Grid and Electric Vehicles

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:13:34 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:11:52 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: 
> > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 2:11:33 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:13:11 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote: 
> > > > A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn't mention trucks. 
> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained> 
> > > It's going to be higher than that. The MPGe is just a legacy performance measure for consumers to think in terms of the MPG they've been using all their lives. It's used to compare the various EVs and does help in making a buying decision. Other than that it's just a energy measure and doesn't have any other purpose. 
> > > 
> > > The average EV sold to consumers runs about 1/3 kWh per mile, or 0.333 kWh/mile. 
> > That's a number plucked from air. I guess you can always find a way to calculate an "average" that will give you all sorts of numbers. But, my model X, which is the EV equivalent of a Buick, gets 3 to 4 miles per kWh (0.25 to 0.33 kWh per mile).
> The only way to know with less uncertainty is to use state registration data of all the various types of EVs out there. There's an almost 4:1 spread in the MPGe. Then that MPGe needs to be scrutinized too, to see how representative it actually is in practice. The situation is hopeless iow.

It's not about "less uncertainty".  It's about the fact that you pulled the number from your butt.  


> > > The high acceleration performance and SUV types consume twice that. USPS even managed to make a van that does 0.87 kWh/mile- that's so eco-illogical. 
> > LOL It's a hell of a lot better than 8 miles per gallon! 
> > > Getting back to average consumer at 0.333 kWh/mile, coupled with their average 13,500 miles annual gets about 4500 kWh annual. EIA has statistics of average residential household energy use at 10,632 kWh annual for latest year of record 2021. Carrying that forward makes for (10,632 + 4500)/10,632=1.42 or a 42% increase in energy use at the residential level. That particular number can also be considered the total energy draw of the residential sector, regardless of where they draw it, i.e. the EV can be charged outside the home or in the home. The particulars of location are the power supplier's problem. 
> > There's no shortage of bogus numbers to be calculated. 
> > > Things can change. Better battery technology can increase the kWh/mile. Retail can consolidate sales and delivery resulting in less people on the road. 
> > The efficiency of EVs is already very, very good. There is precious little wasted energy in EVs, so not a good place to look for improvement in efficiency. 
> > > Whenever this big transportation transition is supposed to occur, they better have 2X the generation capacity they have today, or there's going to be problems. 
> > > 
> > > Something like 80% of electrical power in U.S. is fossil fuel, so they have a long way to go. 
> > God! That is an amazing number!!! 20% is nuclear, leaving zero for wind, solar, hydro, etc. Maybe we are running at greater than 100%?
> You can find more exact numbers, which usually lag by about a year, at the EIA website. Oh wait- you never do anything constructive like that do you?

I have done that.  That's why I know your data is pure BS. 

-- 

  Rick C.

  +-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  +-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:47:03 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:13:34 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:11:52 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: 
> > > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 2:11:33 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:13:11 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote: 
> > > > > A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn't mention trucks. 
> > > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained> 
> > > > It's going to be higher than that. The MPGe is just a legacy performance measure for consumers to think in terms of the MPG they've been using all their lives. It's used to compare the various EVs and does help in making a buying decision. Other than that it's just a energy measure and doesn't have any other purpose. 
> > > > 
> > > > The average EV sold to consumers runs about 1/3 kWh per mile, or 0.333 kWh/mile. 
> > > That's a number plucked from air. I guess you can always find a way to calculate an "average" that will give you all sorts of numbers. But, my model X, which is the EV equivalent of a Buick, gets 3 to 4 miles per kWh (0.25 to 0.33 kWh per mile). 
> > The only way to know with less uncertainty is to use state registration data of all the various types of EVs out there. There's an almost 4:1 spread in the MPGe. Then that MPGe needs to be scrutinized too, to see how representative it actually is in practice. The situation is hopeless iow.
> It's not about "less uncertainty". It's about the fact that you pulled the number from your butt.

Not really. Inside EV has a listing of MPGe for every EV made.

