Jump to content

How California is preparing its grid to handle the transition to electric vehicles


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, akirby said:


The wall is available 100% of the time for both discharging and charging.

 

BEV are only available some of the time based on how the owner drives and their personal preference on charging.

 

Exactly, that's what I meant about battery wall and BEV being complementary. Primary role of battery wall is as an energy storage and distribution device, with the bonus of being able to charge BEV off-grid. Primary role of BEV of course is transportation, with the bonus of further increasing resiliency for individual homes especially with V2H and V2G technology when plugged in. As BEV replace ICE powered vehicles in aggregate, they can improve the resiliency of the entire electric grid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:


The wall is available 100% of the time for both discharging and charging.

 

BEV are only available some of the time based on how the owner drives and their personal preference on charging.

 

It's a question of investments. Not every household will invest in localized storage like Tesla wall (unless of course building code changes in the future, which it might). But almost every household in the US has at least 1 vehicle. 

 

If you are a utility and your goal is to increase grid resiliency, you'd be crazy to not want to utilized the portable battery that is already installed at all of your residential customer meter. You do that by offering free 2-way smart meters and structure rate schemes that encourages EV to charge at only certain time of the day. Smart metering will take care of the rest. 

 

You as a customer and decide (perhaps on your phone app that controls your home) when or if you want to use your "reserve" power. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all about the transition to BEV and think using it as a backup "generator" in emergency situations is awesome, but I know I wouldn't let the power company use my primary transportation as a band-aid for their bad grid with a limited number of charge/discharge cycles before it needs an expensive battery replacement. Full charge and unplug. eff em. I'd bet a lot feel similarly.

That is unless I'm misunderstanding how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, you don't sell your stored power back to the grid. You only sell excessive power generation from your solar panels back to the grid. 

 

Stored power are for you to use later (time shift). You can either use it to drive to dinner, or you can use it to microwave your dinner - but you get dinner either way.

 

Smart metering is required to switch from grid power to stored power. 2-way metering is required for you to sell excess power back to the utility. Smart 2-way meter can do both. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Article states or implies most BEVs are being charged at night when power is cheaper; but this is also when incremental power comes from fossil fuels.  That being the case, how much is actually being accomplished towards reducing CO2?  Also, if BEVs are charged with fossil fuels at night, why bother using them to meet peak-demand power instead of just adding more peak generation capacity?  If or when the grid is 100% renewable (they estimate 2045), then cars as storage makes some sense to me, but only to a limited amount in areas like California where peak power demand due to air conditioning is during or close to solar production hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Article states or implies most BEVs are being charged at night when power is cheaper; but this is also when incremental power comes from fossil fuels.  That being the case, how much is actually being accomplished towards reducing CO2?  Also, if BEVs are charged with fossil fuels at night, why bother using them to meet peak-demand power instead of just adding more peak generation capacity?  If or when the grid is 100% renewable (they estimate 2045), then cars as storage makes some sense to me, but only to a limited amount in areas like California where peak power demand due to air conditioning is during or close to solar production hours.

Initially, most owners would be home charging their EVs and paying significantly less cost for energy. Sure, power utilities are also in the process of moving to using more renewables. The energy efficiency using electricity generated from coal vs burning gasoline or diesel is undeniably better as is the control of emission from say a single point versus tens of thousands of gasoline burning cars sitting in traffic.

 

There are a lot of issues currently with power usage versus the effect of greener initiatives, people are changing and things seem confusing at the moment because they are but what is truly needed is more solar/wind/batteries to make a true change and that takes much longer to achieve than any politician’s term of office.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Initially, most owners would be home charging their EVs and paying significantly less cost for energy. Sure, power utilities are also in the process of moving to using more renewables. The energy efficiency using electricity generated from coal vs burning gasoline or diesel is undeniably better as is the control of emission from say a single point versus tens of thousands of gasoline burning cars sitting in traffic.

 

Depending on which vehicles are being compared, I’m not sure I agree with significant energy cost savings, or that coal-fueled BEVs will reduce GHGs.

