Simple question: What is the expected impact in electricity Demand when EV deployment exceeds 10%

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Especially when the production of that electricity is assumed to be "renewables". Will those chargers help or hinder the grid? 

[turbguy + 1,543]

9 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Especially when the production of that electricity is assumed to be "renewables". Will those chargers help or hinder the grid? 

I believe there's gonna be a bunch of bottlenecks.  Hawaiian Electric Co. is experiencing that in their system with penetration of household solar, and they are still working though it.  The grid, as built, is designed to deliver power to consumers, but not so much in reverse.  It "works", but there are issues with VARs/voltage control, local circuit overloads, etc.

Kinda similar to the issue that arose when wind developers used cheap/available step-down distribution transformers at each tower as step-ups instead.  It "worked" but there were plenty of failures, until purpose-designed transformers were used instead. 

Adding home chargers that work at household voltages (220 V single phase with a center neutral) in the USA) that can send power both ways (discharging the battery though an inverter) can help the grid, but probably best used to power the home itself during grid "needs". 

With Tesla's largest battery (83 KWH?), fully charged (which you don't want to do), then fully discharged (which you also don't want to do), I could operate my home for 2-3 days in the winter, 3-4 days in the summer.  I don't use AC much and heat/cook with nat gas.   In other climates, I'm certain that duration would be less.

That all assumes that:

• The vehicle is home.
• The vehicle is fully charged an plugged in.
• The charger contains an appropriate inverter ($).
• The distribution company uses smart meters to signal a home shutdown when needed.
• A transfer switch is installed ($), along with other safety considerations.
• You have 220 volt service for the charger, near where the car is parked (good luck with that in apartment housing./street parking).
• The vehicle isn't required for travel in the near future.

Recognizing this, only a fraction (probably much less than 50%) of EV's will be available for grid supply at any one time.  Charging will thus be the main "duty" from such a fleet, IMO.   I doubt many owners would permit discharging for grid support anyhow.

If you don't mind a  half-day charging process when home, it should "work".   In poor weather when the grid is stressed, you may not need the vehicle, anyway.

All that said, the distribution and transmission networks will probably require upgrades ($) to handle the additional loads charging represents.

Doing it with current and planned renewables?  I can't see that happening for 2-4 decades.  It would "work, but I think I'd like a bunch more nukes available along the way. 

Bottom line, with the "grid's" current construct, a hindrance (IMO).

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

PLEASE NOTE: Most of these numbers are totally made up by me. I think they are mostly good to maybe one digit of precision.

By "deployment" let's assume you mean 10% of all vehicles of all types on the road. For ease of computation, let's assume all non-commercial vehicles are charged all the time at "home" (L2 chargers on the distributed residential grid) and all commercial vehicles are charged on high-wattage chargers DC.  In the real world, there's a lot of crossover each way. Further assume as a crude approximation that The total energy is split 50-50 between these: I have no idea how that works out in reality.

OK, for the non-commercial, we get maybe 40 miles/day at maybe .25 kWh/mi = 10 kWh/day. There are about 1.4 billion vehicles on the road. Assume 80% are non-commercial, so 11.2 billion. 10% is 112 million, so 112 GWh/day non-commercial and 112 GWh/day commercial, world wide.

The following numbers are slightly better. The BIG made-up factor here is the assumption that as much energy will be consumed by the commercial fleet as the personal fleet.

Looking at this per capita, in California:

https://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/02/07/annual-per-capita-california-driving-1-5-times-the-national-average/

we have 22 million drivers and each driver goes 13,500 miles/yr (37 mi/day or about 9.25 kWh/day), with a population of 39 million total. 22/39=0.56, so we need about 5.2 kWh/day "residential" and 5.2 kWh/day "commercial" for each person in the state at 100% EV, or 1.04 kWh/day per capita at 10% market penetration.

The hourly, daily, weekly, and yearly distributions will be somewhat lumpy, but there are a lot of ways that this will be mitigated. In particular, at the daily scale, home charging will not occur during the peak 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM period, and neither will most commercial charging. It's just too easy to shift your charging to non-peak for almost everybody, and time-of-day metering is pretty much the default if you have a home charger.

