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

[Rob Kramer + 696]

15 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

 

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. 

 

What does that have to do with all this? 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

10 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

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?

There are two types of NG plants, CCGT and peakers. You are talking about peakers, The California  grid has a whole lot of them, and this has been true since way before wind and solar were introduced. In a properly-run system, There are enough peakers to allow the grid to handle the worst-case peak plus a little more, even when one or two of them are off line do to equipment failure. But this means that several peakers' worth of capacity will never be used at all during the course of an entire year. It costs money to maintain an unused peaker in a ready-to-go condition, so there is economic pressure to define "worst case" optimistically,  and therefore decomission a few more peakers than you would using a more pessimistic 'worst case" projection. Therefore, the for-profit utilities want to be more optimistic. This, combined with the NIMBYs and the greenies, causes the state regulatory authorities to allow the utilities to shave it a little too close. Then when you do have a worse than worst case situation, you end up with a supply shortage.  That's what happened in August: worst heat wave in California history, unavailability of electricity from AZ and NV due to their heat waves, and the failure of a peaker, when we should have left at least two additional peakers in commission for another year. Basically, everybody gambles that the worst case would not happen before we got our big battery working, and allowed about three more peakers to be decomissioned than we should have.

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

Wednesday September 30, 2020

ZERO HEDGE featured this topic's article by Irina Slav of Oil Price.com

The Problem With California's Electric Dream

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/problem-californias-electric-dream

[markslawson + 1,042]

21 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

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.

Dan - you tried and failed to counter one of my points but ignored the other. You are talking about a massive new load on the power grid. I don't think you realise just how many cars will have to be plugged in at the same time to make this work. You're talking about hundreds of thousands at least, if not millions, of cars on the grid at the same time and think that it can all be handled by the existing system? And all the cars parked while their owners are at work will require access to chargers at the same time. This is going to be done in 15 years? I don't think so. If the target had been 10 per cent, say, in fifteen years - okay, lets talk. But, nope, the whole thing. Its clearly insanity and you should see that. Anyway, that's enough for now. Leave it with you. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

39 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Dan - you tried and failed to counter one of my points but ignored the other. You are talking about a massive new load on the power grid. I don't think you realise just how many cars will have to be plugged in at the same time to make this work. You're talking about hundreds of thousands at least, if not millions, of cars on the grid at the same time and think that it can all be handled by the existing system? And all the cars parked while their owners are at work will require access to chargers at the same time. This is going to be done in 15 years? I don't think so. If the target had been 10 per cent, say, in fifteen years - okay, lets talk. But, nope, the whole thing. Its clearly insanity and you should see that. Anyway, that's enough for now. Leave it with you. 

I stated in my initial post that I accepted the capacity expansion number in the original article, which was 25%. My argument, however, is that while the average capacity will indeed go up by 25%, the peak load will not go up by much at all due to EVs. The peak load in California will go up by some serious percentage due to increased use of air conditioning over this same period, because the hottest day of the year keeps getting hotter, but that's another story. Yes, I do know how many cars need to be plugged in simultaneously: all of them. Upper bound: each EV must have two chargers, one at home and one at work. There are about 33 million registered motor vehicles in CA The effort to add all of those chargers is fully distributed amongst all of California's electricians, and it will cost approximately $1000.00 per charger, or $2000.00 per EV on the highway. Each year, the number of new chargers will be two times the number of new EVs. However, the number of new chargers does not affect the total energy required by these EVs, which remains at 9 KWh/day per EV on average. EVs that charge at work do not contribute to peak load. EVs that charge at home after midnight do not contribute to peak load. The tiny percentage of EVs that must charge during peak hours will have a negligible effect. To add 60 million chargers in 15 years, we need 4 million a year. There are 63,000 electricians in California. Each electrician will need to install about 65 chargers each year: less than two per week.  In actual practice, of course, most non-home installations will occur in large clusters, not one-off, and most home chargers do not need an electrician and/or will be done in conjunction with other electrical work.

