On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 12:40:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 1:04:46 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 9:05:26 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 6:33:02 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:58:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 1:12:12 PM UTC+10, Ricketty C wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 3:29:48 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
> > > > > > > > <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Ricketty Crazy Man wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > They have to be parked somewhere they can be charged. You can talk about what is possible, but there is little incentive for employers to provide charging.
> > >
> > > They wouldn't have to pay for the current. Providing the extra wiring in the car park wouldn't be a big deal, and employers have an interest in keeping their employees happy.
> >
> > If they don't pay for the current they have to contract with someone to provide the setup. That is not something employers want to mess with. They prefer to run their businesses. We are a long way from there being any significant demand by employees to have charging available at work when they can just charge at home.
>
> The idea that the car being charged will identify itself to the grid, and the cost of the charging current billed to that particular car doesn't seem to have registered with you. It would be perfectly simple to set up in the Internet-of-things world that we seem to be moving into.
I like the way you wave your hand at the many issues of installing the chargers at employer's sites by chanting three times, "Internet of things". That is a very silly answer to the many issues involved.
The main issue it doesn't change is that the their party charging facilities are very expensive to use, and so a very strong disincentive to the user who can charge very cheaply at home.
Your ideas are only a solution to a problem in your mind. No one who's participation is actually required in order to make this all work has an incentive to make it so.
> > The more you talk about this the more I realize it will be a longer way off than I thought.
>
> The more we talk about this the more I realise how little you have thought about it.
As you so often do, you must fall back on ad hominem attacks when your arguments fall short.
> > > > Also, like homeowners many locations aren't amenable to adding charging. Too many employees and too much congestion. How many chargers does Tesla provide??? That's a real clue to what employers will be doing. If not Tesla, then who?
> > >
> > > Tesla provides super-chargers, which can charge cars fast. Charging in the parking lot can take hours, which calls for much cheaper equipment.
> >
> > Level 2 charging is around $1k per unit installed.
>
> Why would they install Level 2 chargers? Level 1 would be perferctly adequate for a car that would be parked for some eight hours. That's just a standard utility socket.
Level 1 charging is only 1 kW after the various factors... or 4 mph/32 miles for the work day. Not worth doing if you aren't plugged in overnight. For many people that's not even enough to drive to work and back home. Certainly it's not enough to make much of a dent in the mid-day excess energy generation. It's also rather wasteful of electricity since a significant portion of the power is lost in the conversion electronics. You can argue the cars can be optimized for low speed charging, but they aren't and I won't acknowledge that is a very realistic goal when nearly no one uses level 1 charging... other than perhaps Win who drives something like 25 miles a day and actually charges overnight.
> >When was the last time a company spent that much money on employees? Many companies won't give people offices because they cost too much. So they get cubes, a phone and the cheapest computer they can get away with.
>
> Strawman argument.
A labeling argument. This is a real issue for most companies. They aren't going to spend a kilobuck on each employee when the employees don't demand it and there is no incentive by the employees to ask for it rather than asking for more useful benefits like higher pay!
You are in denial about all the motivations and keep talking about bits and pieces of the issue in isolation. No one in the chain of stake holders have an incentive for this effort. No one. People can be motivated to charge during the day by cheaper electricity rates, but there is no way for those rates to be passed onto the consumers unless the company deals with the capital investment issues. Perhaps in 10 or 20 years after EVs become the norm this will change. But in the next five years there won't be enough EVs on the road to make employers blink about this issue. In fact, one company I used to work for was providing free charging to an employee and others were jealous and complained they wanted a perk to match.
> > The company could save money by allowing a third party to install expensive charging that none of the employees will use because they can charge at home for a fraction of the price.
>
> Why would the employees want expensive fast charging? Most people seem to work eight hour days.
Not fast, level 2. Level 1 is not worth using unless you are charging for a day or two. That's what I'm doing right now. I used to not bother with home charging because it wasn't effective in my weekly routine. But I'm not doing that so often so I charge for a couple of days to get some real charge on the car.