 

I recall a study from years ago that compared Tesla 3 to average ICE on the road, and even with that much bias, powering Tesla with older coal plants was detrimental.  Obviously, BEV GHGs are much lower when grid is green, but on margin that is not reality for at least the next decade.

 

To make matters more complicated, if ICE is a compact hybrid car with over 50 MPG economy, and BEV is a heavy Tesla Cybertruck or similar inefficient BEV used for personal transportation, then charging the Cybertruck with coal is worse than putting gas in compact hybrid.  Just saying that not only is subject complicated, but unfair to some buyers as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

Depending on which vehicles are being compared, I’m not sure I agree with significant energy cost savings, or that coal-fueled BEVs will reduce GHGs.

 

I recall a study from years ago that compared Tesla 3 to average ICE on the road, and even with that much bias, powering Tesla with older coal plants was detrimental.  Obviously, BEV GHGs are much lower when grid is green, but on margin that is not reality for at least the next decade.

 

To make matters more complicated, if ICE is a compact hybrid car with over 50 MPG economy, and BEV is a heavy Tesla Cybertruck or similar inefficient BEV used for personal transportation, then charging the Cybertruck with coal is worse than putting gas in compact hybrid.  Just saying that not only is subject complicated, but unfair to some buyers as well.

See this is the problem with studies from “a few years ago”, the data from those studies is also backwards looking and not necessarily a true indicator of today’s situation let alone where the power utilities ar heading in the next few years. California is already at 59% renewable energy sources, so that’s only going to increase in the next few years, wind and batteries adding to the night time power delivery. 
 

The other situation with base load coal power plants is that if the daytime base load is replaced by renewables, the coal plants have to ease back until night time load increases……maybe more a job for gas fired generators, quicker ramp up and substantially less GHGs than coal.

 

The Argus Cogeneration Plant in San Bernardino County is the only coal-fired power station still operating within the state of California.

 

Quote


https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2022-02/new-data-indicates-california-remains-ahead-clean-electricity-goals

New Data Indicates California Remains Ahead of Clean Electricity Goals 

For Immediate Release: February 22, 2022

SACRAMENTO -- Data from the California Energy Commission (CEC) shows that 59 percent of the state’s electricity came from renewable and zero-carbon sources in 2020. 

 The CEC estimates that in 2020, 34.5 percent of the state’s retail electricity sales were served by Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)-eligible sources such as solar and wind. When sources of zero-carbon energy such as large hydroelectric generation and nuclear are included, 59 percent of the state’s retail electricity sales came from non-fossil fuel sources in 2020. 

  In 2019, over 60 percent of the state’s electricity came from renewable and zero-carbon sources. The decrease in 2020 is due to decline in hydroelectric generation caused by severe drought, as well as pandemic-related delays to new renewable energy projects.

Graph showing California's progress toward 100 percent clean energy

“California is fully committed to achieving 100% clean electricity” said CEC Chair David Hochschild, “The cost reduction and innovation happening in the renewable energy industry have created the conditions where renewables are mainstream and fossil fuels are now becoming the alternative energy.” 

 Annual numbers also indicate that California surpassed the 2020 RPS goals in 2018, when an estimated 34 percent of retail electric sales came from RPS-eligible sources. 

Senate Bill 100 (2018) accelerates the RPS goal to 60 percent by 2030. The landmark policy also requires RPS-eligible sources and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of California’s electricity retail sales and electricity procured to serve state agencies by 2045. 

Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2022-23 budget proposal includes nearly $2 billion to spur additional innovation and deployment of clean energy technologies to support the state’s transition to 100 percent clean electricity. This includes funding for long-duration storage and planning for offshore wind, two critical resources that can help cover the gap that occurs at the end of the day when renewable generation such as solar drops and demand for power rises. 

Graph showing generation from renewable and zero-carbon electricity sources as a percentage of California's retail sales.

The data shows the 2020 decrease is primarily due to a nearly 20 percent decline in large hydroelectric generation compared to 2019. The small decrease in the amount of RPS-eligible renewables is mostly due to decreased production from small hydroelectric facilities which dropped by just over 40 percent compared to 2019. Additionally, pandemic-related delays to new clean energy projects contributed to a 50 percent drop in new in-state RPS generation. 

