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

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours 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

🤣😂😎

Assuming your draw numbers are correct then they are easily satisfied by at most a 10% increase in the grid capacity. Which is easily handled by more storage buffers in the system. Note the 24 hours of below 50GW demand:

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 9/29/2020 at 11:57 PM, 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. 

 

I have been saying , for a long time, that service stations should have mandated power backup generators. They could run off their own gasoline. This would be especially important in hurricanes. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, ronwagn said:

I have been saying , for a long time, that service stations should have mandated power backup generators. They could run off their own gasoline. This would be especially important in hurricanes. 

But they aren't! Even in red states that suffer hurricanes. It always makes me laugh when i see one of the recurring posts about what are EV's going to do when there is no electricity when the question is just as much what does an ICE do when there is no electricity, as the gas stations shut down in a black out!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

But they aren't! Even in red states that suffer hurricanes. It always makes me laugh when i see one of the recurring posts about what are EV's going to do when there is no electricity when the question is just as much what does an ICE do when there is no electricity, as the gas stations shut down in a black out!

I am a big believer in energy redundancy. Mandate a gasoline run generator and a big commercial battery that will last awhile. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

15 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I am a big believer in energy redundancy. Mandate a gasoline run generator and a big commercial battery that will last awhile. 

Good grief Ron, what hypocrisy! You are all too happy for a market to put a tax on small business owners to pay for a backup generator but you give a down vote to the idea that the exact same market can apply a pollution tax to entities wishing to sell their products in their market.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

21 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I have been saying , for a long time, that service stations should have mandated power backup generators. They could run off their own gasoline. This would be especially important in hurricanes. 

That's a great idea that seems to have caught on, in some places to various degrees.

Here is a Florida listing from 2017:

List of gas stations with generators in Palm Beach County

A company call GENERAC specifically targets this product line:

GAS STATIONS ARE A REFUGE FOR DRIVERS IN A POWER OUTAGE

Another option from Power Plus:

Gas Stations Possibly Required to Install Backup Generators for Power

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours 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!

California prides itself with being the first in the nation with great improvements in the way we live and all things Green. The downside to that is trying to make it work and the costs that go with it. We should all be grateful that the rest of America has an example to watch. It is like an experiment in a chemistry and physics lab. Just watch how California succeeds or fails. They think they are the smartest and the most Woke. We can all let them prove it. Hollywood has gone from a city of dreams to a city of nightmares with their dark, violent, sleazy, amoral, lascivious, mediocre content. The streets have become home to tents for homeless people that cannot be forced to move out. Crime is on the rise. It is starting to catch up to Chicagoland. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Good grief Ron, what hypocrisy! You are all too happy for a market to put a tax on small business owners to pay for a backup generator but you give a down vote to the idea that the exact same market can apply a pollution tax to entities wishing to sell their products in their market.

Yes, because I don't believe that CO2 is a REAL problem. I am not one of the brainwashed masses. I understand how biology works. I am very concerned about REAL pollution of all kinds. 

Global Warming AKA Climate Change and Just Plain Weather

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

That's a great idea that seems to have caught on, in some places to various degrees.

Here is a Florida listing from 2017:

List of gas stations with generators in Palm Beach County

A company call GENERAC specifically targets this product line:

GAS STATIONS ARE A REFUGE FOR DRIVERS IN A POWER OUTAGE

Another option from Power Plus:

Gas Stations Possibly Required to Install Backup Generators for Power

Thanks Dan!

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Yes, because I don't believe that CO2 is a REAL problem. I am not one of the brainwashed masses. I understand how biology works. I am very concerned about REAL pollution of all kinds. 

Global Warming AKA Climate Change and Just Plain Weather

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit

Great because the ZEV credits have nothing to do with carbon and everything to do with demonstrable air pollution:

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Now that sounds like it makes sense. I grew up in smogville and always planned on getting out. I will research ZEV. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Jay, the problem I do have with ZEV is that I think natural gas vehicles are an essential part of cleaning the air around the entire world including California. I am not yet a true believer in all electric vehicles. I think it might be a doable solution but the entire current fleet of ICE vehicles could be adapted to natural gas if need be. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

3 hours 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 drive a Tesla Model Y. This is not a tiny toy car. I get 4 mi/kWh. Apparently, so do all the other people that drive the model Y:

https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/tesla-ups-ante-on-model-y-range-underscoring-ev-lead

Your assertion that this figure is off by a factor of four is not valid. It is also The discrepancy between my SWAG and your SWAG, which are otherwise pretty close to each other. I note that my SWAG pretty much matches the estimate in the OilPrice article that kicked this whole thread off: 25%. to the 100% that you estimated.

You also seem to think an EV gets its best mileage in highway driving and worse mileage in city or rush hour driving. No. That is what happens to an ICE. An EV uses no energy when "idling" and recovers energy when "braking".

