California’s Electric Vehicle Dream Has A Major Problem: No

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

Today, Oilprice Carried this article:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Californias-Electric-Vehicle-Dream-Has-A-Major-Problem.html

The article asserts that stopping the sale of ICEs by 2035 in California will impose a large burden on the electrical grid due to EVs, and that this is a big problem. The article  notes that The required EVs will increase the demand for electricity by at least 25% (true) but assumes that this will increase the peak demand by 25%.

This assumption is unrealistic. Peak demand occurs in the evening, just after everybody gets home. But by 2035, many EVs may charge at work, and the EVs that charge at home do not need to charge in the evening. EVs that are at home during the day can charge then, and EVs that must charge at night can charge after the peak. Basically all EVs already have network-connected computers already, and this can easily be made mandatory or can be made very attractive for new EVs. Within one or two years the vast majority of California EVs will be network-connected. My guess is that this is already true. It is straightforward to schedule these EVs to have these EVs share information about their charging needs, and for the power company to tell each EV when to charge and at what current. The electrical rate structure can be adjusted so that EVs that honor these requests will get cheaper electricity. No new hardware is required for this. There is no need to implement "V to G" to let the EV send power back into the grid.

Consider a limiting case wherein all EVs in the state must charge between the hours of midnight and 7AM. That's off-peak for sure. Most EV currently get about 4 mi/kWh, and the daily drive is about 36 mi, so each EV needs 9 kWh a day.  Folks using low-end chargers can still charge in 6 hours at 1.5 kW. Folks with faster chargers will charge during their assigned times at higher rates, with the same overall effect.  Sure, lots of folks drive further on average, and just about everybody occasionally drives a lot further, but these are averages, so it works out.  Folks on road trips will need to charge away from home anyway, and supercharger stations will have large stationary batteries to avoid using peak electricity.

Conclusion: EVs will use a lot of electricity, but basically none of it is peak electricity.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

10 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Conclusion: EVs will use a lot of electricity, but basically none of it is peak electricity.

I suggest you are assuming a level of societal compliance, as to times to plug it in etc., that is unrealistic outside of a highly regimented society. I don't see people being that disciplined.  Right now BMW for example is touting a wireless re-charge system consisting of a charging coil inside a flat mat, that the driver placed his car over when in the garage.  The mat emits an AC field and the bottom of the car has a corresponding AC coupler. In effect the coupler is a transformer, with the two winding coils separated.  This is a lossy system but very convenient for the rich:  park it, and forget it.  

Is anyone going to suggest that recharge current will not be supplied until midnight?  What if that BMW owner wishes to go out that evening, or depart for Vegas?  No, they will rig those systems to go on automatically when the car rolls over it, just as BMW has designed the system.  The idea that these owners are going to show restraint is a fallacy.  Cheers.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I suggest you are assuming a level of societal compliance, as to times to plug it in etc., that is unrealistic outside of a highly regimented society. I don't see people being that disciplined.  Right now BMW for example is touting a wireless re-charge system consisting of a charging coil inside a flat mat, that the driver placed his car over when in the garage.  The mat emits an AC field and the bottom of the car has a corresponding AC coupler. In effect the coupler is a transformer, with the two winding coils separated.  This is a lossy system but very convenient for the rich:  park it, and forget it.  

Is anyone going to suggest that recharge current will not be supplied until midnight?  What if that BMW owner wishes to go out that evening, or depart for Vegas?  No, they will rig those systems to go on automatically when the car rolls over it, just as BMW has designed the system.  The idea that these owners are going to show restraint is a fallacy.  Cheers.

I had a BMW i3 for 5.5 years. I charge at home, and I am on the PG&E's EV-A rate plan. My electricity after midnight costs less than a third of my electricity from 3:00 PM to midnight. I plugged that car in every time I arrived at home. The car's computer started charging it at 12:05 AM and could charge from empty to full before 7:00AM. Why would I choose to pay more than triple the amount I was paying? I programmed this behavior one time, and the computer did the rest. If I had an inductive mat, The car would still not start using it until after midnight. On those rare occasions that I needed to charge at other times (e.g., a long drive in the morning followed by a long drive in the evening), I had to click one virtual button to override this behavior. 