The idea that level 1 charging is effective for the shifting of energy consumption is a bit silly and doesn't match the facts.
> > > > > > So while there may be more electricity being utilized, it won't require added capacity.
> > > > >
> > > > > It might not require added capacity, but that does depend where the power is coming from.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It simply requires more consistent usage of the resources on hand. In the end this lowers the cost of electricity for everyone.
> > >
> > > https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/01/09/electric-cars-will-challenge-state-power-grids
> > >
> > > They talk about a 38% increase in generating capacity.
> >
> > Yes, they talk about it but they don't say it is required. They are speculating a demand on top of the peak load. As I have said a million times nearly all EV charging can be done at off peak times which uses wasted, idle peak capacity.
>
> Except that the "idle capacity" is coal fired or gas-fired generating stations, which we need to shut down as fast as possible.
Not if it is nuclear. Nuclear has the issue of not being able to be dispatched on demand. So they need consumers at night as well as at day. Good match for EV charging. Similar with wind power that needs to be used when the wind blows.
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/26/national-grid-fossil-fuel-vehicle-ban-electric-cars-is-there-enough-electricity-
> > >
> > > talks about needing an extra 18GW (on top of existing capacity of 60GW) to deal with a fully electric UK car fleet in 2050.
> >
> > Yup, 18 GW that can be provided for the cost of the fuel by charging at night.
>
> If you've got coal-fired, oil-fired and gas-fired generating stations that you can run at night. Wind power is available during the night, if the wind is blowing. Soalr power isn't.
How is this relevant??? They are talking about adding 18 GW of generation. So they will build enough fossil fuel generation to cover that during the day??? Adding solar and wind only cover the demand when they can supply it. So not a great solution to any energy problem without massive storage. But that's not the issue really. The point is day charging of EVs is not tenable for other reasons.
> > The big problem is that both of these reports conflate energy generation with power capacity. As you well know the two are not the same.
>
> It isn't a problem if you are only interested in the amount of extra power that will need to be generated. You were bitching about exact amount of extra power that would have to be generated when we went over completely to electric vehicles, and complaing that the 30% estimate was a "fake number".
I wasn't bitching about anything. I was pointing out your numbers are suspect and you have not supported them in any way. The reports you provide don't actually say what you seem to be claiming, that the generating capacity must be increased by 30%. So the claim is wrong even if the number is right and the number is wrong on top.
> > > > > It would be good if it could be regulated to place the extra load at times when it was easy to deal with, but getting to be able to do that might be simple, but won't be trivial.
> > > >
> > > > I think you just said this is a problem that needs addressing (or will need addressing). I think it is less of a problem than the 30% (fake news?) number indicates, but that is not to say no problem at all.
> > >
> > > It wasn't a fake news number when I first found it, and it still seems to be in the right ball park, though it takes quite a lot of work to find useful links.
> > It doesn't stand up to the basic math test. It only takes some basic calculations to show the number is far below 30%.
> >
> > https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
> >
> > 4.118 Billion kWh in 2019 for the total US.
> >
> > https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1905.cfm
> >
> > 3.225 Trillion Miles In 2018
> >
> > 3,225 Billion miles / 4 mi/kWh = 806 billion kWh or
> >
> > 806 / 4,118 = 19.6%
> >
> > How does less than 20% turn into 30%???
>
> Beat me. It's always been a ball-park estimate. Note that more efficient use of electric power has actually decreased the power used by some applications, and it could be that the extrapolation to 2040 or whenever electric vehicles actually get to dominate the market might include some allowance for a shrinking demand in other areas.
Wow! That's quite a stretch. So regardless, the 30% number is busted and meaningless in terms of generating capacity anyway since lots of capacity is idle at night and can easily be used to charge EVs.
> > Even if you change the mileage number to 3 miles/kWh that gives about 25%, still far from 30%.