A number of 30 million vehicles for a state population of 39 million is of course ludicrous. We do have that many vehicles, but that is more than one per driver, which means that the average miles per year per vehicle is less than the number I used of 15,000 mi/yr, and the number of chargers is also far overstated. I was just trying to place an upper bound on the problem.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

8 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

There are two types of NG plants, CCGT and peakers. You are talking about peakers, The California  grid has a whole lot of them, and this has been true since way before wind and solar were introduced. In a properly-run system, There are enough peakers to allow the grid to handle the worst-case peak plus a little more, even when one or two of them are off line do to equipment failure. But this means that several peakers' worth of capacity will never be used at all during the course of an entire year. It costs money to maintain an unused peaker in a ready-to-go condition, so there is economic pressure to define "worst case" optimistically,  and therefore decomission a few more peakers than you would using a more pessimistic 'worst case" projection. Therefore, the for-profit utilities want to be more optimistic. This, combined with the NIMBYs and the greenies, causes the state regulatory authorities to allow the utilities to shave it a little too close. Then when you do have a worse than worst case situation, you end up with a supply shortage.  That's what happened in August: worst heat wave in California history, unavailability of electricity from AZ and NV due to their heat waves, and the failure of a peaker, when we should have left at least two additional peakers in commission for another year. Basically, everybody gambles that the worst case would not happen before we got our big battery working, and allowed about three more peakers to be decomissioned than we should have.

Somehow I dont quite but the idle facilities cost a ton theory.  I mean a simple ICE engine tied to a alternator (a generator) can sit for years turn the key and she fires up. So mabey the regulation and tax scheme is at fault. I dont know how a mandatory facility would be taxed or whatever but I mean a pair of security guards and a staff on call are pretty cheap. When it comes to facilities they usually cost the most to build and little to maintain (especially unused) and have a lifetime maintenance plan factored in. Sounds like an excuse for failure elsewhere.  

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

11 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Somehow I dont quite but the idle facilities cost a ton theory.  I mean a simple ICE engine tied to a alternator (a generator) can sit for years turn the key and she fires up. So mabey the regulation and tax scheme is at fault. I dont know how a mandatory facility would be taxed or whatever but I mean a pair of security guards and a staff on call are pretty cheap. When it comes to facilities they usually cost the most to build and little to maintain (especially unused) and have a lifetime maintenance plan factored in. Sounds like an excuse for failure elsewhere.  

The California peakers are not small facilities. About 80 peakers supply have about 8 GW of total capacity. My post to which you replied was based on stuff I learned on the OilPrice forums over the last 6 months or so, so I just now Googled and found this:

https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/California.pdf

By inference, the peakers that were optimistically retired were old CCGTs now running as peakers. Those suckers would be high maintenance and would require a fair amount of manpower. We are not talking about purpose-built systems designed to be used only rarely. Your description applies more to small emergency backup generators. BTW, as you are probably aware, keeping two guards on duty 24/7 requires 8 full-time guards and the associated management and HR resources.  "On call staff" is not going to be available: you need this plant in a worst-case situation. What does that trained and experienced staff do the rest of the time?

 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

24 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

 

A number of 30 million vehicles for a state population of 39 million is of course ludicrous. We do have that many vehicles, but that is more than one per driver, which means that the average miles per year per vehicle is less than the number I used of 15,000 mi/yr, and the number of chargers is also far overstated. I was just trying to place an upper bound on the problem.