I now have a Tesla Model Y. It can do the same thing, but in addition it can interact with Tesla's central computer to decide when and where to charge on the basis of my planned travel.  Tesla's algorithms can be easily modified to know about the need to shed load and to rotate the charging of the cars in the neighborhood.

I am not assuming "societal compliance" at all. I am assuming that complying consumers will be rewarded instantly by being charged less for the electricity (or penalized for using peak electricity).  Remember that this approach works when most people are "complying" most of the time. Those that need to use peak power will do so, as will those who simply do not care how much money they spend on electricity. This will include the tiny percentage of arrogant rich people who choose to use inductive chargers.

You can bet that Tesla (and probably others) will find a way to fully automate the wired connection process if those inductive chargers prove to be attractive. An automated wired plug would be more expensive than an inductive mat, but would pay for itself very quickly. I'm fairly sure I could design a robotic arm that could plug in the Model Y with no modifications to the car or the charging cable at all, with a total parts cost of <$500.  A production system that included modifications to the car and charger would cost less.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

9 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

 

The idea that these owners are going to show restraint is a fallacy.  Cheers.

They will with variable pricing model.  Market forces are powerful; if you can save a buck with essentially no impact on your life people will.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Rob Kramer + 696]

20 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Today, Oilprice Carried this article:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Californias-Electric-Vehicle-Dream-Has-A-Major-Problem.html

The article asserts that stopping the sale of ICEs by 2035 in California will impose a large burden on the electrical grid due to EVs, and that this is a big problem. The article  notes that The required EVs will increase the demand for electricity by at least 25% (true) but assumes that this will increase the peak demand by 25%.

This assumption is unrealistic. 

Conclusion: EVs will use a lot of electricity, but basically none of it is peak electricity.

You live a very efficient life on purpose. Assuming everyone will do the same even with market arm twisting is a stretch.  Ok I'm somewhat on the same page. Say 80% "comply" and 20% dont due to not fitting their lifestyle and not caring about efficiency or costs. I'll admit my ignorance to California power plans for the future.... what are they natural gas and nuclear or solar and wind and batteries? Because ... thinking out loud if your solar capacity is 1000watts for 6 hours (or whenever) that's a fixed ammount of energy.  So charging morning or evening wouldn't matter (youd need the batteries to do it but that's not a problem there super profitable and getting cheaper every 3rd year according to insider sources) and wind is probably a lower energy longer duration to stabilize some of the solar intermittancy . 

Needless to say forcing people to electric  cars is going to put up electricity prices. But the cost is going to go on to houses for non "fuel" needs so despite no road tax for early adoption theres already a burden on living prices. So first Gasoline gets expensive as it needs to cover all road tax and loses market share making its scale efficientcy smaller, at the same time electricity rises for both EV owners and non and by the time non EV is priced out and everyone goes EV they plop the road tax back on and up the electricity prices. Tell me how I do in 10 years (@ remind me tweets) 

Edit : coming to think about it there trying to fix their energy crisis.  I was going to say electricity prices are going to spike 60c+ kwh but then in most of California a solar system makes sense.  Then I think BINGO everyone buys their own power source so the state has half the burden to increase the system size. So California or pg and e becomes a battery and individuals are the solar producers. Then mabey they become more active in their energy use. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Rob Kramer

[ronwagn + 6,290]

20 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Today, Oilprice Carried this article:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Californias-Electric-Vehicle-Dream-Has-A-Major-Problem.html

The article asserts that stopping the sale of ICEs by 2035 in California will impose a large burden on the electrical grid due to EVs, and that this is a big problem. The article  notes that The required EVs will increase the demand for electricity by at least 25% (true) but assumes that this will increase the peak demand by 25%.

