Jump to content

Grid monitor warns of U.S. blackouts in ‘sobering report’


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Either way it can still be expensive to just add a charger to an older home.

 

Just as an example of power companies helping out with install costs:

JCP&L residential customers can get an incentive of up to $1,500 for the cost of customer make-ready work needed to install a qualified Level 2 EV charger and up to $5,500 for utility service upgrades, if needed.

 

I'm guessing the $1500 the charger install and the $5500 is for utility power upgrades aka power to the breaker. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Just as an example of power companies helping out with install costs:

JCP&L residential customers can get an incentive of up to $1,500 for the cost of customer make-ready work needed to install a qualified Level 2 EV charger and up to $5,500 for utility service upgrades, if needed.

 

I'm guessing the $1500 the charger install and the $5500 is for utility power upgrades aka power to the breaker. 


Well that certainly helps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, akirby said:


Well that certainly helps.


Not everyone is going to be willing/able to provide that kind of incentive though. I doubt the notoriously cheap DTE Energy here in Michigan would go that far unless the state government throws a giant pile of taxpayer money at the program as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Just as an example of power companies helping out with install costs:

JCP&L residential customers can get an incentive of up to $1,500 for the cost of customer make-ready work needed to install a qualified Level 2 EV charger and up to $5,500 for utility service upgrades, if needed.

 

I'm guessing the $1500 the charger install and the $5500 is for utility power upgrades aka power to the breaker. 

And if they have excess electricity to sell, might as well do it.  No different than incentives to install any other electrical appliance (water heaters, cooktops, heat pumps, etc).  Get the customer hooked and make the profit back over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Not everyone is going to be willing/able to provide that kind of incentive though. I doubt the notoriously cheap DTE Energy here in Michigan would go that far unless the state government throws a giant pile of taxpayer money at the program as well. 

Maybe.  I think it really comes down to how much excess capacity the electric company has.  The more they have the more likely the incentive to get you using more of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2022 at 9:17 AM, ice-capades said:

The U.S. can build as many charging stations as it wants but needs to seriously address the power grid issues and how we generate electricity in this country. There's a basic conflict with increased regulations on existing/traditional energy production, blocking efficient increased pipeline transportation of energy, making investment in increased refinery capacity cost prohibitive while pushing the transition to BEV vehicles that will increase the demands on the power grid before enough "clean energy" sources are available in the quantities necessary to offset the costs involved for the transition. Both Federal and State gas taxes are used to fund infrastructure maintenance but as the BEV market share increases, new technology can be expected to be utilized to monitor BEV vehicle usage in order implement new taxes to make up for the reduced traditional gas tax funding.

 

Governments mandating a rapid transition from ICE to BEV vehicles have to address the real-world, related energy costs of the transition and the impact on the consumers. Market and economic factors in the past two years have continued to drive both new and pre-owned vehicle prices to continuous higher levels. At some point, the market will reach its limit as to how high prices can go before impacting sales. The government subsidies/tax credits for BEV vehicles have given the manufacturers a license to charge premium prices for vehicles in much the same way that Student Loans gave colleges a license to substantially increase tuition fees because the funding was so easily available. Eliminate the BEV tax credits and you'll see a real competitive market that will drive down the costs to the consumer and then increase the BEV consideration rate.      

 

The U.S. has gone from being a net energy exporter to being dependent again on imports. We're reducing our Strategic Petroleum Reserve by a million barrels per day for a minor reduction in gas prices without regard to the cost of replenishing that oil which was intended for emergency use only. Increased solar and wind power will help but are very dependent on climate conditions and the technology for energy storage is still evolving. Germany is heavily dependent on foreign energy after a policy of shutting down nuclear plants, yet France uses nuclear energy to supply 80% of its needs.