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

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)

You are describing an old-style demand response system that was based on really crude logic plus brute-force power control. SInce the EVs are all computerized and network-connected, we do not need to use such a crude system. The central controller will tell each EV when to charge and at what rate. Each EV is already responsible for picking the correct charging rate: the charger merely indicates the maximum available rate. the charger has no mechanism except its circuit breaker) for rate-limiting the EV if the EV draws more than the charger signals is available.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

You are describing an old-style demand response system that was based on really crude logic plus brute-force power control. SInce the EVs are all computerized and network-connected, we do not need to use such a crude system. The central controller will tell each EV when to charge and at what rate. Each EV is already responsible for picking the correct charging rate: the charger merely indicates the maximum available rate. the charger has no mechanism except its circuit breaker) for rate-limiting the EV if the EV draws more than the charger signals is available.

Dan, I follow your comments and I love it when you post like the two above.  I mean, sometimes you post the inner workings and make it sound like it will be a hassle for the owner of the EV, which I don't believe is true OR what you meant to get across.  Your last two entries above cut through the tech-babble and show us how wonderfully all the EV tech is evolving and in fact where it is already.  Good stuff. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

8 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?

No, "working hours" are not (exactly) peak. Furthermore, "peak" is not the real problem. In recent years, actual peak demand occurs at about 3:00PM, on peak hot days in August, but the Sun is still shining, so we cover the actual peak fairly easily. The problem (max supply minus demand) starts at about 5:00PM when solar has dropped off a lot and continues until about 10:00PM when the temperature has dropped and people start to go to bed. PG&E has a peak rate for EVs that starts at 3:00PM and ends at midnight.  For charging at work, folks will be charging from 9:00AM until 3:00PM, when there is lots of solar. That's only six hours, so if they want 9 kWh average, they will draw 1.5 kW. average.

The payment options for at-work chargers will presumably be at the discretion of the employer or whoever installs the chargers. IRS rules pretty much require that the electricity is income to the employee and must be taxed as such if the employer provides it "for free", just like "free" food.

I suspect a lot of employers will install solar above the parking lots and add some batteries, and then charge the employees at or near the utilitiy's off-peak rate. In California in the summer, parking in the shade is a big benefit.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Dan Clemmensen
minus

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

24 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Dan, I follow your comments and I love it when you post like the two above.  I mean, sometimes you post the inner workings and make it sound like it will be a hassle for the owner of the EV, which I don't believe is true OR what you meant to get across.  Your last two entries above cut through the tech-babble and show us how wonderfully all the EV tech is evolving and in fact where it is already.  Good stuff. 

😀  Well, I did it again. Oops. The "old style demand response"  Was not used by even the earliest EVs. It was (and is) used by things like electric water heaters and air conditioners. EVs are still evolving, but already had computerized rate control ten years ago. Teslas, at least, also already have optimized charging based on availability of chargers and aggregated current demand at shared charging stations. If you drive a Tesla on a road trip, the central computer will tell you where to go to charge and then tell the car how fast to charge in order to get all of the travelers to their destinations with minimum waiting times. As a driver, you just drive and plug in the charger, and the car draws power when it is told do do so, all based on the trip schedules each driver has programmed. This same hardware in the EV and central computer can handle allocation of charging at work and home, needing only a software upgrade at the central computer of implement grid-level or neighborhood-level demand response.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I drive a Tesla Model Y. This is not a tiny toy car. I get 4 mi/kWh. Apparently, so do all the other people that drive the model Y:

https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/tesla-ups-ante-on-model-y-range-underscoring-ev-lead

Your assertion that this figure is off by a factor of four is not valid. It is also The discrepancy between my SWAG and your SWAG, which are otherwise pretty close to each other. I note that my SWAG pretty much matches the estimate in the OilPrice article

If you had bothered to READ, instead of spewing venom, you would have seen I cut your 4mi/KWh in half as trucking dear fool accounts for 1/3 of all miles driven, that is right, 1/3 and they, judging by fuel mileage achieved compared to toy cars, are a ~4:1 difference.  Now add in the simple fact that people do not want to drive a toy Model Y or 3 which are small and low to the ground irregardless of TESLA's or your claims.  The average becomes HALF of your stated value and much more likely much worse.  Likewise you did not account that all those miles driven are Monday through Friday.  So, when one adds REALITY into the mix, one achieve 3X higher totals than you were spouting. Hell, I was kind and allowed for 10 hours of charging period.  If Oilprice.com is so stupid as to write an article(I did not read and never do as they are all equally stupid and naive) equally as naive, dumb and short sighted as your post, no wonder it is dying. 