This assumption is unrealistic. Peak demand occurs in the evening, just after everybody gets home. But by 2035, many EVs may charge at work, and the EVs that charge at home do not need to charge in the evening. EVs that are at home during the day can charge then, and EVs that must charge at night can charge after the peak. Basically all EVs already have network-connected computers already, and this can easily be made mandatory or can be made very attractive for new EVs. Within one or two years the vast majority of California EVs will be network-connected. My guess is that this is already true. It is straightforward to schedule these EVs to have these EVs share information about their charging needs, and for the power company to tell each EV when to charge and at what current. The electrical rate structure can be adjusted so that EVs that honor these requests will get cheaper electricity. No new hardware is required for this. There is no need to implement "V to G" to let the EV send power back into the grid.

Consider a limiting case wherein all EVs in the state must charge between the hours of midnight and 7AM. That's off-peak for sure. Most EV currently get about 4 mi/kWh, and the daily drive is about 36 mi, so each EV needs 9 kWh a day.  Folks using low-end chargers can still charge in 6 hours at 1.5 kW. Folks with faster chargers will charge during their assigned times at higher rates, with the same overall effect.  Sure, lots of folks drive further on average, and just about everybody occasionally drives a lot further, but these are averages, so it works out.  Folks on road trips will need to charge away from home anyway, and supercharger stations will have large stationary batteries to avoid using peak electricity.

Conclusion: EVs will use a lot of electricity, but basically none of it is peak electricity.

Using natural gas plants, to the degree needed, would make the whole process a lot smoother, easier, and less expensive. California has natural gas and should use it. Use all the solar and wind you want, if that is what the people want. They elect the politicians, so that is up to them. They need to wake up or will be stuck with more crushing debt than the state faces now. They are reinventing a wheel that has worked fine for many decades. Install all the batteries you can afford, let the homeless people stay warm next to them in the winter. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

46 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

You live a very efficient life on purpose. Assuming everyone will do the same even with market arm twisting is a stretch.  Ok I'm somewhat on the same page. Say 80% "comply" and 20% dont due to not fitting their lifestyle and not caring about efficiency or costs. I'll admit my ignorance to California power plans for the future.... what are they natural gas and nuclear or solar and wind and batteries? Because ... thinking out loud if your solar capacity is 1000watts for 6 hours (or whenever) that's a fixed ammount of energy.  So charging morning or evening wouldn't matter (youd need the batteries to do it but that's not a problem there super profitable and getting cheaper every 3rd year according to insider sources) and wind is probably a lower energy longer duration to stabilize some of the solar intermittancy . 

Needless to say forcing people to electric  cars is going to put up electricity prices. But the cost is going to go on to houses for non "fuel" needs so despite no road tax for early adoption theres already a burden on living prices. So first Gasoline gets expensive as it needs to cover all road tax and loses market share making its scale efficientcy smaller, at the same time electricity rises for both EV owners and non and by the time non EV is priced out and everyone goes EV they plop the road tax back on and up the electricity prices. Tell me how I do in 10 years (@ remind me tweets) 

Edit : coming to think about it there trying to fix their energy crisis.  I was going to say electricity prices are going to spike 60c+ kwh but then in most of California a solar system makes sense.  Then I think BINGO everyone buys their own power source so the state has half the burden to increase the system size. So California or pg and e becomes a battery and individuals are the solar producers. Then mabey they become more active in their energy use. 

Good thinking but a lot more bumps along the way, a lot of bitching and moaning. A lot of people who want to stick to ICE vehicles. A lot of financial problems. California is not able to manage large projects well. Their fast rail to San Francisco dream is dead. They can't even get to Bakersfield. Their new great aqueduct from the Sacramento river plan is dead since the last drought ended. The homeless mecca of the country is getting more popular to bums from all over the country because the jurisdictions are not allowed to deal with them because of all the liberal judges and district attorneys. Calling it Commiefornia is harsh but sadly prescient. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Good thinking but a lot more bumps along the way, a lot of bitching and moaning. A lot of people who want to stick to ICE vehicles. A lot of financial problems. California is not able to manage large projects well. Their fast rail to San Francisco dream is dead. They can't even get to Bakersfield. Their new great aqueduct from the Sacramento river plan is dead since the last drought ended. The homeless mecca of the country is getting more popular to bums from all over the country because the jurisdictions are not allowed to deal with them because of all the liberal judges and district attorneys. Calling it Commiefornia is harsh but sadly prescient. 

