak power usage during the day and the current power usage overnight, in fact peak-to-average ratios range from 1.5 to over 1.8 regionally.

And of course your assumption is based on magically replacing half of the US vehicle fleet; in reality if every car sold from today forward were a BEV, it would still take years to get to 120 million electric cars; take a look at how much our electricity production has changed over time and compare that to the sort of consumption your calculations suggest.

Calculations were done based on total usage, regardless of time used. I probably should have said "demand" rather than "load." The point is, at a density highly unlikely (but if "they" eventually want all ICE gone, it's a start), EV will require a lot of energy.

What we need to know is how much power accessibility needs to be added now, so we're ready when we hit 120 million EVs. There are approximately 17 million vehicles sold in the US each year. If 1/2 are EVs, that's 8.5 million - so in 15 years we'll need to be ready (riiiiight). The grid needs to be ahead of the market. And we all know how long infrastructure takes to get built (I'm still waiting for a 3-mile stretch of highway out of 12 miles to be finished that was started about 25 years ago).

According to the EIA, our energy generated (in terms of BTUs, ironically) hasn't increased much in the last 20 years. Now, I know this isn't apples to apples based on my calculations above, but what the data does show - and what's important - is our total energy generation and consumption. As far as generated electricity, that's remained relatively flat the past 15 years or so.

The graphs in the links below show our creation and usage. Electricity generated in 1950 was less than 500 billion kWh. It took about 12 (1962) years to double capacity. Then about 14 years to double that (1976). We didn't double our energy production for another 28 years. Since 2004, we've been hovering just over 4 trillion kWh.

It's fantastic that over the past 20 years, energy consumption hasn't drastically increased despite the growth of devices that consume energy. Off the top of my head, these items would include: computers, computer monitors, iPads, smartphones, game consoles, multiple big screen tvs, and on and on. Things that didn't exist 30-40 years ago at the level they do today. Definitely the advances in energy efficiency are paying off.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

 

[j.o.y.ride]

I got it from my vendor (Affordable Solar): https://affordable-solar.com/

They told me that I was restricted to 10, but 6.2 has been adequate.

Based on what I saw, you aren't actually restricted.

"It’s important to note that EPE does not limit customers from installing a DG system that will produce over 120% of customer’s annual consumption. This is a requirement only if customer wants to be on Net Metering in NM. "

https://www.epelectric.com/renewabl...interconnection-of-facilities-less-than-10-kw

 

[Geoarch]

Based on what I saw, you aren't actually restricted.

"It’s important to note that EPE does not limit customers from installing a DG system that will produce over 120% of customer’s annual consumption. This is a requirement only if customer wants to be on Net Metering in NM. "

https://www.epelectric.com/renewabl...interconnection-of-facilities-less-than-10-kw

That's good news, although what you don't use will be captured by the for-profit utility. You do get net metering to bank for the summer, but in the meantime they sell it to others. That's why I tried to scale it to what we would use plus a bit more. If I was storing it, that would be different. What's the policy in California?

 

[dcmdon]

The in-car battery to wheels is going to be more efficient than hydrogen to wheels.

The major difference is in refueling. Hydrogen can be topped off in the same time as gasoline.

True. Though I believe that hydrogen fuel cells can get into the 80% range for efficiency.

Whereas internal combustion engines, regardless of what they run on only convert about 30% of the energy into a given fuel into mechanical energy.

The other factor is scalability and cost. This has nothing to do with cars, but if you want to run on renewables, you need to be able to store huge amounts of energy for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Reserves of hydrogen can be made when there is a surplus of electricity and consumed when there is a shortage.

 

[stampedingTurtles]

Calculations were done based on total usage, regardless of time used. I probably should have said "demand" rather than "load." The point is, at a density highly unlikely (but if "they" eventually want all ICE gone, it's a start), EV will require a lot of energy.