Some people don't want to hear this, but to make all of this work when we eventually replace all 275+ million autos in our country with BEVs we are going to need new nuclear power plants and a lot of them. Coal is being phased out and at some point Natural Gas will be phased out as well. Relying on solar, wind and hydro energy to charge all of those cars? Not a chance. Until we rethink our opposition to nuclear power moving to 100% BEV is a pipe dream.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

Some people don't want to hear this, but to make all of this work when we eventually replace all 275+ million autos in our country with BEVs we are going to need new nuclear power plants and a lot of them. Coal is being phased out and at some point Natural Gas will be phased out as well. Relying on solar, wind and hydro energy to charge all of those cars? Not a chance. Until we rethink our opposition to nuclear power moving to 100% BEV is a pipe dream.

 

But yet this has been refuted many times over by someone who actually works in the energy industry @bzcat

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Not everyone is going to be willing/able to provide that kind of incentive though. I doubt the notoriously cheap DTE Energy here in Michigan would go that far unless the state government throws a giant pile of taxpayer money at the program as well. 

 

Damn your right...

 

Consumers Energy is offering a $400 rebate to qualifying residents. To qualify, you must be a Consumers Energy residential customer, own a plug-in EV, and install an approved Level 2 charger at your home.

DTE is offering a $500 rebate to qualifying residents. To qualify, you must purchase or lease an EV, install a qualified Level 2 charger, and enroll in a year-round time-of-use (TOU) rate.

 

LOL

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Damn your right...

 

Consumers Energy is offering a $400 rebate to qualifying residents. To qualify, you must be a Consumers Energy residential customer, own a plug-in EV, and install an approved Level 2 charger at your home.

DTE is offering a $500 rebate to qualifying residents. To qualify, you must purchase or lease an EV, install a qualified Level 2 charger, and enroll in a year-round time-of-use (TOU) rate.

 

LOL


DTE is publicly traded and part of them going public was a guarantee that they are REQUIRED to deliver a certain margin every quarter. I believe it's 10 percent but I haven't fact checked that. Because of that they literally can't invest in anything, including basic routine maintenance on their grid. It's why Michigan is ranked dead last or close to last in grid reliability time and time again. Nothing in this state is set up to work for the people, it's one giant money machine for the elites and the more I hear the more I believe it's as bad or worse than DC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But yet this has been refuted many times over by someone who actually works in the energy industry @bzcat

 

 

 

People can believe what they want. There is a whole industry out there pumping out fake news to feed the trolls. 

 

We don't have an issue with generating capacity. We are generating more renewable power than we can use right now. We have an issue with storage which is being addressed.

 

We will not be completely free of fossil fuel based power for probably another 70 or 80 years but the key is to reduce reliance on it every year. EU has reduced its CO2 emission by 20% compare to the 1990 baseline and their economy hasn't imploded. It takes Govt to make responsible policy decisions and establishing clear regulatory framework to get there. Basically the complete opposite of what the US has been doing because we let industry regulate themselves for the most part. 

 

Germany has huge capacity on wind and solar power, which is why they can phase out nuclear power - renewable about 45% of the power generation, more than fossil fuel. They are much further ahead of the US - most industrial buildings and many residential units have long had solar panels. EU as a whole is at 20% renewable right now. Germany and many Northern European countries have a dependency on Russia gas but they use that for heating mainly, not for power generation - that's a different topic altogether... Winterizing buildings to retain heat can replace a lot of heating needs but you run into the opposite problem during summer due to change in climate, winters get colder and summers get hotter. Noticed the 100+ degree heatwave in Europe right now. In a few months, they will be freezing due to reduced flow of Russian gas. This is why it's extra urgent to address the underlying cause for the extreme weather events. 

 

The comparison of Germany and France also ignores a key fact - Most of France have mild winters and doesn't see snow, which is why it is less dependent on Russian gas. I'm not going to get into nuclear vs. renewable... that's clearly a new rightwing propaganda talking point being manufactured by troll farms. Nuclear power is quite expensive and has a big waste problem that last millions of years. It's not as practical as a solution if you consider all the externalities. It's only becomes an "easy" answer if you ignore the societal cost of waste disposal - the same way we externalized the emission of CO2 from fuel fossil fuel. 