Well heres what I was saying currently most electricity is claimed to be 4x cheaper outside of California across the USA. So even at 10c/kwh the average home uses 500kwh per month averaged out over the year? So if you have gasoline cars and 10c electricity say 4 tanks a week in a small fwd suv 30$ to fill? (I only know Canadian prices for gasoline) so 120$ for fuel + 500x.10 = 50$ +120$ = 170$ gasoline and electricity. 

VS. 500kwh and 4x 100kwh battery charges (if not more) so 900kwh x 60c/kwh = 540$ ok let's do 30c that's a soon future = 270$ .... on what planet are you saving ? On the California @18.8c / kwh. 

Are they outlawing nat gas appliances? 

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/banning-natural-gas-is-out-electrifying-buildings-is-in-59285807

"I think that the term gas ban might not work" beyond California, said Jenna Tatum, director of the Building Electrification Initiative, a group that helps its eight-member cities advance electrification efforts. "But I think that a policy that encourages or requires all electric new construction works everywhere." Despite its influence, relatively few cities have carbon copied the Berkeley gas ban. Instead, local lawmakers are developing multiple pathways to building electrification, tailored not only to their own legal framework, but also to regional political, industry pushback and cultural differences.

I googled California power prices and its average in 2019 was 16.7c kWh. And just found 19c in 2020

PG&E Delivery Rate is a charge assessed by PG&E to deliver electricity to your home or business. The PG&E delivery rate depends on your electricity usage, but is charged equally to both PCE and PG&E customers. PG&E PCIA/FF represents the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) and the Franchise Fee surcharge (FF).

Edited September 29, 2020 by Rob Kramer

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Are they outlawing nat gas appliances? 

Rob, it is my prediction that the consumers will start demanding their large appliances, e.g range, oven, fridge, clothes dryer, to run on something other than electricity.  So, I predict you will soon see both gas appliances, and specialized units such as propane driving ammonia-cycle refrigerators', and both propane and nat-gas clothes dryers. 

The ammonia cycle has a long history in the USA.  Originally developed for lakeside cottages, they ran on a small flame typically driven by kerosine.  Building those to run on a smallish propane tank should be easy enough.  Permanent home units would run off a typical 100-gallon propane tank  (permanent installation), and those tanks can be rented from the supplier.  Remember that the folks went to electricity because it was convenient  (no fuel supply to worry about) and because the electricity itself was cheap.  Now, with the electricity getting expensive fast, and also unreliable, I suggest you will see a big resurgence in propane and nat-gas appliances.   Cheers.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Rob, it is my prediction that the consumers will start demanding their large appliances, e.g range, oven, fridge, clothes dryer, to run on something other than electricity.  So, I predict you will soon see both gas appliances, and specialized units such as propane driving ammonia-cycle refrigerators', and both propane and nat-gas clothes dryers. 

The ammonia cycle has a long history in the USA.  Originally developed for lakeside cottages, they ran on a small flame typically driven by kerosine.  Building those to run on a smallish propane tank should be easy enough.  Permanent home units would run off a typical 100-gallon propane tank  (permanent installation), and those tanks can be rented from the supplier.  Remember that the folks went to electricity because it was convenient  (no fuel supply to worry about) and because the electricity itself was cheap.  Now, with the electricity getting expensive fast, and also unreliable, I suggest you will see a big resurgence in propane and nat-gas appliances.   Cheers.

Problem with ammonia units is if they leak it could kill your family; safer halocarbon alternatives won out.

Flammable gas clothes dryers pose a slightly increased fire risk and require more stringent exhaust systems (you are not just blowing out Bounce-fresh humid air, you now need to deal with combustion products).