This computation does not factor in any electricity saved by NOT using gasoline. I do not know how to compute that.

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Dan Clemmensen
typo: 5.2*2=10.4, 10% is 1.04, not 1.4

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

I believe there's gonna be a bunch of bottlenecks.  Hawaiian Electric Co. is experiencing that in their system with penetration of household solar, and they are still working though it.  The grid, as built, is designed to deliver power to consumers, but not so much in reverse.  It "works", but there are issues with VARs/voltage control, local circuit overloads, etc.

Kinda similar to the issue that arose when wind developers used cheap/available step-down distribution transformers at each tower as step-ups instead.  It "worked" but there were plenty of failures, until purpose-designed transformers were used instead. 

Adding home chargers that work at household voltages (220 V single phase with a center neutral) in the USA) that can send power both ways (discharging the battery though an inverter) can help the grid, but probably best used to power the home itself during grid "needs". 

With Tesla's largest battery (83 KWH?), fully charged (which you don't want to do), then fully discharged (which you also don't want to do), I could operate my home for 2-3 days in the winter, 3-4 days in the summer.  I don't use AC much and heat/cook with nat gas.   In other climates, I'm certain that duration would be less.

That all assumes that:

• The vehicle is home.
• The vehicle is fully charged an plugged in.
• The charger contains an appropriate inverter ($).
• The distribution company uses smart meters to signal a home shutdown when needed.
• A transfer switch is installed ($), along with other safety considerations.
• You have 220 volt service for the charger, near where the car is parked (good luck with that in apartment housing./street parking).
• The vehicle isn't required for travel in the near future.

Recognizing this, only a fraction (probably much less than 50%) of EV's will be available for grid supply at any one time.  Charging will thus be the main "duty" from such a fleet, IMO.   I doubt many owners would permit discharging for grid support anyhow.

If you don't mind a  half-day charging process when home, it should "work".   In poor weather when the grid is stressed, you may not need the vehicle, anyway.

All that said, the distribution and transmission networks will probably require upgrades ($) to handle the additional loads charging represents.

Doing it with current and planned renewables?  I can't see that happening for 2-4 decades.  It would "work, but I think I'd like a bunch more nukes available along the way. 

Bottom line, with the "grid's" current construct, a hindrance (IMO).

I think Vehicle-to-grid is almost always a really dumb idea, but possibly using your vehicle's battery during a power outage makes sense. As I understand it the charger does not have an inverter. The vehicle already has an inverter since EV motors are synchronous, and an EV with V2G capability delivers AC back to the house. Interestingly, Teslas do not have V2G and Elon has explicitly said that they will not have it. Hacking an inverter onto the 12V system in your Tesla voids the warranty.

Many of the advantages and disadvantages you discuss already apply for homes with solar+battery, or even for homes with just a battery. If I had solar+battery, I might set up to allow my EV to be used as an add-on battery when there is a scheduled power outage or a predicted extreme weather event.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 3/17/2021 at 12:42 PM, Ward Smith said:

Especially when the production of that electricity is assumed to be "renewables". Will those chargers help or hinder the grid? 

EV adoption will occur over 20+ years, which means the relevant question is, "Can the grid grow in step with EV demand?" Jason from Engineering Explained suggests that the grid has handled such growth in the past, and there's no reason to believe today is different:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU

In addition to that, Jason is missing an important detail: years ago, US electricity consumption began a slow decline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electricity_by_type.png

Electric generators in many regions have been struggling due to low prices caused by oversupply. There are a lot of coal, gas, and nuclear plants either running at low capacity or completely idled. Liberal states may suffer, but that's nothing new and unrelated to EV demand.

As we see increased demand from EVs, we're also seeing decreased demand from other sources. E.g.
     a) Conversion of lighting (10+% of electricity demand) from incandescent/fluorescent to LED is only beginning.
     b) New buildings have far lower energy demands than old buildings. Replacement of a pre-1970 building often reduces energy demand - including electricity - by 80%. Retrofits can achieve a 50% reduction.
     c) A/C units are becoming more efficient. Replacement of some old units results in a 50% reduction in energy consumption.
     d) Industry has recognized the value of energy efficiency. Technologies like more efficient power electronics, more efficient motors, and more careful programming of robots can reduce a factory's energy consumption by 10-30%.
     e) New technologies for smelting aluminum promise a 10-20% decrease in energy consumption.