> > > > The high acceleration performance and SUV types consume twice that. USPS even managed to make a van that does 0.87 kWh/mile- that's so eco-illogical. 
> > > LOL It's a hell of a lot better than 8 miles per gallon! 
> > > > Getting back to average consumer at 0.333 kWh/mile, coupled with their average 13,500 miles annual gets about 4500 kWh annual. EIA has statistics of average residential household energy use at 10,632 kWh annual for latest year of record 2021. Carrying that forward makes for (10,632 + 4500)/10,632=1.42 or a 42% increase in energy use at the residential level. That particular number can also be considered the total energy draw of the residential sector, regardless of where they draw it, i.e. the EV can be charged outside the home or in the home. The particulars of location are the power supplier's problem. 
> > > There's no shortage of bogus numbers to be calculated. 
> > > > Things can change. Better battery technology can increase the kWh/mile. Retail can consolidate sales and delivery resulting in less people on the road. 
> > > The efficiency of EVs is already very, very good. There is precious little wasted energy in EVs, so not a good place to look for improvement in efficiency. 
> > > > Whenever this big transportation transition is supposed to occur, they better have 2X the generation capacity they have today, or there's going to be problems. 
> > > > 
> > > > Something like 80% of electrical power in U.S. is fossil fuel, so they have a long way to go. 
> > > God! That is an amazing number!!! 20% is nuclear, leaving zero for wind, solar, hydro, etc. Maybe we are running at greater than 100%? 
> > You can find more exact numbers, which usually lag by about a year, at the EIA website. Oh wait- you never do anything constructive like that do you?
> I have done that. That's why I know your data is pure BS. 

I don't think you did. As usual, you don't have a clue.




> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick C. 
> 
> +-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
> +-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:48?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Ricky 
>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>> >On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:37:51?AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote: 
>> >> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

<snip>

>> >The first calculation this guy does is wrong. He uses some silly figure (33.7 kWh/gallon of gas) to calculate the total amount of energy needed to power all passenger cars in a year. But that's the wrong calculation and the 33.7 kWh is the total energy in the gasoline, taking into account none of the efficiency issues of gas cars. Here's how you do the actual calculation. 
>> > 
>> >230 million cars (his number) 
>> >* 13,500 miles/(car year) 
>> >/ 4 miles/kWh 
>> >= 0.776 trillion kWh/ year, not 1.2 trillion
>> With annual 776 TWh energy consumption and 8760 hours in a year, the 
>> average power is 89 GW, which could be produced with less than 100 
>> additional nuclear reactors. That would be two new nuclear reactors in 
>> each US state. 
>
>No, you can't have any new power generation, until you've used all the power generation you have, now!  

Yes, you are right, there are already EVs charged from existing power
plants :-) , thus new generating capacity is needed only for future
EVs.

I used the nuclear reactors as an example since they have a quite
similar power (1-1.6 GW) each, so it easy to think how many reactors
will be needed if all cars are electric. Thus it can be calculated how
much uranium is needed for the cards or how much coal is needed if
coal fired power plants are solely used.


>Why do people have to be told over and over again, about the demand curve???  There is somewhere around 1/2 of the total generation capability, available through the 24 hour demand cycle.  


At least in Scandinavia the day/night consumption variation is only
about 20 %. Only on very cold winter days the consumption can be twice
the summer time consumption. While EV charging can be moved to the
night to even out the demand, you can not postpone it several months
to a low consumption season :-).

>They have a term for generating capacity that can be brought online quickly, it's called "Dispatchable".  Loads are mostly "Right Now" loads, having to be supplied at the time they are turned on.  But... charging EVs is mostly a very flexible load, which can often be scheduled any time over the next two or three days.  We don't have a term for such a flexible load, but it's the load equivalent of "Dispatchable" generation, and means we don't need to build a single kW of generation to charge all 230 million EVs, other than the relatively few which need charging en route.  

What does 'quickly' mean ? For gas turbines it is seconds, for coal
fired and nuclear it is several hours or a day.