 For more information on the state’s progress towards 100 percent clean electricity for all, download the 2021 Annual California Clean Energy Almanac on the CEC's Energy Almanac page.

 

 

 

Edited by jpd80
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

Depending on which vehicles are being compared, I’m not sure I agree with significant energy cost savings, or that coal-fueled BEVs will reduce GHGs.

 

I recall a study from years ago that compared Tesla 3 to average ICE on the road, and even with that much bias, powering Tesla with older coal plants was detrimental.  Obviously, BEV GHGs are much lower when grid is green, but on margin that is not reality for at least the next decade.

 

To make matters more complicated, if ICE is a compact hybrid car with over 50 MPG economy, and BEV is a heavy Tesla Cybertruck or similar inefficient BEV used for personal transportation, then charging the Cybertruck with coal is worse than putting gas in compact hybrid.  Just saying that not only is subject complicated, but unfair to some buyers as well.

on your last paragraph I'm a little stupid.  I do not understand your compo of a cybertruck to a small hybrid, what are you suggesting other than someone would choose a BEV pickup vs a Prius for MPGs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2022 at 8:28 PM, jpd80 said:

See this is the problem with studies from “a few years ago”, the data from those studies is also backwards looking and not necessarily a true indicator of today’s situation let alone where the power utilities ar heading in the next few years. California is already at 59% renewable energy sources, so that’s only going to increase in the next few years, wind and batteries adding to the night time power delivery. 
 

The other situation with base load coal power plants is that if the daytime base load is replaced by renewables, the coal plants have to ease back until night time load increases……maybe more a job for gas fired generators, quicker ramp up and substantially less GHGs than coal.

 

The Argus Cogeneration Plant in San Bernardino County is the only coal-fired power station still operating within the state of California.

 

 

 

This is an interesting discussion on several levels. One of them is that moving forward at the same time with electrification of personal transportation and eliminating the concept of baseload power as the backbone of electricity generation will turn traditional electric power economics on its head. With baseload power underpinning the electrical system you want to incentivize, with lower rates and other incentives, shifting electricity use to evening and nighttime because that is when you will have the most slack in power generation as demand drops overnight. But with a power generating system of (nearly all) renewable energy, you have very little baseload power in the system, as when night falls solar power generation stops and wind power typically dies down some as well. You then depend to a large degree on battery or kinetic systems (like water towers) to store excess daytime power generation and have it available for the night when the sun's not out and wind often dies down. That electricity is *a lot* more expensive than daytime electricity and it will undoubtedly start to be priced as such. A recent Stanford University study published in the journal Nature Energy goes into more detail on this fast approaching change in electricity economics in places like California. In other words, the concept of saving money with an EV by charging it overnight with (relatively) cheap electricity goes away.

https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2022/09/22/charging-cars-honight-not-way-go/

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

54 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

This is an interesting discussion on several levels. One of them is that moving forward at the same time with electrification of personal transportation and eliminating the concept of baseload power as the backbone of electricity generation will turn traditional electric power economics on its head. With baseload power underpinning the electrical system you want to incentivize, with lower rates and other incentives, shifting electricity use to evening and nighttime because that is when you will have the most slack in power generation as demand drops overnight. But with a power generating system of (nearly all) renewable energy, you have very little baseload power in the system, as solar power generation stops and wind power typically dies down some as well. You then depend to a large degree on battery or kinetic systems (like water towers) to store excess daytime power generation and have it available for the night when the sun's not out and wind often dies down. That electricity is *a lot* more expensive than daytime electricity and it will undoubtedly start to be priced as such. A recent Stanford University study published in the journal Nature Energy goes into more detail on this fast approaching change in electricity economics in places like California. In other words, the concept of saving money with an EV by charging it overnight with (relatively) cheap electricity goes away.

https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2022/09/22/charging-cars-honight-not-way-go/

wow lots of info and mind changing concepts I had not considered that makes reasonable advice for the future of electric future...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tarheels23 said:

on your last paragraph I'm a little stupid.  I do not understand your compo of a cybertruck to a small hybrid, what are you suggesting other than someone would choose a BEV pickup vs a Prius for MPGs?