So say 20,000,000 BEV × 9 kwh per night =180,000,000 kwh . 110v@15A =1650 or 5.4hr . 180m kwh /5.4hrs = 33,333,333kwh for the 5.4hrs when majority of people get home or time their vehicle to charge. ... that's no small draw + added ac at peak as you were saying . And solar doesnt work at these hours. So the state needs almost 9kwh of battery per car if soar is the preferred method of charge.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

9 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The California peakers are not small facilities. About 80 peakers supply have about 8 GW of total capacity. My post to which you replied was based on stuff I learned on the OilPrice forums over the last 6 months or so, so I just now Googled and found this:

https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/California.pdf

By inference, the peakers that were optimistically retired were old CCGTs now running as peakers. Those suckers would be high maintenance and would require a fair amount of manpower. We are not talking about purpose-built systems designed to be used only rarely. Your description applies more to small emergency backup generators. BTW, as you are probably aware, keeping two guards on duty 24/7 requires 8 full-time guards and the associated management and HR resources.  "On call staff" is not going to be available: you need this plant in a worst-case situation. What does that trained and experienced staff do the rest of the time?

 

I get all that . However it's just as I said a failure to properly time replacement of assets and their use. So by not running them effectively there too expensive not the assets themselves fault but miss management. As you said the big battery wasn't installed in time with renewables.  

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 minute ago, Rob Kramer said:

So say 20,000,000 BEV × 9 kwh per night =180,000,000 kwh . 110v@15A =1650 or 5.4hr . 180m kwh /5.4hrs = 33,333,333kwh for the 5.4hrs when majority of people get home or time their vehicle to charge. ... that's no small draw + added ac at peak as you were saying . And solar doesnt work at these hours. So the state needs almost 9kwh of battery per car if soar is the preferred method of charge.

This is an upper bound, where you are assuming all cars are being driven by people with day jobs and none of them are charging at work. But an appreciable percentage of folks (shift workers, retired folks, etc.) will charge during the day at home, and we also have non-solar (wind, hydro, geothermal) to use during off-peak. But let's just analyze your upper bound. We would need your stipulated 180 GWh, operating at (say) 45 GW for four hours. (today's technology has about a 1:4 power-to-enegy ratio) The new big battery a Moss landing is 730 MWh, so over the next 15 years we would need to add 61 of these: about 4 per year. But battery technology is still improving at a dramatic rate, so this is not out of reach at all. NOTE: I'm arbitrarily continuing to use a 15 year timeline. This ENDS in 2035, while the new no-ICE mandate more or less starts in 2035. In truth, it looks to me like EV technology is moving so fast that the mandate is basically irrelevant.

But this is not the most likely scenario. We are much more likely to see distributed batteries instead, because just as utility-scale batteries are improving, so are small batteries.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

So say 20,000,000 BEV × 9 kwh per night =180,000,000 kwh . 110v@15A =1650 or 5.4hr . 180m kwh /5.4hrs = 33,333,333kwh for the 5.4hrs when majority of people get home or time their vehicle to charge. ... that's no small draw + added ac at peak as you were saying . And solar doesnt work at these hours. So the state needs almost 9kwh of battery per car if soar is the preferred method of charge.

Solution, charge car at work when the sun shines.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Enthalpic

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I stated in my initial post that I accepted the capacity expansion number in the original article, which was 25%. My argument, however, is that while the average capacity will indeed go up by 25%, the peak load will not go up by much at all due to EVs. The peak load in California will go up by some serious percentage due to increased use of air conditioning over this same period, because the hottest day of the year keeps getting hotter, but that's another story. Yes, I do know how many cars need to be plugged in simultaneously: all of them. Upper bound: each EV must have two chargers, one at home and one at work. There are about 33 million registered motor vehicles in CA The effort to add all of those chargers is fully distributed amongst all of California's electricians, and it will cost approximately $1000.00 per charger, or $2000.00 per EV on the highway. Each year, the number of new chargers will be two times the number of new EVs. However, the number of new chargers does not affect the total energy required by these EVs, which remains at 9 KWh/day per EV on average. EVs that charge at work do not contribute to peak load. EVs that charge at home after midnight do not contribute to peak load. The tiny percentage of EVs that must charge during peak hours will have a negligible effect. To add 60 million chargers in 15 years, we need 4 million a year. There are 63,000 electricians in California. Each electrician will need to install about 65 chargers each year: less than two per week.  In actual practice, of course, most non-home installations will occur in large clusters, not one-off, and most home chargers do not need an electrician and/or will be done in conjunction with other electrical work.