>
>> With unreliable renewable sources (such as wind and solar) the 
>> installed nominal capacity needs to be 3-10 times i.e. 270 to 900 GW 
>> to produce that average power. 
>
>Except that the EV ***IS*** the storage that allows the use of renewable power.  


If your EV battery capacity is so large and you drive so little that
the battery needs charging only once in a week or two you can rely
completely on renewables. Long high pressure periods areas and the
wind power is out. Long cloudy periods and the solar energy is out.
Both can be out simultaneously, thus you may need some other sources
to ride through several days.
 

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 05:25:38 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:43:07?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:



>> None of it will make as much difference as moving over to electric vehicles, and getting more grid generating capacity has never been a problem in the past - in the US it went up but 5% per year every year from 1950 to 2000 without anybody making any fuss about it. 
>
>It's the density of power draw that goes to make all the difference. People in U.S. are really opposed to building what they consider to be ugly infrastructure in expensive suburban areas. This is why the people who look at gross average expansion required for the whole country are clueless dweebs who don't know what they're talking about. Power generation expansion is going to have be located far off from urban centers, over 100 miles in most cases, and those locations are going to have to have easy access to an existing system of 'energy corridors' which consist of huge HVDC transmission line structures already in place. If things bog down into acquiring new right-of-way's, it may never happen. You wouldn't believe the problems they're having just building out relatively modest size 'undergrounding' transmission.

One distinct advantage with HVDC lines is that they can use
underground cables or even under water cables from town to  town.

High voltage AC connections suffer from the capacitance from phase to
ground and phase to phase so huge ugly overhead lines must be used for
long connections. The capacitance would sooner or later convert real
power(W) to reactive power (VAr).

With DC power, the capacitance is not a problem, so underground cables
can be used with less subjective objections.

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:23:00 AM UTC-5, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Ricky 
> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:48?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote: 
> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Ricky 
> >> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> >On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:37:51?AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote: 
> >> >> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> <snip>
> >> >The first calculation this guy does is wrong. He uses some silly figure (33.7 kWh/gallon of gas) to calculate the total amount of energy needed to power all passenger cars in a year. But that's the wrong calculation and the 33.7 kWh is the total energy in the gasoline, taking into account none of the efficiency issues of gas cars. Here's how you do the actual calculation. 
> >> > 
> >> >230 million cars (his number) 
> >> >* 13,500 miles/(car year) 
> >> >/ 4 miles/kWh 
> >> >= 0.776 trillion kWh/ year, not 1.2 trillion 
> >> With annual 776 TWh energy consumption and 8760 hours in a year, the 
> >> average power is 89 GW, which could be produced with less than 100 
> >> additional nuclear reactors. That would be two new nuclear reactors in 
> >> each US state. 
> > 
> >No, you can't have any new power generation, until you've used all the power generation you have, now!
> Yes, you are right, there are already EVs charged from existing power 
> plants :-) , thus new generating capacity is needed only for future 
> EVs. 
> 
> I used the nuclear reactors as an example since they have a quite 
> similar power (1-1.6 GW) each, so it easy to think how many reactors 
> will be needed if all cars are electric. Thus it can be calculated how 
> much uranium is needed for the cards or how much coal is needed if 
> coal fired power plants are solely used.
> >Why do people have to be told over and over again, about the demand curve??? There is somewhere around 1/2 of the total generation capability, available through the 24 hour demand cycle.
> At least in Scandinavia the day/night consumption variation is only 
> about 20 %. Only on very cold winter days the consumption can be twice 
> the summer time consumption. While EV charging can be moved to the 
> night to even out the demand, you can not postpone it several months 
> to a low consumption season :-).
> >They have a term for generating capacity that can be brought online quickly, it's called "Dispatchable". Loads are mostly "Right Now" loads, having to be supplied at the time they are turned on. But... charging EVs is mostly a very flexible load, which can often be scheduled any time over the next two or three days. We don't have a term for such a flexible load, but it's the load equivalent of "Dispatchable" generation, and means we don't need to build a single kW of generation to charge all 230 million EVs, other than the relatively few which need charging en route.
> What does 'quickly' mean ? For gas turbines it is seconds, for coal 
> fired and nuclear it is several hours or a day.
> > 
> >> With unreliable renewable sources (such as wind and solar) the 
> >> installed nominal capacity needs to be 3-10 times i.e. 270 to 900 GW 
> >> to produce that average power. 
> > 
> >Except that the EV ***IS*** the storage that allows the use of renewable power.
> If your EV battery capacity is so large and you drive so little that 
> the battery needs charging only once in a week or two you can rely 
> completely on renewables. Long high pressure periods areas and the 
> wind power is out. Long cloudy periods and the solar energy is out. 
> Both can be out simultaneously, thus you may need some other sources 
> to ride through several days.u