You get the point: there's a lot being done to reduce electricity demand. EVs might end up being a godsend for generators and utilities.

Will we have problems when everyone plugs in their EV in the evening? No. Demand charges are easily implemented; it wouldn't be that difficult to spread the charging over the night when demand is low. This would boost capacity factors for struggling conventional generators.

And then, when EVs finally outpace lost demand, we'll add more generators. Or maybe we'll fire up some of those mothballed coal plants.

[Boat + 1,323]

The Tesla cyber truck is reported to have over 2 million reservations. Production to start later this year. All Tesla vehicle production will be around 1 million this year and 2 million next year, possibly 10 million per year in 2025. These projections are not from from Tesla itself but from industry “experts”. We’ll see.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, Boat said:

The Tesla cyber truck is reported to have over 2 million reservations. Production to start later this year. All Tesla vehicle production will be around 1 million this year and 2 million next year, possibly 10 million per year in 2025. These projections are not from from Tesla itself but from industry “experts”. We’ll see.

The most recent projections are for 850,000 Teslas in 2021, not a million. The earlier estimates may have been too optimistic about the startup production dates of the two new factories (Giga Texas and Giga Berlin), or the new estimates may be too pessimistic. We'll see.Tesla hit about 185,000 vehicles delivered in Q1. Tesla is still expanding the Shanghai factory, and even the "little" Fremont factory is increasing production. Elon claims Tesla's goal is 20 million/yr by 2030, and Tesla's manufacturing approach seems to be capable of this sort of expansion, but I don't know if it is reasonable for Tesla to capture 20/92= 21% of the total vehicle market by 2030 (or ever). It's true that the rest of the industry has been very slow to react to Tesla, but they seem to have finally caught on, and just maybe one or two automakers will finally try to replicate Tesla's design and manufacturing model instead of trying to adapt their current ICE manufacturing model.

The two existing plants and the two new plants will all produce Model 3 and Model Y. The initial production rate for the Cybertruck will be around 100,000/yr, all at the Texas plant. It's not clear when they will add more production lines for Cybertruck. All new Model 3 and Model Y incorporate a single large aluminum casting and the casting is produced using a "Giga press". These are 6000 ton casting presses, and are said to be the largest in the world in use. The Giga press" for the Cybertruck is an 8000-ton unit, and only one exists. It has been delivered to Texas.  A Giga press is larger than a small house.  The single casting replaces over 70 parts that were welded together in the earlier versions of the Model 3 and Model Y. The casting is called the "rear underbody".  There is a lot of speculation that newer designs will incorporate another casting for the front underbody.  In any event, Tesla fanbois can tell a lot about Tesla's progress at the factories by keeping track of these enormous machines.  I doubt that Tesla will start up a second Cybertruck production line until they get some experience with the first line.

[markslawson + 1,057]

About 12 per cent of cars in Norway are pure electric and another 5 per cent or so are plug-in hybrids.. There is no indication that this has placed undue strain on the power generation network or capacity but then the country already consumed three times as much electricity per capita as the EU average (for heating without gas heating). Norway power system - almost all of it is hydro - not only copes with that demand but exports to Sweden and Denmark.. In addition, the Norwegian government has shown considerable foresight in organising its grid to service EVs. If any US government shows similar foresight or the political will necessary to avoid any problems - as opposed to completely mess up the whole thing - I would be surprised, but then I'd be surprised if EV market share got to 10 per cent anywhere else but Norway..  

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

17 hours ago, markslawson said:

About 12 per cent of cars in Norway are pure electric and another 5 per cent or so are plug-in hybrids.. There is no indication that this has placed undue strain on the power generation network or capacity but then the country already consumed three times as much electricity per capita as the EU average (for heating without gas heating). Norway power system - almost all of it is hydro - not only copes with that demand but exports to Sweden and Denmark.. In addition, the Norwegian government has shown considerable foresight in organising its grid to service EVs. If any US government shows similar foresight or the political will necessary to avoid any problems - as opposed to completely mess up the whole thing - I would be surprised, but then I'd be surprised if EV market share got to 10 per cent anywhere else but Norway..  