 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Enthalpic

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

22 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Today, Oilprice Carried this article:

Conclusion: EVs will use a lot of electricity, but basically none of it is peak electricity.

And what happens on Thanksgiving or Christmas day when EVERYONE travels?  Hrmm? 

You do NOT design to averages.  You design to MAXIMUMS!!!!!

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

49 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

And what happens on Thanksgiving or Christmas day when EVERYONE travels?  Hrmm? 

You do NOT design to averages.  You design to MAXIMUMS!!!!!

On those days industrial and commercial consumption would likely be greatly reduced - do you not agree?

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Rob Kramer + 696]

13 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

On those days industrial and commercial consumption would likely be greatly reduced - do you not agree?

 

By today's standards not by all BEV standards as a % of total demand. What is 10% reduction today might only be a 2% reduction from that total. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

23 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The article  notes that The required EVs will increase the demand for electricity by at least 25% (true) but assumes that this will increase the peak demand by 25%.

This assumption is unrealistic. Peak demand occurs in the evening, just after everybody gets home. But by 2035, many EVs may charge at work, and the EVs that charge at home do not need to charge in the evening.

Dan - while some of what you says it true and that proper management will reduce the load there is also no doubt that the large scale switch to EVs will have a major effect on a grid that's already struggling, as I understand it, with existing demand. A major strengthening of firm supply - gas and coal plants - would be required before such a change and that would seem to defeat the purpose. Otherwise, any blackouts or brownouts would have far more serious consequences than they do now. I note, also, that your solution requires a vast expansion in charging points in just 15 years.. granted it could be done but its a major, additional cost on top of all the others required to keep the power supply on its feet in order to recharge cars. This is not an easy change, and its certainly not a cheap one. I'm glad I'm not paying for it. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Rob Kramer said:

Well heres what I was saying currently most electricity is claimed to be 4x cheaper outside of California across the USA. So even at 10c/kwh the average home uses 500kwh per month averaged out over the year? So if you have gasoline cars and 10c electricity say 4 tanks a week in a small fwd suv 30$ to fill? (I only know Canadian prices for gasoline) so 120$ for fuel + 500x.10 = 50$ +120$ = 170$ gasoline and electricity. 

VS. 500kwh and 4x 100kwh battery charges (if not more) so 900kwh x 60c/kwh = 540$ ok let's do 30c that's a soon future = 270$ .... on what planet are you saving ? On the California @18.8c / kwh. 

Are they outlawing nat gas appliances? 

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/banning-natural-gas-is-out-electrifying-buildings-is-in-59285807

"I think that the term gas ban might not work" beyond California, said Jenna Tatum, director of the Building Electrification Initiative, a group that helps its eight-member cities advance electrification efforts. "But I think that a policy that encourages or requires all electric new construction works everywhere." Despite its influence, relatively few cities have carbon copied the Berkeley gas ban. Instead, local lawmakers are developing multiple pathways to building electrification, tailored not only to their own legal framework, but also to regional political, industry pushback and cultural differences.

I googled California power prices and its average in 2019 was 16.7c kWh. And just found 19c in 2020

PG&E Delivery Rate is a charge assessed by PG&E to deliver electricity to your home or business. The PG&E delivery rate depends on your electricity usage, but is charged equally to both PCE and PG&E customers. PG&E PCIA/FF represents the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) and the Franchise Fee surcharge (FF).

FYI California has had All Electric Homes pushed for my adult lifetime. It started from the power companies, possibly in conjunction with the appliance makers. Some subdivisions were, I think, all electric in the fifties. My Auburn home was all electric. It was rural so no gas plus a moderate climate so a heat pump combined with the air conditioning worked great. 

Does anyone have an idea how many heat pumps are used now. Mine was about 1976. 

Edited September 30, 2020 by ronwagn

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

On those days industrial and commercial consumption would likely be greatly reduced - do you not agree?