      Winter can get miserable in the U.S.   Nothing like a good blizzard to give the weather people something to discuss.  
There is an article here talking about a nuke plant that's supposed to replace a coal powered one.  It will be delayed two years because Russia invaded Ukraine.  The goal now is to have these  plant working in 2030.  Construction was supposed to have started in 2023.  
<https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2022-12-14/the-opening-of-terrapowers-nuclear-plant-in-kemmerer-will-be-delayed-by-two-years>

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:54:46 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:47:03 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: 
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:13:34 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:11:52 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 2:11:33 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:13:11 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote: 
> > > > > > A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn't mention trucks. 
> > > > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained> 
> > > > > It's going to be higher than that. The MPGe is just a legacy performance measure for consumers to think in terms of the MPG they've been using all their lives. It's used to compare the various EVs and does help in making a buying decision. Other than that it's just a energy measure and doesn't have any other purpose. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The average EV sold to consumers runs about 1/3 kWh per mile, or 0.333 kWh/mile. 
> > > > That's a number plucked from air. I guess you can always find a way to calculate an "average" that will give you all sorts of numbers. But, my model X, which is the EV equivalent of a Buick, gets 3 to 4 miles per kWh (0.25 to 0.33 kWh per mile). 
> > > The only way to know with less uncertainty is to use state registration data of all the various types of EVs out there. There's an almost 4:1 spread in the MPGe. Then that MPGe needs to be scrutinized too, to see how representative it actually is in practice. The situation is hopeless iow. 
> > It's not about "less uncertainty". It's about the fact that you pulled the number from your butt.
> Not really. Inside EV has a listing of MPGe for every EV made.

This is why I typically ignore your posts.  You literally can't put together a rational thought. 


> > > > > The high acceleration performance and SUV types consume twice that. USPS even managed to make a van that does 0.87 kWh/mile- that's so eco-illogical. 
> > > > LOL It's a hell of a lot better than 8 miles per gallon! 
> > > > > Getting back to average consumer at 0.333 kWh/mile, coupled with their average 13,500 miles annual gets about 4500 kWh annual. EIA has statistics of average residential household energy use at 10,632 kWh annual for latest year of record 2021. Carrying that forward makes for (10,632 + 4500)/10,632=1.42 or a 42% increase in energy use at the residential level. That particular number can also be considered the total energy draw of the residential sector, regardless of where they draw it, i.e. the EV can be charged outside the home or in the home. The particulars of location are the power supplier's problem. 
> > > > There's no shortage of bogus numbers to be calculated. 
> > > > > Things can change. Better battery technology can increase the kWh/mile. Retail can consolidate sales and delivery resulting in less people on the road. 
> > > > The efficiency of EVs is already very, very good. There is precious little wasted energy in EVs, so not a good place to look for improvement in efficiency. 
> > > > > Whenever this big transportation transition is supposed to occur, they better have 2X the generation capacity they have today, or there's going to be problems. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Something like 80% of electrical power in U.S. is fossil fuel, so they have a long way to go. 
> > > > God! That is an amazing number!!! 20% is nuclear, leaving zero for wind, solar, hydro, etc. Maybe we are running at greater than 100%? 
> > > You can find more exact numbers, which usually lag by about a year, at the EIA website. Oh wait- you never do anything constructive like that do you? 
> > I have done that. That's why I know your data is pure BS.
> I don't think you did. As usual, you don't have a clue.