What we need to know is how much power accessibility needs to be added now, so we're ready when we hit 120 million EVs. There are approximately 17 million vehicles sold in the US each year. If 1/2 are EVs, that's 8.5 million - so in 15 years we'll need to be ready (riiiiight). The grid needs to be ahead of the market. And we all know how long infrastructure takes to get built (I'm still waiting for a 3-mile stretch of highway out of 12 miles to be finished that was started about 25 years ago).

What is missing here is the assumption that the total amount of capacity that needs to be added is equal to the amount of total usage added, which would only be the case if all of the additional usage is added at peak times.

Interestingly, the large difference in peak demand vs baseload has been something that power companies have been pointing out as a problem for years; they have to add generating capacity at significant expense to meet peak demand, however that peak demand is only for a brief period of time. Not only is the demand only for a portion of the day, it is also seasonal, so the additional generation capacity sits idle a huge percentage of the year.

According to the EIA, our energy generated (in terms of BTUs, ironically) hasn't increased much in the last 20 years. Now, I know this isn't apples to apples based on my calculations above, but what the data does show - and what's important - is our total energy generation and consumption. As far as generated electricity, that's remained relatively flat the past 15 years or so.

From the source you linked, I'm seeing a significant increase in capacity since 1990 (around 400 million kw). Further, it shows a huge shift in actual generation away from coal plants; from the charts you linked it looks like we've added nearly half a trillion kwh of renewable generation in less than 20 years. Around a trillion kwh of coal has been replaced in the last 13 or so years. If we've added 400 billion kwh of solar and wind in the last 10 years, does it seem crazy to think we could add another 400 billion in the next 10? And that is if we actually needed to add that much. Of course, we probably actually will add some amount of capacity over the next few years, given that such a large portion of the peak usage (which is what is really going to drive the increase in capacity) is from air conditioning and refridgeration, and demand for that is likely to continue to increase.

 

[stampedingTurtles]

True. Though I believe that hydrogen fuel cells can get into the 80% range for efficiency.

Whereas internal combustion engines, regardless of what they run on only convert about 30% of the energy into a given fuel into mechanical energy.

The other factor is scalability and cost. This has nothing to do with cars, but if you want to run on renewables, you need to be able to store huge amounts of energy for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Reserves of hydrogen can be made when there is a surplus of electricity and consumed when there is a shortage.

The 80% figure might be accurate for some individual step in the process (perhaps the fuel cell turning 80% of the energy in the hydrogen fuel into electricity), but the total cycle (extracting the hydrogen from water or natural gas, compressing it and getting it into the vehicle, generating electricity from that, and then turning that electricity into mechanical energy) is much lower than that. Still much better than an ICE engine, and particularly when you look at the real-world efficiency of an ICE engine.

 

[Jut60]

Happened to read this article about electricity demand and was slightly surprised to see New England, unsure what the behind the scene data is capturing, peak was about 16 years ago. https://www.iso-ne.com/markets-operations/system-forecast-status/seasonal-system-outlook/ It does seem reasonable with the increase of solar panels put in place over the past 15-20 years. So it would seem like the system could handle an increase in vehicles getting plugged in. The push to a later in the day demand, as noted in the article, may also be those vehicles being plugged in after someone gets home from work, my assumption.

I’d be interested in an electric vehicle, but I still want my manual.

I have used battery powered pallet jacks and fork lifts, 25 years ago, and though the batteries were huge, the system to just swap one out with a charged one, took only minutes. If there was a way for a manufacturer that could do this at a larger scale, along with the consumers being okay with just swapping batteries, maybe it would be a feasible option. Like every xyz deaership or station had a rack of batteries charging, swing in exchange your near depleted battery for a full one, and a couple minutes you are off on your journey. Just like a blue rhino propane exchange. That’s it, sorry for the long post.

 

[Geoarch]

True. Though I believe that hydrogen fuel cells can get into the 80% range for efficiency.

Whereas internal combustion engines, regardless of what they run on only convert about 30% of the energy into a given fuel into mechanical energy.