 

I think the number of chargers would be the biggest problem since people often drive quite a distance for holiday visits. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

24 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

FYI California has had All Electric Homes pushed for my adult lifetime. It started from the power companies, possibly in conjunction with the appliance makers. Some subdivisions were, I think, all electric in the fifties. My Auburn home was all electric. It was rural so no gas plus a moderate climate so a heat pump combined with the air conditioning worked great. 

Does anyone have an idea how many heat pumps are used now. Mine was about 1976. 

Thanks ... I'm used to nat gas stove , dryers, water tank and furnace (even tho my current ones are electric + induction....hot water tank and furnace is still nat gas but after all this carbon tax and customer charge debating electric replacement when it fails) . Found a chart the other day on Canadian Nat gas production 2019 15.7BCF average vs 15.3BCF average for 2020. Using simple math canada exports net 4bcf to USA so at close to 11BCF local demand if we had 10x the population like USA we'd use 110BCF vs US at closer to 90BCF. Kinda cool  sorry off topic. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

Dan - while some of what you says it true and that proper management will reduce the load there is also no doubt that the large scale switch to EVs will have a major effect on a grid that's already struggling, as I understand it, with existing demand. A major strengthening of firm supply - gas and coal plants - would be required before such a change and that would seem to defeat the purpose. Otherwise, any blackouts or brownouts would have far more serious consequences than they do now. I note, also, that your solution requires a vast expansion in charging points in just 15 years.. granted it could be done but its a major, additional cost on top of all the others required to keep the power supply on its feet in order to recharge cars. This is not an easy change, and its certainly not a cheap one. I'm glad I'm not paying for it. 

Most EV drivers charge at home and buy and install their own charger. For these chargers, the "major expansion" you speak of just happens as EV sales expand. (i.e., one EV, one home charger). This (and any other shift to using more electricity) can require heavy-up of the neighborhood distributions networks, but most neighborhoods won't be affected because they already comfortably handle the peak. We are going to have a bigger problem with increased installation and use of air conditioning as the temperatures rise.

For other charging points, EV manufacturers have a vested interest in adding away-from-home charging points as EV sales expand. Tesla is the most obvious example of this, but other EV manufacturers are partnering with charging station companies to expand the nets.  Given a 15-year timeline, I doubt there will be  problem.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

And what happens on Thanksgiving or Christmas day when EVERYONE travels?  Hrmm? 

You do NOT design to averages.  You design to MAXIMUMS!!!!!

The system is sized to provide for the peak power demand, which is in August. Those two holiday periods will be not on top of a peak. In California, if you are on a time-varying rate plan, those days get off-peak rates, and drivers have no incentive to defer charging until after midnight. Therefore, during those holidays the demand will be smoothed our over the entire 24 hours.

I think we might have problems on Memorial Day and Labor Day, though. We have until 2035 to solve those problems. The additional air conditioning load as the temperatures increase are a much bigger problem.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 9/29/2020 at 11:14 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Today, Oilprice Carried this article:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Californias-Electric-Vehicle-Dream-Has-A-Major-Problem.html

The article asserts that stopping the sale of ICEs by 2035 in California will impose a large burden on the electrical grid due to EVs, and that this is a big problem. The article  notes that The required EVs will increase the demand for electricity by at least 25% (true) but assumes that this will increase the peak demand by 25%.

This assumption is unrealistic. Peak demand occurs in the evening, just after everybody gets home. But by 2035, many EVs may charge at work, and the EVs that charge at home do not need to charge in the evening. EVs that are at home during the day can charge then, and EVs that must charge at night can charge after the peak. Basically all EVs already have network-connected computers already, and this can easily be made mandatory or can be made very attractive for new EVs. Within one or two years the vast majority of California EVs will be network-connected. My guess is that this is already true. It is straightforward to schedule these EVs to have these EVs share information about their charging needs, and for the power company to tell each EV when to charge and at what current. The electrical rate structure can be adjusted so that EVs that honor these requests will get cheaper electricity. No new hardware is required for this. There is no need to implement "V to G" to let the EV send power back into the grid.

