I could have put this in Factual Questions but there is going to be debate.
Has the demand on the power grid been addressed if governments force a switch to EV’s ? How much, and how to supply the increase.
States like California and Texas have already seen brown-outs when the weather is extremely hot or cold. That will be greatly exacerbated by having millions of cars charging once or twice a day. How bad will it be?
It is a known issue on which there is active political debate/discussion.
There was a recent bill attempting to reduce barriers to the construction of transmission lines and other infrastructure that will be helpful in future electrification that did not pass, but it seems likely that changes along those lines will be made.
I think it’s probably too early to say how big a problem it will be or how effectively it will be solved.
Most cars will be charging overnight, and most of the load can be taken up by running the grid at near-full capacity all the time, instead of just running at full capacity during peak hours.
Of course, “most” is not “all”, but the same people who are pushing for electric vehicles are also pushing for upgrades to the power grid. Including a vast increase in the use of wind and other renewables, which happen to complement the needs of battery-charging loads very nicely.
Our ability to recharge EVs in the future will depend on how fast people purchase and use new ones. I consider it inevitable that demand will exceed the deliverable supply if EVs ever become the majority of cars on the road. For a while recharging capability will slow the growth of EVs but push forward change to infrastructure needed to get there.
Right now in California, many people charge their electric vehicle in the hours before dawn. That’s when the demand is lowest on the grid. It’s easy to program your car to do so. Often the power companies give you an incentive to do so. And some people will do so out of civic-mindedness.
Googling, it looks like there’s often a 20% or more difference in power demand between pre-dawn and late-afternoon hours. Because vehicle charging is very flexible on time of day, it can use that slack.
I think this part is key. It will make a bigger impact for our long-term goals if all those new EVs are being charged from renewables as opposed to fossil fuels. I also think everyone considering an EV should examine how their local utility creates and acquires electricity.
In California I have seen discussion around charging EVs during the day when sun is plentiful and solar can fill-up all those cars, as opposed to overnight when there would be more reliance on other sources/battery stores. Definitely the issue is on the radar as this whole thing scales-up, but I am fairly confident it will be addressed as we go along, just as was done when ICE vehicles started out and there were not gas stations on every corner.
Every person I know that has a EV or Plug-in hybrid has solar.
This seems to be another Conservative Talk Radio/Faux News talking point- that the grid can’t support all these EVs that drivers will be “forced to buy” (no one will be forced).
In our Area of SoCal there have been no brown outs or rolling black outs. There have been lots of “Flex Alerts”- the big drain is air conditioning during 110 degree heat waves. The heat, mind you being mostly caused by Global Warming- which is caused in no small part by Fossil Fuel vehicles.
The power issue in Texas is due to Texas politics.
So if there were no EVs at all, the extra CO2 would make things hotter and hotter, with more need for AC.
I just wanted to question the emphasized clause. In what country/state/jurisdiction is any such thing being proposed or considered? Assuming the U.S., under what circumstances could such a law be passed?
So, the government is not “forcing” the switch, but is highly engaged in helping people switch - they are not coming to take away your muscle car or monster truck. However, the article acknowledges there are some massive hurdles to getting to this goal that need to be worked thru.
During the recent heat wave in CA, people were asked to cut usage between 4-9 pm. People already largely charge at night, so EVs had no significant impact here. By far the biggest impact was for people to turn up their thermostats.
In the longer run, the cars themselves can act to bolster the grid. They can charge during peak solar hours (around noon) and then discharge to the grid (or just to the residence) in late afternoon when A/C demands are highest.
In any case, CA is building new renewable capacity faster than EVs are being produced. This is unlikely to change, since renewables get cheaper every year (especially solar).
California can get away with mandates because the CARB (California Air Resources Board) was grandfathered into a waiver from the EPA, and can set stricter standards. Other states can voluntarily choose to follow CARB as well (and 13 states do so).
The 2035 order doesn’t actually mandate EVs; it mandates zero-emission vehicles. That could include hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, for instance. In practice it means EVs, but the point is that the law doesn’t mandate a specific technology.
Aren’t EV charging loads already dispatchable (by ripple control)? If not it would not be too hard to make them dispatchable.
I don’t think the infrastructure is in place yet, but it would indeed be trivial, since AFAIK all EVs on the market have a network link, and they can certainly all choose to charge or not.
I did get a message pop-up in my Tesla asking me to not charge between 4-9. It would not be hard to put in an option to delay charging, or stop completely if a blackout is imminent.
This will take significant changes to the system.
Most people are at their workplace at noon, and their cars are parked in the employer’s parking lot. So how would this be arranged, and paid for?
This would amount to the employer paying to fill up their EV every day, and then the employee going home and emptying it out into their house. A new & quite valuable employee benefit!
Not every car has to participate. And lots of people are working from home these days.
Like anything else, we can’t expect any one solution to fix all problems. We’ll need fixed grid batteries as well. In fact, batteries in California already supplied more peak power during the heatwave than our nuclear stations. And we have only taken the first, halting steps toward battery storage.
California has around 15M vehicles. If just 2M can be convinced to act as grid storage, and each one can contribute 5 kW for 4 hours (20 kWh, which is a fairly small fraction of a typical EV battery), that amounts to 10 GW of power. Peak electrical usage in CA is around 50 GW, so that would be a non-trivial contribution.
As for the employee benefit for charging (for free) at work, then selling the power once home… well, sure. Maybe employers will need to start partially or fully charging for filling up their EVs. Back when we had free cafeteria meals, some people would load up a bag with food to feed their whole family. That kind of abuse typically gets shut down pretty quickly.
Cars don’t last forever. People who need to replace an existing vehicle after 2035 won’t have a choice. Sounds like “force” to me.
They can buy a used ICE vehicle, or they might still be sold in other states.
Not everyone has the financial or other means to purchase a car out of state.
But they have the means to buy a brand new car instead of a used one? And to buy gas for it for its lifetime instead of 1/2 or 1/3 of that cost for electricity? And higher maintenance costs?
Simple answer, no there isn’t.
Detailed answer; hopefully in 10-20 years there will be.