Coming from you, that's a complement. 

-- 

  Rick C.

  +-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  +-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Ricky 
> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:48?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote: 
> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Ricky 
> >> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> >On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:37:51?AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote: 
> >> >> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> <snip>
> >> >The first calculation this guy does is wrong. He uses some silly figure (33.7 kWh/gallon of gas) to calculate the total amount of energy needed to power all passenger cars in a year. But that's the wrong calculation and the 33.7 kWh is the total energy in the gasoline, taking into account none of the efficiency issues of gas cars. Here's how you do the actual calculation. 
> >> > 
> >> >230 million cars (his number) 
> >> >* 13,500 miles/(car year) 
> >> >/ 4 miles/kWh 
> >> >= 0.776 trillion kWh/ year, not 1.2 trillion 
> >> With annual 776 TWh energy consumption and 8760 hours in a year, the 
> >> average power is 89 GW, which could be produced with less than 100 
> >> additional nuclear reactors. That would be two new nuclear reactors in 
> >> each US state. 
> > 
> >No, you can't have any new power generation, until you've used all the power generation you have, now!
> Yes, you are right, there are already EVs charged from existing power 
> plants :-) , thus new generating capacity is needed only for future 
> EVs. 

I really don't expect Ed Lee to understand any of this.  But it's always entertaining to read your posts. 


> I used the nuclear reactors as an example since they have a quite 
> similar power (1-1.6 GW) each, so it easy to think how many reactors 
> will be needed if all cars are electric. Thus it can be calculated how 
> much uranium is needed for the cards or how much coal is needed if 
> coal fired power plants are solely used.

Like I said, I don't expect you to understand the fact that we can power a lot of electric cars without building any new power plants. 


> >Why do people have to be told over and over again, about the demand curve??? There is somewhere around 1/2 of the total generation capability, available through the 24 hour demand cycle.
> At least in Scandinavia the day/night consumption variation is only 
> about 20 %. Only on very cold winter days the consumption can be twice 
> the summer time consumption. While EV charging can be moved to the 
> night to even out the demand, you can not postpone it several months 
> to a low consumption season :-).
> >They have a term for generating capacity that can be brought online quickly, it's called "Dispatchable". Loads are mostly "Right Now" loads, having to be supplied at the time they are turned on. But... charging EVs is mostly a very flexible load, which can often be scheduled any time over the next two or three days. We don't have a term for such a flexible load, but it's the load equivalent of "Dispatchable" generation, and means we don't need to build a single kW of generation to charge all 230 million EVs, other than the relatively few which need charging en route.
> What does 'quickly' mean ? For gas turbines it is seconds, for coal 
> fired and nuclear it is several hours or a day.
> > 
> >> With unreliable renewable sources (such as wind and solar) the 
> >> installed nominal capacity needs to be 3-10 times i.e. 270 to 900 GW 
> >> to produce that average power. 
> > 
> >Except that the EV ***IS*** the storage that allows the use of renewable power.
> If your EV battery capacity is so large and you drive so little that 
> the battery needs charging only once in a week or two you can rely 
> completely on renewables. Long high pressure periods areas and the 
> wind power is out. Long cloudy periods and the solar energy is out. 
> Both can be out simultaneously, thus you may need some other sources 
> to ride through several days.

Better late to the conversation than never. 

-- 

  Rick C.