Consider a limiting case wherein all EVs in the state must charge between the hours of midnight and 7AM. That's off-peak for sure. Most EV currently get about 4 mi/kWh, and the daily drive is about 36 mi, so each EV needs 9 kWh a day.  Folks using low-end chargers can still charge in 6 hours at 1.5 kW. Folks with faster chargers will charge during their assigned times at higher rates, with the same overall effect.  Sure, lots of folks drive further on average, and just about everybody occasionally drives a lot further, but these are averages, so it works out.  Folks on road trips will need to charge away from home anyway, and supercharger stations will have large stationary batteries to avoid using peak electricity.

Conclusion: EVs will use a lot of electricity, but basically none of it is peak electricity.

Forget about EV's, Hydrogen cars are on their way:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Hydrogen-Boom-Is-On-Track-To-Hit-11-Trillion.html

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Using natural gas plants, to the degree needed, would make the whole process a lot smoother, easier, and less expensive. California has natural gas and should use it. Use all the solar and wind you want, if that is what the people want. They elect the politicians, so that is up to them. They need to wake up or will be stuck with more crushing debt than the state faces now. They are reinventing a wheel that has worked fine for many decades. Install all the batteries you can afford, let the homeless people stay warm next to them in the winter. 

The state currently has no debt that I am aware of associated with power generation or the grid. we have investor-owned utilities. We do have a mess on our hands as the for-profit companies do what all for-profit companies do: try to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.  For natural gas, the power companies got slightly ahead of themselves on decomissioning some NG plants before getting the big new battery up and running. This caused the one and only failure to meet demand in the last 15 years.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The state currently has no debt that I am aware of associated with power generation or the grid. we have investor-owned utilities. We do have a mess on our hands as the for-profit companies do what all for-profit companies do: try to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.  For natural gas, the power companies got slightly ahead of themselves on decomissioning some NG plants before getting the big new battery up and running. This caused the one and only failure to meet demand in the last 15 years.

The reality is that the utility just spends the money it chooses to, with the permission of the state and the state taxes the consumer through add on taxes on the utility bills. The prices just keep rising for no apparent reason even if the actual usage diminishes due to better insulation, lighting and appliances. The price will be paid by electric vehicles also. Soon their owners will be taxed by the number of miles they drive. Soon people move elsewhere. It would be interesting to see how an independent solar building owner or home would do if that caught on. I predict they will be heavily taxed using some green rationale. 

If I owned such a home I would try to power an electric vehicle with a carport or some other solar system IF the price, including installation and maintenance was below other options in the long run and if I were young. 

Edited September 30, 2020 by ronwagn
addition

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

 

Will a gasoline pump work without electricity, both the one in your car and the one at the fuel station?

How about a forced-air natural gas furnace for your home?

Everything needs electricity - not everything needs petroleum fuel. 

Petroleum fuel free vehicles exist.

Unless you hand crank or pull start your car it already uses battery storage and a electric starter. 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The state currently has no debt that I am aware of associated with power generation or the grid. we have investor-owned utilities. We do have a mess on our hands as the for-profit companies do what all for-profit companies do: try to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.  For natural gas, the power companies got slightly ahead of themselves on decomissioning some NG plants before getting the big new battery up and running. This caused the one and only failure to meet demand in the last 15 years.

Isn't the utility for Los Angeles owned by the city? 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The state currently has no debt that I am aware of associated with power generation or the grid. we have investor-owned utilities. We do have a mess on our hands as the for-profit companies do what all for-profit companies do: try to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.  For natural gas, the power companies got slightly ahead of themselves on decomissioning some NG plants before getting the big new battery up and running. This caused the one and only failure to meet demand in the last 15 years.

Why are systems, such as NG plants, not maintained as viable backups.  I mean, if the "new" systems are seen to be even somewhat borderline in their ability to handle any and all peak demands, wouldn't it make sense to just keep some of the old system as backup?  My understanding is that NG plants can be started up in very short order to handle such types of situations.  Is that correct, or am I missing something?