Edited by bzcat
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

People can believe what they want. There is a whole industry out there pumping out fake news to feed the trolls. 

 

We don't have an issue with generating capacity. We are generating more renewable power than we can use right now. We have an issue with storage which is being addressed.

 

We will not be completely free of fossil fuel based power for probably another 70 or 80 years but the key is to reduce reliance on it every year. EU has reduced its CO2 emission by 20% compare to the 1990 baseline and their economy hasn't imploded. It takes Govt to make responsible policy decisions and establishing clear regulatory framework to get there. Basically the complete opposite of what the US has been doing because we let industry regulate themselves for the most part. 

 

Germany has huge capacity on wind and solar power, which is why they can phase out nuclear power. They are much further ahead of the US - most industrial buildings and many residential units have long had solar panels. EU as a whole is at 20% renewable right now. Germany and many European countries have a dependency on Russia gas but they use that for heating mainly, not for power generation - that's a different topic altogether... winterizing buildings to retain heat can replace a lot of heating needs but you run into the opposite problem during summer due to change in climate, winters get colder and summers get hotter. Noticed the 100+ degree heatwave in Europe right now. In a few months, they will be freezing due to reduced flow of Russian gas. This is why it's extra urgent to address the underlying cause for the extreme weather events. 

 

Thank you for the detailed explanation bzcat. Regarding the comparison between clean energy regulatory framework in EU versus U.S., and the urgency of addressing the underlying cause for the extreme weather events, the President of the U.S. announced yesterday policies to expand wind power generation in the U.S. Unfortunately, he did not declare a formal climate emergency yesterday, though it remains under consideration. 

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Father in law was a science teacher and taught at the local girls college in retirement and the one thing that has stuck with me when he's talked about climate change is that we might have damaged or done something already that isn't "recoverable" from a while back ago. That isn't to say that trying to improve things is a giant waste of time/money/effort, but I'd definitely tempter expectations. Plus in the grand scheme of things we wouldn't see that change in our life times if it was "better"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

My Father in law was a science teacher and taught at the local girls college in retirement and the one thing that has stuck with me when he's talked about climate change is that we might have damaged or done something already that isn't "recoverable" from a while back ago. That isn't to say that trying to improve things is a giant waste of time/money/effort, but I'd definitely tempter expectations. Plus in the grand scheme of things we wouldn't see that change in our life times if it was "better"

 


The problem with the science here is that it’s all theoretical.  We can’t accurately reproduce the Earth’s atmosphere and weather in a lab and there are so many variables here that it’s impossible to say with certainty what is causing it and what can be done to stop or reverse it (if anything).  You have solar output, distance and angle from the sun, cloud cover, deforestation, development causing heat islands.  Just look at the impact on climate moving 300 miles north or south.

 

So if we’re serious about this we should be reforesting like crazy and eliminating heat islands with more green space.  That also helps with flooding.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, akirby said:

So if we’re serious about this we should be reforesting like crazy and eliminating heat islands with more green space.  That also helps with flooding.

While I agree with this, I don’t think there is enough money to be made with this approach. So these ideas will never be pushed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, CurtisH said:

While I agree with this, I don’t think there is enough money to be made with this approach. So these ideas will never be pushed. 

 

Precisely! It's not about saving the environment, it's about how we can help my buddy earn a buck so that he can give me some kickbacks.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:

So if we’re serious about this we should be reforesting like crazy and eliminating heat islands with more green space.  That also helps with flooding.

 

1 hour ago, CurtisH said:

While I agree with this, I don’t think there is enough money to be made with this approach. So these ideas will never be pushed. 