> >
> > > > > > > We don't have to burn any fossil carbon to generate electricity (though we do burn quite a lot in power generating plants at the moment) so the effect on the carbon footprint is uncertain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the short term most EV charging is done at home at night when the costs are lowest and the free generating capacity (free in both senses of the word since it's already there to use, just pay the marginal costs) is sitting idle. This is mostly petroleum or coal and will increase pollution for the short term. As the generating sources change and/or the day time production of solar is stored in batteries to be used at night (who saw that one coming?) the carbon impact will be less.
> > > > >
> > > > > Setting up commuter parking so that electric cars can be charged up when the sun is shining is another option - probably a better one, and one that will have quite a lot of popular support, at least from people who know about anthropogenic global warming. The fossil carbon extraction industry is trying to make as many people as possible ignorant about this and their efforts have certainly worked on some of the people who post here.
> > > >
> > > > "Popular support".... does that mean the government will pay to put it in?
> > >
> > > Not usually.
> > >
> > > >Will they make the utilities install charging?
> > >
> > > Why should they? You have to pay an electrician to wire up your house, and adding a charging socket in your garage or next to your drive would something you'd have to pay for to. It wouldn't be all that expensive.
> >
> > It is also irrelevant to the issue of "commuter parking".
> >
> > > > While it would not be expensive per car really, since level 2 charging will do nicely, the aggregate amount will be considerable. Employers simply won't do it on their own.
> > > > > > Charging during the day can be encouraged as solar takes off. However providing a price advantage will be awkward unless it is done for all consumption. Adding extra meters to handle the billing will be costly
> > > > >
> > > > > Not very costly at all. It's just smarter meters, and electricity companies can already make enough money out of them to pay for them themselves.
> > > >
> > > > "Smarter meters"??? I don't know where you work, but most places provide parking and won't be willing to greatly increase this cost.
> > >
> > > Owning or renting the land - or space - where the cars get parked is going to cost them a lot more. Adding charging points would add to their value.
> > > It's an investment.
> >
> > Lol!!! There are LOTS of investments. Burying money in car park charging is not one with much of a pay off.
>
> Keeping employees happy can pay off hansomely. US enterprises seem to prefer to off-shore their employees.
And as I have pointed out many times employees won't be asking for EV charging at work because they can charge more kWh very cheaply at night at home.
> > Please stop be ridiculous about this. Companies won't buy car charging equipment unless there is a direct pay out even if it is in the form of employee happiness. But it has to be something employees need and ask for. Being able to charge at home is something they already have and doesn't require so many other parties to be involved with.
>
> But being able to charge your car while the sun is shining makes solar power a lot easier to sell. This affects society as a whole.
Yeah, lots of things impact society as a whole, but are never optimized because the incentives are not there. This is exactly that problem.
> > > > Maybe Australia is different from the US and employers put meters in their parking lots.
> > >
> > > Not yet. Hardly any demand so far.
> >
> > Bingo. Much demand will not develop.
>
> Wrong. We do have to move over to electric vehicles to get our CO2 output per head down. Electric vehicles are now cheaper to run, which means that they are selling in larger numbers which reduces the buying price - manufacturing ten times the volume typically halves the unit cost - so governments probably won't have to do anything much to make it happen.
Make what happen??? You seem to be waving hands again. EVs are not going to drop in price by a factor of 2. They are not twice as expensive as similar ICE vehicles. The 2x factor can only apply to the parts that are not pretty well established, i.e. the battery. The rest of the car remains the same as everyone else who do make 10 times more cars, a lot more than 10x more.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with charging at work. EV owners are happy charging at home, especially when only using level 1 charging at work.
> >The only motivation will be lower electricity costs. The employer won't see that since the other alternative is to have zero costs. The employees won't see it because there's no real option for them to pay it other than through expensive third parties which defeat the point of the low cost day time electricity.
>
> Who - exactly - are these "expensive third parties"? Anybody silly enough to want to put Level 2 chargers into commuter car parking, where Level 1 would be perfectly adequate would qualify, but they'd go out of business very rapidly.
Level 1 charging is simply not good enough for most people. Do the math. 8 hours of level 1 charging is very marginal for most drivers. When they can charge at home at very low rates there is no incentive to worry with charging at work.