 

That they are not comparable was the point.  As I understand it, in a few years Californians will be able to buy and drive a Cybertruck (or similar) but won’t be allowed to buy a new HEV Prius (or similar).  Obviously these vehicles are not the same and have very different capabilities, but policy does not prevent anyone from buying energy inefficient BEVs and use them to drive to store or their kids to school.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jpd80 said:

See this is the problem with studies from “a few years ago”, the data from those studies is also backwards looking and not necessarily a true indicator of today’s situation let alone where the power utilities ar heading in the next few years. 

 

It is funny that that was my reaction as well, but with exception study was backwards looking when convenient and forward looking also when convenient.  My objection was they selected the most energy efficient BEV at the time (Tesla 3) for future estimates, and compared to backwards looking historical ICE data which included gas guzzlers.  That approach is biased in my opinion.

 

Estimates based on comparables, like Tesla 3 versus similar-size hybrids, is better but would yield different results.  Present-day hybrids already achieve twice the fuel economy of what was used in study if I recall correctly (in mid 20s).

 

Regarding California power generation goals, it seems very optimistic to me.  Regardless, even if they can achieve 100% by 2045, their plans are not necessarily applicable to other parts of country.  In the north, for example, peak solar in winter doesn’t produce nearly as much as in summer, while residential heating is more demanding than air conditioning in summer.  Also, details like heat pumps may not be as effective as in California, so heat may require much less efficient resistance heat.

 

I like BEVs a lot and don’t doubt California has good intentions.  However, they are not the center of the universe nor should they be seen as a role model for every other state in my opinion.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

That they are not comparable was the point.  As I understand it, in a few years Californians will be able to buy and drive a Cybertruck (or similar) but won’t be allowed to buy a new HEV Prius (or similar).  Obviously these vehicles are not the same and have very different capabilities, but policy does not prevent anyone from buying energy inefficient BEVs and use them to drive to store or their kids to school.

OK, thanks.  But Cali is not stopping ICE/Hybrid till 2035 unless I'm mistaken when ICE will be eliminated from new car purchases but not used.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2022 at 8:12 PM, Rick73 said:

To make matters more complicated, if ICE is a compact hybrid car with over 50 MPG economy, and BEV is a heavy Tesla Cybertruck or similar inefficient BEV used for personal transportation, then charging the Cybertruck with coal is worse than putting gas in compact hybrid. 

 

BEV is an order of magnitude more efficient than a comparable ICE vehicle. Hybrid powertrains of course improve efficiency, but they still fall well short of all electric propulsion.

 

In the 2022 EPA Fuel Economy Guide, the following extremes were listed. 2022 Fuel Economy Guide

  • Most efficient BEV. Tesla Model 3 RWD, 132 MPGe combined
  • Least efficient BEV. Audi e-tron S with 21" or 22" wheels, 63 MPGe combined
  • Most efficient conventional hybrid. Toyota Prius Eco, 56 MPG
  • Least efficient conventional hybrid. Audi RS Q8 and Mercedes-Benz GLS 63 4MATIC+, 15 MPG
  • Most efficient plug-in hybrid. Toyota Prius Prime, 133 MPGe electricity + gasoline; 54 MPG gasoline
  • Least efficient plug-in hybrid. Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-Hybrid, 42 MPGe electricity + gasoline; 18 MPG gasoline
  • Most efficient gasoline vehicle, no hybrid. Mitsubishi Mirage, 39 MPG
  • Least efficient gasoline vehicle, no hybrid. Bugatti Chiron Pure Sport and Super Sport, 9 MPG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2022 at 7:12 PM, Rick73 said:

 

To make matters more complicated, if ICE is a compact hybrid car with over 50 MPG economy, and BEV is a heavy Tesla Cybertruck or similar inefficient BEV used for personal transportation, then charging the Cybertruck with coal is worse than putting gas in compact hybrid.  Just saying that not only is subject complicated, but unfair to some buyers as well.

I agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate, how much coal is needed to extract, refine, and transport the gasohol, incl that used for the biomass component, to make 14 gallons of unleaded regular for the Prius?

1887712215_devilgrin.jpeg.464886d4a8e31879e90cf4785ba8822d.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, rperez817 said:

BEV is an order of magnitude more efficient than a comparable ICE vehicle. Hybrid powertrains of course improve efficiency, but they still fall well short of all electric propulsion.

 

Order of magnitude?  To me that usually means 10 times more efficient, but can’t imagine that’s what you mean in the context of my comment.

 

Again, my statement is based on charging BEVs with fossil fuels, most likely natural gas, prior to grid achieving near 100% renewable.  In California, their goal is 50% by 2035 if I read correctly, which means incremental loads will be met by fossil-fuel power generation.  Charging BEVs at night (or day for that matter) with lower-cost electricity will result in more NG generators operating to meet that load.  Renewables in 2035 can be used up for non-transportation needs regardless of what is done with electrification of transportation, at least the greatest part.

 

Older power plants are less efficient and need to be decommissioned as soon as practical, but even newest which are more efficient than latest auto engines are not nearly an order of magnitude better.  If we use fuel heat value (as EPA does for MPGe), we would be lucky to get 2 times the efficiency (and it is likely less than that).  So what really happens when 1/3 to 1/2 of energy in fuel gets to home BEV charger?  What does that do to its EPA MPGe number in the real world as it relates to producing GHGs?

 

I like concept of BEVs, but feel we would accomplish more by focusing on updating the grid first and reducing loads rather than adding loads that will extend the life of worst power plants.

 

15 hours ago, rperez817 said:
  • Least efficient BEV. Audi e-tron S with 21" or 22" wheels, 63 MPGe combined
  • Most efficient conventional hybrid. Toyota Prius Eco, 56 MPG

 

Above example shows what I’m referring to.  A large inefficient BEV charged with fossil fuels is worse than efficient hybrid.  For time being conservation is better.

 

 

All this assumes California grid.  In much of US where older coal plants are still in operation, adding any loads from transportation is hard to conceive.  Are we much better than what China is doing in adding coal plants to power BEVs?  From my perspective it seems about the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2022 at 4:54 AM, Gurgeh said:

This is an interesting discussion on several levels. One of them is that moving forward at the same time with electrification of personal transportation and eliminating the concept of baseload power as the backbone of electricity generation will turn traditional electric power economics on its head. With baseload power underpinning the electrical system you want to incentivize, with lower rates and other incentives, shifting electricity use to evening and nighttime because that is when you will have the most slack in power generation as demand drops overnight. But with a power generating system of (nearly all) renewable energy, you have very little baseload power in the system, as when night falls solar power generation stops and wind power typically dies down some as well. You then depend to a large degree on battery or kinetic systems (like water towers) to store excess daytime power generation and have it available for the night when the sun's not out and wind often dies down. That electricity is *a lot* more expensive than daytime electricity and it will undoubtedly start to be priced as such. A recent Stanford University study published in the journal Nature Energy goes into more detail on this fast approaching change in electricity economics in places like California. In other words, the concept of saving money with an EV by charging it overnight with (relatively) cheap electricity goes away.

https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2022/09/22/charging-cars-honight-not-way-go/

 

Pricing is going to be part of the transition for sure. But what that article really illustrates is the need for more short duration storage to unable time shifting from generation to consumption. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2022 at 4:58 AM, bzcat said:

 

Pricing is going to be part of the transition for sure. But what that article really illustrates is the need for more short duration storage to unable time shifting from generation to consumption. 

This.

Development of more efficient batteries is critical to this working but also, more people using roof top solar to reduce daily  domestic consumption is another big plus for states like California. They don’t have to do this all at once but it looks a concerted effort to make permanent change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
4 hours ago, Deanh said:

300000 people without power due to inclement weather in So Cal....fast forward to 2035....everyone stuck at home becasue they cant charge their cars?....

 

Wait...you mean there's someone that's STILL using this lame argument?

If there's 300K people without power, then their neighborhood gas stations are all out of power, too.

  • Like 2
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...