 

Ford Motor Company last year provided the largest single year donation to National Forest Foundation in the history of that organization. Ford's effort, called "Bronco Wild Fund", will result in the planting of approximately 1 million new trees. Bronco Wild Fund Collaborator | National Forest Foundation (ford.com)

 

billboard_v2.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting video I saw of politicians questioning Pete Buttigieg about the amount of power 2 EVs at every home equals to across the year.  Based on average mileage, if each household has 2 EVs, it is the equivalent as each household having 25 refrigerators plugged in and asked him if the grid can handle that type of demand.  His reply was no...   

 

So how is our grid going to be able to handle this 100% transition to EV?  

Edited by blwnsmoke
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blwnsmoke said:

So how is our grid going to be able to handle this 100% transition to EV?  

 

As bzcat mentioned, by enhancing overall grid resiliency. Many things are being done already in this context. Examples.

  1. Vehicle to grid (V2G) and vehicle to home (V2H) technologies. This allows communication among BEV, utility companies, and residential buildings, ultimately providing interaction with the grid to make it more reliable. Ford is currently collaborating with PG&E in California to explore how F-150 Lightning's Intelligent Power Backup and bidirectional charging features can accomplish that.
  2. Energy storage and dispatch technologies. This takes generated electricity, especially from renewable clean energy sources, stores it, and releases it as needed during periods of high demand or when generation ebbs. U.S. Department of Energy currently is running a program with a dozen individual projects throughout the country related to this, called "Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storage" or GRIDS.
  3. TOU provisions for home BEV charging. These programs encourage customers to do BEV charging during off-peak periods, by providing lower electric rates during those times. Some, like the program I signed up for, allow unlimited BEV charging during off peak hours for a monthly subscription fee.
  4. Return to base charging strategy for commercial BEV (trucks and vans). This entails the installation of dedicated charging stations at commercial facilities like depots, truck yards, etc., with charging of these vehicles taking place when they return from their runs such as overnight or between work shifts. This strategy can be combined with TOU provisions to encourage off-peak charging.
  5. Microgrids. These are miniaturized grids that pool together EV charging equipment, local generation from clean energy sources like solar panels, and local energy storage and dispatch technologies. Microgrids can operate independently, thereby relieve the load on the larger macrogrid because BEV charging is done using local sources. As needed, microgrids can also connect to the macrogrid to improve resiliency. 

I'm sure bzcat and other Blue Oval Forums members who work in the energy industry can provide more examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, akirby said:


The problem with the science here is that it’s all theoretical.  We can’t accurately reproduce the Earth’s atmosphere and weather in a lab and there are so many variables here that it’s impossible to say with certainty what is causing it and what can be done to stop or reverse it (if anything).  You have solar output, distance and angle from the sun, cloud cover, deforestation, development causing heat islands.  Just look at the impact on climate moving 300 miles north or south.

 

So if we’re serious about this we should be reforesting like crazy and eliminating heat islands with more green space.  That also helps with flooding.

 

Gravity is also theoretical but there is enough empirical evidence that it exist. Same with climate change. The science is pretty conclusive. 

 

Scientific theory doesn't mean something is not real. The entire field of physics is theoretical and yet we have built an modern economy and way of life on all these theories.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

Gravity is also theoretical but there is enough empirical evidence that it exist. Same with climate change. The science is pretty conclusive. 

 

Scientific theory doesn't mean something is not real. The entire field of physics is theoretical and yet we have built an modern economy and way of life on all these theories.


I didn’t say it wasn’t real.  I said we can’t accurately determine the cause and we sure as heck can’t test the solutions to verify they work.  So all we can do is take our best guess and see what happens.  Lab models are just too simple.

 

And if the problem is CO2 then we should be pursuing natural solutions like reforestation and stopping deforestation instead of super expensive mechanical solutions.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, akirby said:

And if the problem is CO2 then we should be pursuing natural solutions like reforestation and stopping deforestation instead of super expensive mechanical solutions.  

 

The problem is CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels. The solution is to phase out the use of fossil fuels ("decarbonization") as much as possible, as soon as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...