EDIT: as for regenerative braking, to get benefit you have to set it at aggressive which essentially feels like someone is slamming on the brakes every stop.  Average Jack/Jill will not put up with BS braking other than those trying to save 2c.. Now add that last I checked, AC/Heat/Stereo is going at all those stops so pretending city driving is same as highway is beyond absurd.  Thankfully most mileage is at higher speed. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

24 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

If you had bothered to READ, instead of spewing venom, you would have seen I cut your 4mi/KWh in half as trucking dear fool accounts for 1/3 of all miles driven, that is right, 1/3 and they, judging by fuel mileage achieved compared to toy cars, are a ~4:1 difference.  Now add in the simple fact that people do not want to drive a toy Model Y or 3 which are small and low to the ground irregardless of TESLA's or your claims.  The average becomes HALF of your stated value and much more likely much worse.  Likewise you did not account that all those miles driven are Monday through Friday.  So, when one adds REALITY into the mix, one achieve 3X higher totals than you were spouting. Hell, I was kind and allowed for 10 hours of charging period.  If Oilprice.com is so stupid as to write an article(I did not read and never do as they are all equally stupid and naive) equally as naive, dumb and short sighted as your post, no wonder it is dying. 

EDIT: as for regenerative braking, to get benefit you have to set it at aggressive which essentially feels like someone is slamming on the brakes every stop.  Average Jack/Jill will not put up with BS braking other than those trying to save 2c.. Now add that last I checked, AC/Heat/Stereo is going at all those stops so pretending city driving is same as highway is beyond absurd.  Thankfully most mileage is at higher speed. 

I will leave it to others to decide which of us is using language and tone that constitutes "spewing venom".

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 9/30/2020 at 2:43 PM, ronwagn said:

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. 

Probably true Ron. I believe the future will run on H2, but there will be a mix of H2 as well as electric vehicles, maybe half, half, maybe all will be hybrid H2/Electric vehicles. You might find this intersting:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Blue-Ammonia-Another-Major-Breakthrough-For-Hydrogen-Power.html

And this is the reason why everyone wants H2:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dramatic-changes-in-the-arctic-suggest-climate-change-could-return-earth-to-pliocene-conditions-of-3-million-years-ago-11601495655

If you knew how severe the beach erosion is on the coasts of Australia, you would understand why most of us want action on climate change. It is destroying our way of life. Not just destroying our beaches, but like California, giving us record severe bushfires, droughts, and floods. The recent floods in China have opened their eyes to the problem, and even they want to be carbon neutral by 2060. South Korea usually gets hit by one Typhoon per year. This season, it was 3. I know I will never convince you of the severity of the problem, but don't blame me when it becomes impossible to afford home insurance in large parts of the US and elsewhere. At some stage (my guess is 10 years from now), it will become clear that large parts of NY cannot be saved, even if the world reaches net zero emissions by 2050. The CO2 will take a couple centuries to fall, and that is only if we plant several trillion trees. Let us pray for our grand-kids sake that nothing truly catastrophic occurs, like a shut-down of the Gulf Stream or a release of Methane Calthrates from the oceans. That is the name of the game now, trying to prevent catastrophic "runaway" climate change. We already know the sea levels are gonna rise by at least 5 - 10 feet, no matter what we do, and that it will cost approx $100 trillion in lost property and farmland etc.

[Wombat + 1,028]

13 hours 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!

Ever heard of pumped Hydro? Hydrogen cars?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

59 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Probably true Ron. I believe the future will run on H2, but there will be a mix of H2 as well as electric vehicles, maybe half, half, maybe all will be hybrid H2/Electric vehicles. You might find this intersting:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Blue-Ammonia-Another-Major-Breakthrough-For-Hydrogen-Power.html

And this is the reason why everyone wants H2:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dramatic-changes-in-the-arctic-suggest-climate-change-could-return-earth-to-pliocene-conditions-of-3-million-years-ago-11601495655

If you knew how severe the beach erosion is on the coasts of Australia, you would understand why most of us want action on climate change. It is destroying our way of life. Not just destroying our beaches, but like California, giving us record severe bushfires, droughts, and floods. The recent floods in China have opened their eyes to the problem, and even they want to be carbon neutral by 2060. South Korea usually gets hit by one Typhoon per year. This season, it was 3. I know I will never convince you of the severity of the problem, but don't blame me when it becomes impossible to afford home insurance in large parts of the US and elsewhere. At some stage (my guess is 10 years from now), it will become clear that large parts of NY cannot be saved, even if the world reaches net zero emissions by 2050. The CO2 will take a couple centuries to fall, and that is only if we plant several trillion trees. Let us pray for our grand-kids sake that nothing truly catastrophic occurs, like a shut-down of the Gulf Stream or a release of Methane Calthrates from the oceans. That is the name of the game now, trying to prevent catastrophic "runaway" climate change. We already know the sea levels are gonna rise by at least 5 - 10 feet, no matter what we do, and that it will cost approx $100 trillion in lost property and farmland etc.