A number of 30 million vehicles for a state population of 39 million is of course ludicrous. We do have that many vehicles, but that is more than one per driver, which means that the average miles per year per vehicle is less than the number I used of 15,000 mi/yr, and the number of chargers is also far overstated. I was just trying to place an upper bound on the problem.

Here EV's provide a benefit to both the utilities and gas industry. 

Building peaking plant to cope with extreme weather events is very costly however if those plants are  built, ideally CCGT they can be utilised off peak to charge EV's lowering the overall capital cost of making that investment. 

There will be some opportunity for EV's to provide grid back up further increasing the stability of the grid. Already happening in the UK. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by NickW

[Bob D + 562]

On 9/29/2020 at 3:42 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

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.

How does the state of California produce power after midnight to charge what will be 50 million EV after 2035.  I'll stretch it out to 2050 so all ICE vehicles are retired?  Solar?  Nope.  Where'd the sun go?   Wind?  Nope.  That's not when the wind blows.  Batteries?  Maybe.  We'll see as we move further up the renewables learning curve all the while using tax advantaged power that needs back up generation which isn't being priced into the renewables cost equation.   What does tax advantaged power mean?  It's more expensive!

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

35 minutes ago, Bob D said:

How does the state of California produce power after midnight to charge what will be 50 million EV after 2035.  I'll stretch it out to 2050 so all ICE vehicles are retired?  Solar?  Nope.  Where'd the sun go?   Wind?  Nope.  That's not when the wind blows.  Batteries?  Maybe.  We'll see as we move further up the renewables learning curve all the while using tax advantaged power that needs back up generation which isn't being priced into the renewables cost equation.   What does tax advantaged power mean?  It's more expensive!

Where are you getting 50 million? We currently have fewer vehicles than people (but more vehicles than drivers): 36 million vehicles, 39 million people. But the population is projected to pretty much quit growing:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/40-million-population-is-nothing-for-California-13071624.php

The number of EVs is not relevant. The number of miles driven by EVs every day is relevant. I figure that we have the equivalent of 20 million vehicles at 13,000 miles per year per vehicle on average. 13,000 miles per year is about 36 mi/day, and at 4 mi/kWh this is about 9 kWh per vehicle per day.  As stated om earlier posts, I'm guessing a fair percentage of charging is done in the morning at work (off peak) and the rest is done after midnight at home. The night-time power is supplied by LOTS of utility-scale battery.

Note that California's natural gas peakers are also "tax advantaged".  They are not required to pay for themselves based on the electricity they generate, but instead are permitted to charge for "reliability services". This has been true since before there were renewables.  I'm not complaining, here, just noting the situation.

The problem is not time-shifting from day to night using batteries. The problem is long-term storage, shifting from Spring and Fall  to Winter. (actually, from dry season to wet season). A lot of this can be handled by hydro (much more is available in rainy season) but I think we will need CCGT running on either hydrogen or methane to solve the problem.

Reminder: in California, the most urgent problem that we can solve locally is pollution, not global warming. We have the worst pollution in the nation because of the combination of geography, climate, and population density. Our pollution is caused by ICE vehicles.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

Here EV's provide a benefit to both the utilities and gas industry. 

Building peaking plant to cope with extreme weather events is very costly however if those plants are  built, ideally CCGT they can be utilised off peak to charge EV's lowering the overall capital cost of making that investment. 

There will be some opportunity for EV's to provide grid back up further increasing the stability of the grid. Already happening in the UK. 

V2G (Vehicle to grid) systems require additional hardware in each vehicle. "Demand response" (i.e., telling an EV to quit charging) requires no additional hardware, it just uses the network-connected computer that is already present in basically all EVs. It is much more efficient electrically to tell lots of vehicles to quit charging than it is to tell vehicles to do V2G.