  ++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  ++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:23:00 AM UTC-5, upsid...@downunder.com wrote: 
> > On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Ricky 
> > <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > >On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:48?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote: 
> > >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Ricky 
> > >> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >> >On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:37:51?AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote: 
> > >> >> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote: 
> > <snip> 
> > >> >The first calculation this guy does is wrong. He uses some silly figure (33.7 kWh/gallon of gas) to calculate the total amount of energy needed to power all passenger cars in a year. But that's the wrong calculation and the 33.7 kWh is the total energy in the gasoline, taking into account none of the efficiency issues of gas cars. Here's how you do the actual calculation. 
> > >> > 
> > >> >230 million cars (his number) 
> > >> >* 13,500 miles/(car year) 
> > >> >/ 4 miles/kWh 
> > >> >= 0.776 trillion kWh/ year, not 1.2 trillion 
> > >> With annual 776 TWh energy consumption and 8760 hours in a year, the 
> > >> average power is 89 GW, which could be produced with less than 100 
> > >> additional nuclear reactors. That would be two new nuclear reactors in 
> > >> each US state. 
> > > 
> > >No, you can't have any new power generation, until you've used all the power generation you have, now! 
> > Yes, you are right, there are already EVs charged from existing power 
> > plants :-) , thus new generating capacity is needed only for future 
> > EVs. 
> > 
> > I used the nuclear reactors as an example since they have a quite 
> > similar power (1-1.6 GW) each, so it easy to think how many reactors 
> > will be needed if all cars are electric. Thus it can be calculated how 
> > much uranium is needed for the cards or how much coal is needed if 
> > coal fired power plants are solely used. 
> > >Why do people have to be told over and over again, about the demand curve??? There is somewhere around 1/2 of the total generation capability, available through the 24 hour demand cycle. 
> > At least in Scandinavia the day/night consumption variation is only 
> > about 20 %. Only on very cold winter days the consumption can be twice 
> > the summer time consumption. While EV charging can be moved to the 
> > night to even out the demand, you can not postpone it several months 
> > to a low consumption season :-). 
> > >They have a term for generating capacity that can be brought online quickly, it's called "Dispatchable". Loads are mostly "Right Now" loads, having to be supplied at the time they are turned on. But... charging EVs is mostly a very flexible load, which can often be scheduled any time over the next two or three days. We don't have a term for such a flexible load, but it's the load equivalent of "Dispatchable" generation, and means we don't need to build a single kW of generation to charge all 230 million EVs, other than the relatively few which need charging en route. 
> > What does 'quickly' mean ? For gas turbines it is seconds, for coal 
> > fired and nuclear it is several hours or a day. 
> > > 
> > >> With unreliable renewable sources (such as wind and solar) the 
> > >> installed nominal capacity needs to be 3-10 times i.e. 270 to 900 GW 
> > >> to produce that average power. 
> > > 
> > >Except that the EV ***IS*** the storage that allows the use of renewable power. 
> > If your EV battery capacity is so large and you drive so little that 
> > the battery needs charging only once in a week or two you can rely 
> > completely on renewables. Long high pressure periods areas and the 
> > wind power is out. Long cloudy periods and the solar energy is out. 
> > Both can be out simultaneously, thus you may need some other sources
> > to ride through several days.u 
> 
> Winter can get miserable in the U.S. Nothing like a good blizzard to give the weather people something to discuss. 
> There is an article here talking about a nuke plant that's supposed to replace a coal powered one. It will be delayed two years because Russia invaded Ukraine. The goal now is to have these plant working in 2030. Construction was supposed to have started in 2023. 
> <https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2022-12-14/the-opening-of-terrapowers-nuclear-plant-in-kemmerer-will-be-delayed-by-two-years>

The biggest problem with nuclear power (other than disposing of the spent fuel) is getting them built.  They talk about "planning" for 7 years construction, but how long was it from someone saying, "We are going to build a nuclear plant", to having the license in hand to start construction?  In general, US nuclear takes around twenty years from concept to fuel loading.  That's simply too long to work into a plan to power this country.  In 20 years, all the cars on the road will be EVs! 

-- 

  Rick C.