> > > > > > and homeowners will not want to pay for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > They may not have to. It may help the generating business enough to persuade them to pay for it.
> > > >
> > > > Not likely I think, but possible. If they really thought there was money in it, they would be working on that now. Instead other than Tesla the auto makers are dragging their heels and they have the most to gain from public meters.
> > >
> > > It's the power generating companies that have most to gain.
> >
> > If you mean the main stream power companies, not so much. They want to see people using their non-dispatchable energy sources at night as well as their underutilized dispatchable energy sources allowing better amortization.
>
> Most of those under-utilised dispatchable energy sources are at the ends of their useful life. The Australian electricty generators are shutting them down rapidly much to the distress of the current adminstration who have a cozy relationship with the people who dig up the coal being burnt. The fact that the electricity being generated by burning fossil carbon is now more expensive than the output from solar farms and modern wind turbines doesn't help.
Yeah, but wind and solar are also non-dispatchable in that you can only use them when they are being supplied. So there is a long road to making them usable on large scales. It would be great if there were effective ways to incentivize charging with solar, but it won't involve level 1 charging at work.
Perhaps a tax on solar power could be used to pay for day time level 2 charging facilities where people work. Then charging can happen on the days when the sun shines and the cars operate the rest of the week. Just hoping "charging happens" won't cut it.
> > It would be the solar generators that want to encourage day time charging. That will require them to either be more vertically integrated providing the end point charging facilities or getting involved in legislation which is often not good for anyone else.
>
> The people who dig up fossil carbon are deeply invovled in current legislation which isn't good for the rest of the community either.
A red herring. They don't need to oppose solar car charging when it won't be reaching many cars during the day.
> > > > I just realized the auto makers are losing out on this side of the EV market. While making cars may be their bread and butter, making money on charging is a continuing profit center. If they develop a market for charging that will be continuing cash flow.
>
> Bu they'd be mad to put much effort into it. Electric vehicles are going to get charged relatively slowy at home or in commuter car parks.
Non-sequitur... charging is charging. There is money to be made from it no matter where or how fast it happens.
> Supercharging cars fast in the middle of a long trip is never going to be a mass market.
Not sure what point you are trying to make. Of course it will be a significant market. There are thousands of Superchargers in the US already and they are just getting started.
> > > Keeping thinking about the subject for a bit longer. Eventually you may catch up with what
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded
> > >
> > > was saying back in 2008, and has kept on being said since then.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid
> > >
> > > > I don't see utilities getting into this unless they are forced to. They will be happy to be part of the problem though with various rate structures to make the chargers less profitable.
> > >
> > > You do need to upgrade your crystal ball.
> >
> > Actually, it provides a very realistic view.
>
> A crystal ball can't provide a "realistic" view. It's always an extrapolation of current, and your doesn't seem to know enoguh about current trends to be worth much.
>
> > Utilities are limited to the extent of their businesses... they are a legal monopoly after all. As I've pointed out above traditional utilities have a disincentive to discourage overnight charging because of their existing power generation base. The best we can expect from them is to provide economic incentives for overnight charging.
>
> Ho hum. The Australian utilties are getting rid of their existing power generation base as fast as they can. Renewable power is cheaper per h\kilowatt hour, when it is there, and the utilities are starting to order grid storage so that they can use more of it when the sun isn't shining.
"When it is there" and "more of it" are weasel words that show your statements fall short of their implications. You can talk about removing fossil fuel generation but we are still a long way off from getting rid of it.
> > > > > > Charging at work will require additions to parking facilities, most of which are presently just sheets of asphalt. That won't happen any time soon either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your crystal ball probably needs to be updated - it doesn't seem to be looking at a particularly likely future right now.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what you are talking about. If you want charging at work the charging has to be added. Virtually no one supports that presently. What are you seeing?
> > > > > > I suspect the 30% number is not accurate.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can suspect all you like. I told you where I got the number from when I first posted it, and it's probably a more reliable source than your intuitions.