Wombat, I think you have been misled. You think I am wrong. I don't think that we will ever agree. My sources say that there have been less storms. Minimal ocean rise. Forest fires have nothing to do with climate change. Climate has always changed. I have plenty of research. Much of the world that is now above sea level was once below sea level. Parts of California and Florida for example. 

The trillions of trees are a great idea. They can be trees that produce edibles and lumber also. Think of all that wonderful Canadian and Siberian real estate that can be developed. People can move to new areas if oceans do rise. Geologic time is a lot different than human history. 

All of the global warming hysterical predictions have proven wrong so far and, I think, that will continue. 

Global Warming AKA Climate Change and Just Plain Weather

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit

[Rob Kramer + 696]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Great because the ZEV credits have nothing to do with carbon and everything to do with demonstrable air pollution:

ZEV credits are BS. According to the article 9% going to 22% at 5k$ a peice. So say movers order GM box Van's and builders roofers and the hands on people order ford pickups and say the soccer moms buy the crap out of Van's.... why should GMC dodge and ford pay tax credits for selling vehicles that arnt yet available electric and with the same abilities.  Even cars if nissan sells 100k micros to low income wanting new and reliable retiring a beater why would nissan have to buy 9,500x 5000$ tax credits?! Where do you think the costs get put? Back onto the vehicles sold! Meaning it's harder to replace the old less efficient beater with the new very efficient replacement. No a leaf doesnt compair with a micro. It's another way to arm twist car makers to offer EVs to not buy credits. But as we know it's not profitable to sell things that take billions and years to invent anh have many problems to solve. Easy for Tesla they can operate at a loss and sell few cars and get paid . I'd love to see business act tough back to government and say hey our cars cause smog (even tho you need them to have a profitable life) ok no more sold in your county . Then let's see the votes. But everyone is a kiss ass now days. Ya sure EVs are super profitable that's why some of the first cars invented were electric and they left that system. Hybrids work. Remove ZEV and tax BEV at the same rate as ice and the entire shame is exposed for the arm twisting it is. 

[NickW + 2,714]

15 hours 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

🤣😂😎

Maths based on an assumption that everyone is going to charge their car at peak times.....

 If you look at that demand curve Jay posts most of the charging will be off peak when CCGT plant has loads of spare capacity. I'd agree maybe a 10% increase in dispatchable plant to facilitate the majority of light vehicles to going electric. 

The other aspect of electric cars is they don't waste the same sort of fuel levels that conventional cars do when idling. 2 miles per kwh sounds very low. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Maths based on an assumption that everyone is going to charge their car at peak times.....

 If you look at that demand curve Jay posts most of the charging will be off peak when CCGT plant has loads of spare capacity. I'd agree maybe a 10% increase in dispatchable plant to facilitate the majority of light vehicles to going electric. 

The other aspect of electric cars is they don't waste the same sort of fuel levels that conventional cars do when idling. 2 miles per kwh sounds very low. 

?I had my numbers stand ALONE.  75GW for 10 hours straight charging vehicles. Irregardless of when + additional standard load on grid.  Grid usage at night is still ~50% of peak.  Lets simple math 25GW + 75GW = 100GW and grid currently MAXED at 50GW... Gee.... hrmm... seems like 2X to me... Thankfully most power lines can have their voltage doubled.  Of course all transformers must be replaced and a lot of lines must be upgraded, but the grid itself is doable.  That is simple stuff.  Coming up with an additional ~1TWh at night...  every night irregardless if the sun/wind has been shining/blowing for the past week is THE problem. 

Oh yea, My numbers are way too low.  Trucking is at least 8X higher consumption than TESLA 3/Y.... https://insideevs.com/news/332353/tesla-semi-truck-battery-is-how-big/  They get 0.5mi/KWh and they are comparing to a perfect diesel truck which currently does not exist.  So, that 0.5mi/KWh... is actually lower.

PS: Did anyone else notice that TESLA has essentially given up on grid storage with their new batteries and instead say LiFePo.  This is inline with what everyone is saying on the TESLA forums regarding the new TESLA batteries.  Their capacity degrades much faster than previous packs.  This makes sense as TESLA has cut the amount of Cobalt in their batteries significantly.  We shall see what happens with their new Anode/Cathode + waterless electrolyte.  Hrmm which makes one think, what happens when LiFePo gets waterless electrolyte?  Does this mean its #1 drawback(can't be charged under 0C disappears? and weight decreases?)  If this is the case, then it becomes fairly obvious that the battery of the future is LiFePo, not NMS(Nickel metal silicone other than the fact that the latest LiFePo have a 25% energy density disadvantage to Latest TESLA cells. 

EDIT: PPS: LiFePo also have a nice 4X longer life than NMC...

Edited October 2, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com