  +++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  +++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote: 
> > On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Ricky 
> > <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > >On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:48?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote: 
> > >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Ricky 
> > >> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >> >On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:37:51?AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote: 
> > >> >> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote: 
> > <snip> 
> > >> >The first calculation this guy does is wrong. He uses some silly figure (33.7 kWh/gallon of gas) to calculate the total amount of energy needed to power all passenger cars in a year. But that's the wrong calculation and the 33.7 kWh is the total energy in the gasoline, taking into account none of the efficiency issues of gas cars. Here's how you do the actual calculation. 
> > >> > 
> > >> >230 million cars (his number) 
> > >> >* 13,500 miles/(car year) 
> > >> >/ 4 miles/kWh 
> > >> >= 0.776 trillion kWh/ year, not 1.2 trillion 
> > >> With annual 776 TWh energy consumption and 8760 hours in a year, the 
> > >> average power is 89 GW, which could be produced with less than 100 
> > >> additional nuclear reactors. That would be two new nuclear reactors in 
> > >> each US state. 
> > > 
> > >No, you can't have any new power generation, until you've used all the power generation you have, now! 
> > Yes, you are right, there are already EVs charged from existing power 
> > plants :-) , thus new generating capacity is needed only for future 
> > EVs.
> I really don't expect Ed Lee to understand any of this. But it's always entertaining to read your posts.

Why? He is not arguing against you for this issue.

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:53:08 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:54:46 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:47:03 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: 
> > > On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:13:34 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:11:52 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 2:11:33 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > > > > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:13:11 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote: 
> > > > > > > A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn't mention trucks. 
> > > > > > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained> 
> > > > > > It's going to be higher than that. The MPGe is just a legacy performance measure for consumers to think in terms of the MPG they've been using all their lives. It's used to compare the various EVs and does help in making a buying decision. Other than that it's just a energy measure and doesn't have any other purpose. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The average EV sold to consumers runs about 1/3 kWh per mile, or 0.333 kWh/mile. 
> > > > > That's a number plucked from air. I guess you can always find a way to calculate an "average" that will give you all sorts of numbers. But, my model X, which is the EV equivalent of a Buick, gets 3 to 4 miles per kWh (0.25 to 0.33 kWh per mile). 
> > > > The only way to know with less uncertainty is to use state registration data of all the various types of EVs out there. There's an almost 4:1 spread in the MPGe. Then that MPGe needs to be scrutinized too, to see how representative it actually is in practice. The situation is hopeless iow. 
> > > It's not about "less uncertainty". It's about the fact that you pulled the number from your butt. 
> > Not really. Inside EV has a listing of MPGe for every EV made.
> This is why I typically ignore your posts. You literally can't put together a rational thought.
> > > > > > The high acceleration performance and SUV types consume twice that. USPS even managed to make a van that does 0.87 kWh/mile- that's so eco-illogical. 
> > > > > LOL It's a hell of a lot better than 8 miles per gallon! 
> > > > > > Getting back to average consumer at 0.333 kWh/mile, coupled with their average 13,500 miles annual gets about 4500 kWh annual. EIA has statistics of average residential household energy use at 10,632 kWh annual for latest year of record 2021. Carrying that forward makes for (10,632 + 4500)/10,632=1.42 or a 42% increase in energy use at the residential level. That particular number can also be considered the total energy draw of the residential sector, regardless of where they draw it, i.e. the EV can be charged outside the home or in the home. The particulars of location are the power supplier's problem. 
> > > > > There's no shortage of bogus numbers to be calculated. 
> > > > > > Things can change. Better battery technology can increase the kWh/mile. Retail can consolidate sales and delivery resulting in less people on the road. 
> > > > > The efficiency of EVs is already very, very good. There is precious little wasted energy in EVs, so not a good place to look for improvement in efficiency. 
> > > > > > Whenever this big transportation transition is supposed to occur, they better have 2X the generation capacity they have today, or there's going to be problems. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Something like 80% of electrical power in U.S. is fossil fuel, so they have a long way to go. 
> > > > > God! That is an amazing number!!! 20% is nuclear, leaving zero for wind, solar, hydro, etc. Maybe we are running at greater than 100%? 
> > > > You can find more exact numbers, which usually lag by about a year, at the EIA website. Oh wait- you never do anything constructive like that do you? 
> > > I have done that. That's why I know your data is pure BS. 
> > I don't think you did. As usual, you don't have a clue.
> Coming from you, that's a complement. 

Okay- so you never learned the difference between "complement" and "compliment."

 Telling.


> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick C. 
> 
> +-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
> +-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209