> > > > I don't care what you posted some months ago that I can't find. The numbers are not hard to come up with as I have shown. Simple math really, showing 30% is wrong.
> > > > > > Taking an average annual mileage number of 12,000 miles and a typical energy consumption of 4 miles per kWh gives 3,000 kWh per year or just over 8 kWh per day. That is only half of my summer usage and I didn't turn on the AC this summer. Factor in that most people see their bills double or triple in the summer and those with heat pumps increase in the winter, none of which accounts for the commercial sector's electricity usage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not exactly a useful input.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to see some numbers that show EVs using 30% of the current generation total.
> > > > >
> > > > > You did, but you've forgotten about it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Just as many have said that there will not need to be any distribution infrastructure changes from EV home charging, I find it implausible that EVs will suck up 30% of the generation capacity or that it will require anything to be added other than site specific changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > The distribution infrastructure has been changing more or less continuously since it was put in to support domestic electric lights. It's pretty flexible.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > What is certain is the burning gasoline derived from crude oil is responsible for quite a bit of our carbon footprint, and that going over to electric vehicles would let us reduce it, if we went to the trouble of getting most of our electric power from renewable sources (which is not something that the fossil carbon extraction industry wants to happen) .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It will also require coordination of charging with production unless we want to charge batteries so the car batteries can be charged when convenient.
> > > > >
> > > > > Non-dispatchable renewable power sources need grid storage. Pumped hydro is one way of getting it. Stacks of Tesla car batteries do the job in South Australia. The same batteries in parked electric cars is another option. There are others.
> > > >
> > > > Just like other hydro, pumped has geographical limitations. Not the best solution really.
> > >
> > > And your "best solution" is?
> >
> > Ok, not a universal solution... ok? It can't be any solution if it is not available due to geographic issues.
>
> If you've got a "best solution" you do need to be able to specify what it is.
>
> > > > The obvious solution for solar is to make day time charging the norm when the sun shines. Also using the reserve capacity at night.
> > > >
> > > > It will be a while before we have to worry about it though.
> > > >
> > > > > > I expect it will encourage people to install solar at home. If I had 2 kW on my house it would take care of my charging needs and also provide excess for the house. I might not need to use net metering at all. That's a low enough figure that between charging the car and supplying the house it will all get used up without involving the utility to act as my capacitor. Add a small battery, say 10 kWh and I might not need to buy power from the utility until it gets cold.
> > > > >
> > > > > Roof-top solar plus a battery is an increasingly popular option in Australia. It was 12% of the roof-top solar market in 2017.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/Inputs-Assumptions-Methodologies/2019/2019-Projections-for-Small-Scale-Embedded-Technologies-Report-by-CSIRO.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > discusses this sort of stuff in great detail, but hasn't got any kind of clear take-away message, beyond the fact they aren't willing to stick their necks out at all.
> > > >
> > > > This is an industry that is finding its footing. It will take time. While there has been a lot of press about renewables, the progress is only large relative to past progress. It's still a very small part of the grid in most places.
> > >
> > > There are places where it supplies all the power generated - on good days. Denmark is about 45% wind-powered, and aiming to get to 85%.
> > Yes, countries smaller than most US states. It would be the tenth smallest and around the mid point is size. Considering they have so much sea shore where wind power works very well, this is not unexpected.
>
> But you didn't seem to know about it.
>
> > None of this is at all relevant to other places where the geography is not so accommodating.
>
> As you say, there are other solutions, and they do seem to be able to work if you put in the effort to make them work.
Again weasel words, "if you put in the effort". Renewables can help with some issues, but they mostly create larger issues and don't solve any problems in a meaningful way.
> The one thing that is constant is that the fossil carbon extraction industry is going to make a lot less money when this happens, and are willing to spend big on propaganda aimed at slowing down the transition.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
>
> There is an industry devoted to producing that kind of propaganda, initially set up in the 1970s to serve the tobacco companies, but it has diversified since then.
> John Larkin seems to be addicted their product, which comes with added extra flattery.
Yeah, it seems odd they would bother with that when they only need to convey the facts to make their case.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209