If we build sufficient utility-scale battery capacity to time-shift 9 kWh/EV, Then that same battery is available for for worst-case peaking, since those EVs don't charge during peak hours.

 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

12 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Solution, charge car at work when the sun shines.

Isnt that peak? And when its 20$ to fill 4x per month currently think 50 + employees wont be noticed charging?

[Rob Kramer + 696]

Just found how tesla makes money it's as criminal as carbon tax : 

 

besides the last four, Tesla was in the “green” for Q3 and Q4 of 2018 as well the third quarter of 2016 — is because of all the money it generates from something called zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) credits.

Pioneered by California — but now enforced by more than 10 other states as well as Quebec — the zero-emission mandate sets a quota (9.5 per cent in 2020 and growing to 22 per cent in 2025) that proscribes how many electric vehicles an automaker must sell in its jurisdiction. Now, the rules are complicated — for instance, a multiplication factor is added so you can get more than one credit per EV if its range is long enough — but essentially, if you sell 100,000 cars in California, you need to sell 9,500 ZEVs. Or, more accurately, accumulate 9,500 ZEV credits. Otherwise you pay a fine: US$5,000 per missing battery, to be exact.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/driving.ca/tesla/features/feature-story/tesla-elon-musk-donald-trump-zev-credits/amp

[NickW + 2,714]

22 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Isnt that peak? And when its 20$ to fill 4x per month currently think 50 + employees wont be noticed charging?

Peaks normally late afternoon- early evening when people get home and on goes the kettle, cooker, lights, TV, AC in hot climates / electric heaters in cold climates. 

The work charging one is easy

You need charging stations so can recover the cost of the electricity through payroll deduction. 

Secondly the charging stations can be designed with frequency response (dynamic demand)  monitors so if grid frequency drops below a defined level the charge stops or slows down.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_demand_(electric_power)

[Rob Kramer + 696]

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

Peaks normally late afternoon- early evening when people get home and on goes the kettle, cooker, lights, TV, AC in hot climates / electric heaters in cold climates. 

The work charging one is easy

You need charging stations so can recover the cost of the electricity through payroll deduction. 

Secondly the charging stations can be designed with frequency response (dynamic demand)  monitors so if grid frequency drops below a defined level the charge stops or slows down.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_demand_(electric_power)

Does anyone else trust their employer to not over charge? And what are the rate hours there ? Here 7pm- 7am are off peak rates and 10-5 is peak rate charge (maney not peak demand) ... so who would want to charge I'd rates are more plus possible mark up from employer . The employer may average the costs I'm sure those close to work dont want to double their cost or tripple on higher rates.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Rob Kramer said:

Does anyone else trust their employer to not over charge? And what are the rate hours there ? Here 7pm- 7am are off peak rates and 10-5 is peak rate charge (maney not peak demand) ... so who would want to charge I'd rates are more plus possible mark up from employer . The employer may average the costs I'm sure those close to work dont want to double their cost or tripple on higher rates.

If your employer charges too much then charge at home or a charging station. In California peak rates are 4-9pm. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Rob Kramer said:

Does anyone else trust their employer to not over charge? And what are the rate hours there ? Here 7pm- 7am are off peak rates and 10-5 is peak rate charge (maney not peak demand) ... so who would want to charge I'd rates are more plus possible mark up from employer . The employer may average the costs I'm sure those close to work dont want to double their cost or tripple on higher rates.

I suspect at work charging would be utilised by people who don't have off road parking

For those with offroad parking they are going to utilise off peak overnight at home. This would be my choice because its far healthier for the battery to be slow charged when its cool. 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Just found how tesla makes money it's as criminal as carbon tax : 

 

besides the last four, Tesla was in the “green” for Q3 and Q4 of 2018 as well the third quarter of 2016 — is because of all the money it generates from something called zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) credits.