TBH Norway has tremendous advantages over the US. First a tiny population of largely homogeneous people, second a very small footprint of cities and finally, lots and lots of money. They couldn't have s grid problem when they're already exporting power, versus say Kalifornistan, which needs imported power just to keep its head above water. So naturally they're overreaching on an already overtaxed system. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 3/17/2021 at 10:42 AM, Ward Smith said:

Especially when the production of that electricity is assumed to be "renewables". Will those chargers help or hinder the grid? 

Conversion to 100% EV in California will result in 10.4 KWh/day per person in California. This is a whole bunch. I think it is roughly equal to the current per-capita daily average consumption in the state (I'm having trouble computing this, please help): that is, we will need to double the amount of delivered electricity to reach 100%. Note that California has quite a low per-capita consumption of electricity, because we don't need as much heating and cooling as most states, so most states won't need to double their electricity for this.  It's not really that bad, since electrical efficiency gains are occurring quite rapidly, especially for all those motors in homes and buildings, and new construction is much more energy efficient than older structures. Also, intelligent demand management and localized energy storage will knock the peaks down a whole lot, so the same grid can handle more energy.

The problem is even bigger than this: we also want to quit using NG completely. I'm not sure, but this may be on the same order of magnitude as the transition away from petroleum. There are also the "minor" issues of jet fuel and cement.  For jet fuel, you can make it from CO2 and H2, with the H2 made from still more electricity. For cement, you can also use H2 for the heat needed to calcine the lime, but no matter how you do that it still emits CO2. but all that electricity has to come from somewhere.

On the plus side, you save bunches of energy by not producing, transporting, storing, and delivering all that NG and petroleum product, and the money needed to maintain all that infrastructure can be used to maintain the electrical grid instead.

Conclusion: moving away from fossil fuels will require a whole bunch of work, spread over at least 30 years. I suspect this will be worth it based purely on economics, without regard to climate change.

 

[Boat + 1,323]

20 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The most recent projections are for 850,000 Teslas in 2021, not a million. The earlier estimates may have been too optimistic about the startup production dates of the two new factories (Giga Texas and Giga Berlin), or the new estimates may be too pessimistic. We'll see.Tesla hit about 185,000 vehicles delivered in Q1. Tesla is still expanding the Shanghai factory, and even the "little" Fremont factory is increasing production. Elon claims Tesla's goal is 20 million/yr by 2030, and Tesla's manufacturing approach seems to be capable of this sort of expansion, but I don't know if it is reasonable for Tesla to capture 20/92= 21% of the total vehicle market by 2030 (or ever). It's true that the rest of the industry has been very slow to react to Tesla, but they seem to have finally caught on, and just maybe one or two automakers will finally try to replicate Tesla's design and manufacturing model instead of trying to adapt their current ICE manufacturing model.

The two existing plants and the two new plants will all produce Model 3 and Model Y. The initial production rate for the Cybertruck will be around 100,000/yr, all at the Texas plant. It's not clear when they will add more production lines for Cybertruck. All new Model 3 and Model Y incorporate a single large aluminum casting and the casting is produced using a "Giga press". These are 6000 ton casting presses, and are said to be the largest in the world in use. The Giga press" for the Cybertruck is an 8000-ton unit, and only one exists. It has been delivered to Texas.  A Giga press is larger than a small house.  The single casting replaces over 70 parts that were welded together in the earlier versions of the Model 3 and Model Y. The casting is called the "rear underbody".  There is a lot of speculation that newer designs will incorporate another casting for the front underbody.  In any event, Tesla fanbois can tell a lot about Tesla's progress at the factories by keeping track of these enormous machines.  I doubt that Tesla will start up a second Cybertruck production line until they get some experience with the first line.