The other factor is scalability and cost. This has nothing to do with cars, but if you want to run on renewables, you need to be able to store huge amounts of energy for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Reserves of hydrogen can be made when there is a surplus of electricity and consumed when there is a shortage.

And likely nuclear.

 

[DPF140]

True. Though I believe that hydrogen fuel cells can get into the 80% range for efficiency.

Whereas internal combustion engines, regardless of what they run on only convert about 30% of the energy into a given fuel into mechanical energy.

The other factor is scalability and cost. This has nothing to do with cars, but if you want to run on renewables, you need to be able to store huge amounts of energy for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Reserves of hydrogen can be made when there is a surplus of electricity and consumed when there is a shortage.

Capilary fed electrolysis cells are 98% efficient.. breakthrough!

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/03/20220321-hysata.html

 

[Hootbro]

We aren't ready to go all out on EVs. We don't have the grid to charge them.

The guy on Engineering Explains has a pretty good video explaining the power grids and how they have grown up till now and makes the case that it is realistically doable for the grid to expand to cover expected mass EV adoption rates over time.

 

[K9Jeeper]

Where did this graph come from and is there any write up to support it? Not saying it isn't correct, but anybody can make a graph.

I’ll go further than you and say it’s totally BS. At a time like this, where media and politicians are absolutely pushing their agenda at all costs, why would you just sit directly on your own hands and believe the first thing you see/hear? People need to start thinking critically before you allow others to think for you…

 

[dcmdon]

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-resources
"Today 95% of the hydrogen produced in the United States is made by natural gas reforming in large central plants"

For perhaps decades to come, you'd be better off just burning natural gas in your ICE than hydrogen. Storage density ain't great with CNG, better with LNG, but still better than any viable hydrogen tank in a consumer vehicle (another topic entirely)

Can hydrogen be a useful energy pathway for vehicles, sure maybe someday. By that time the responses in this thread would probably look a lot different

This is why if vehicles are to be powered by hydrogen it needs to come from electrolyzed water.

Most hydrogen used today is not intended to be burned as a "clean" energy source.

When hydrogen is derived from natural gas the following things come into play.
1) the process creates carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in addition to the hydrogen.
2) The process is endothermic, which means you need to put energy into the system (through high pressure steam) to liberate the H2. Typically since you are deriving the hydrogen from natural gas, there is a free supply of natural gas. So that means burning natural gas to drive the endothermic reaction.

So like you said. Natural gas derived hydrogen as a fuel is pointless. You are better off just burning the natural gas.

 

[dcmdon]

The guy on Engineering Explains has a pretty good video explaining the power grids and how they have grown up till now and makes the case that it is realistically doable for the grid to expand to cover expected mass EV adoption rates over time.

One of the joys of capitalism is that growing the grid is not our problem. It will happen organically. Industry, seeing an expanding market for their product will invest in the infrastructure to create and deliver more of their product.

Its no different from GM building a factory in anticipation of more demand.

The challenges for the electric industry is that bringing on new capacity can take years to decades, depending on the method of generation.

It will happen. But if suddenly tomorrow everyone had electric cars, there would be a problem.

Which leads me back to something I've said many times. Plug in hybrids, most of which have batteries in the 15-25 kwh range, are where its at.

 

[dcmdon]

The info I'm finding with some quick searches doesn't bear that out; the actual driving efficiency of ICE engine vehicles is low enough that you will actually get more miles out of a unit of natural gas by converting it to hydrogen and using it in a FCEV, and even better than that by using the natural gas to generate electricity and charging a BEV.

It would be interesting to see what a hybrid vehicle running on CNG would have for overall efficiency, it probably improve the situation a bit, but I'm not sure if it would be enough to catch up to the FCEV.

There are also natural gas powered fuel cells. Which would be more efficient than any of the other methods you mentioned.

No conversion losses making H2 out of NG. And the efficiency of an electric powertrain. With a small battery a NG powered fuel cell vehicle could recover kinetic energy when coasting and braking.

Sponsored