Pioneered by California — but now enforced by more than 10 other states as well as Quebec — the zero-emission mandate sets a quota (9.5 per cent in 2020 and growing to 22 per cent in 2025) that proscribes how many electric vehicles an automaker must sell in its jurisdiction. Now, the rules are complicated — for instance, a multiplication factor is added so you can get more than one credit per EV if its range is long enough — but essentially, if you sell 100,000 cars in California, you need to sell 9,500 ZEVs. Or, more accurately, accumulate 9,500 ZEV credits. Otherwise you pay a fine: US$5,000 per missing battery, to be exact.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/driving.ca/tesla/features/feature-story/tesla-elon-musk-donald-trump-zev-credits/amp

A pollution tax is extremely beneficial and strongly supported by the citizens who have to suffer from the pollution here in California which is almost all of us. Think of it as the market responding en masse to tell producers what they want while solving the free rider problem.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Isnt that peak? And when its 20$ to fill 4x per month currently think 50 + employees wont be noticed charging?

 

Will it become a company issue eventually?  Maybe, but a lot of companies wouldn't notice the electricity usage:

- If the commute was short (mine was 8Km) you wouldn't need that much of a charge, it's highly unlikely you would always be arriving near dead.

- Even an office building uses a large amount of electricity.  A computer -if not several- running in every room, coffee pots, microwaves, etc.  "Personal office appliances" are popular.  Plugging in a car would be tiny drop in the ocean compared to the total amount of electricity we used at the lab.

- I was allowed to plug in a block heater, that wastes plenty of juice.

 

Frankly the only thing I don't see them doing is paying for fancy plug installation.

 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

Uh, you guys can't do math...

4mi/KWh is an absurd number as you are assuming everyone drives small low to the ground cars with nothing in it on highway miles when in reality most drive local city driving.  1/3 of miles driven are by trucks.  They will be lucky to get 1 mi/KWh.  Then everyone who does not want to drive a mouse box who will now average 2mi/KWh.

Now Reality: Majority miles driven Monday-->Friday.

30 E6 cars driving (40mi/day *7/5 =50mi/day)@2mi/KWh = 750E6 kWh = 750GWh charging every night on average.  Might be as low as 300GWh during weekend. 

IF life is perfect: This is distributed over a charge period of ~10 hours... So, MINIMUM constant 30GW power draw just for vehicle charging on weekend

30 GW!!! Minimum 75 GW is closer to reality

Californias Grid is currently a MAXIMUM of 50GW... and they need 75GW just for charging their vehicles as you design to maximums not averages or minimums. SO 75GW + NORMAL operations of 30GW-->50GW

Don't worry, they just need to DOUBLE the size of their electrical grid and power distribution

🤣😂😎

Edited October 1, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Uh, you guys can't do math...

4mi/KWh is an absurd number as you are assuming everyone drives small low to the ground cars with nothing in it on highway miles when in reality most drive local city driving.  1/3 of miles driven are by trucks.  They will be lucky to get 1 mi/KWh.  Then everyone who does not want to drive a mouse box who will now average 2mi/KWh.

Now Reality: Majority miles driven Monday-->Friday.

30 E6 cars driving (40mi/day *7/5 =50mi/day)@2mi/KWh = 750E6 kWh = 750GWh charging every night on average.  Might be as low as 300GWh during weekend. 

IF life is perfect: This is distributed over a charge period of ~10 hours... So, MINIMUM constant 30GW power draw just for vehicle charging on weekend

30 GW!!! Minimum 75 GW is closer to reality

Californias Grid is currently a MAXIMUM of 50GW... and they need 75GW just for charging their vehicles as you design to maximums not averages or minimums. SO 75GW + NORMAL operations of 30GW-->50GW

Don't worry, they just need to DOUBLE the size of their electrical grid and power distribution

🤣😂😎

I assure you I can do math; but what is the point when the input numbers are, at best, estimates but more often just wild guesses.