The YouTube boys who track these factories are the ones making the prediction. A couple of them even predict production in the third quarter on a couple of new lines. They claim the 850,000 is grossly underestimated. Who knows, it may be clickbait or maybe their right.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

6 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Conversion to 100% EV in California will result in 10.4 KWh/day per person in California. This is a whole bunch. I think it is roughly equal to the current per-capita daily average consumption in the state (I'm having trouble computing this, please help): that is, we will need to double the amount of delivered electricity to reach 100%. Note that California has

Your stated 10kWhh/day per capita is usage for passenger cars.  Personally that is low since we have conversion factors but I like round numbers so close enough.   That is roughly 2/3 of miles driven.  Trucks are several times the consumption(upwards of 10X) and make up 1/3 of miles driven.  Breakdown of light trucking vrs heavy is roughly 50% each way in very crude terms.  So, 1/6th of total miles driven by heavy trucking is roughly equal to 100% of passenger car miles driven. 

So, off hand I would say you are off by 2X-->4X in your napkin calculation. All before we  talk about diesel for equipment that cannot be changed to electric-->construction/farming etc.  Before we talk plastics, fertilizers, etc. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

14 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Your stated 10kWhh/day per capita is usage for passenger cars.  Personally that is low since we have conversion factors but I like round numbers so close enough.   That is roughly 2/3 of miles driven.  Trucks are several times the consumption(upwards of 10X) and make up 1/3 of miles driven.  Breakdown of light trucking vrs heavy is roughly 50% each way in very crude terms.  So, 1/6th of total miles driven by heavy trucking is roughly equal to 100% of passenger car miles driven. 

So, off hand I would say you are off by 2X-->4X in your napkin calculation. All before we  talk about diesel for equipment that cannot be changed to electric-->construction/farming etc.  Before we talk plastics, fertilizers, etc. 

In an earlier post on this (short) thread, I calculated that passenger cars would take 5.2 kWh/fay per capita, not per car or per driver. There are 22 million drivers and 39 million "capitas" in California. I then doubled this number based on a wild guess that the commercial vehicles would expend about the same amount of energy as the cars.  My wild guess was based on the amount of diesel fuel consumed in California versus the amount of gasoline: about the same amount of energy in both categories. I know there is a fair amount of crossover in each direction.

Ward's original question involved the energy associated with EVs, not construction, plastics, fertilizers, etc, but I agree with you, they are important.

BTW, I did the "research" (a trivial web search only) to try to find the ratio of commercial to non-commercial use of gasoline and diesel because of our earlier conversation on another thread, where you raised the issue after I had ignored the commercial side. Otherwise, I probably would have made the same mistake here.

You also correctly stated that my use of .25 kWH/mile for private cars was unrealistically low. You are probably correct for 2021: that the EPA number, and in real life in 2021 it's closer to .33 kWh/mi. However, efficiency continues to improve, so I kept the .25 kWh/mi as my guesstimate for when we get to 10% or more EV penetration.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Dan Clemmensen

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

21 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

In an earlier post on this (short) thread, I calculated that passenger cars would take 5.2 kWh/fay per capita, not per car or per driver. There are 22 million drivers and 39 million "capitas" in California. I then doubled this number based on a wild guess that the commercial vehicles would expend about the same amount of energy as the cars.  My wild guess was based on the amount of diesel fuel consumed in California versus the amount of gasoline: about the same amount of energy in both categories. I know there is a fair amount of crossover in each direction.

Ward's original question involved the energy associated with EVs, not construction, plastics, fertilizers, etc, but I agree with you, they are important.

BTW, I did the "research" (a trivial web search only) to try to find the ratio of commercial to non-commercial use of gasoline and diesel because of our earlier conversation on another thread, where you raised the issue after I had ignored the commercial side. Otherwise, I probably would have made the same mistake here.

You also correctly stated that my use of .25 kWH/mile for private cars was unrealistically low. You are probably correct for 2021: that the EPA number, and in real life in 2021 it's closer to .33 kWh/mi. However, efficiency continues to improve, so I kept the .25 kWh/mi as my guesstimate for when we get to 10% or more EV penetration.

Funny, my brother's Leaf has a status indicator that shows how many miles to empty. I can leave the house with a 75 mile range and watch it drop ten miles by the time I get to the end of the private drive 0.4 miles. Let's say it's a 24kwh battery, and I'd be lucky to go fifty miles on a charge. By EPA standards it's kwh/100 miles so mine is 50kwh.

Given that no one in Kalifornistan only drives 50 miles there's probably a good reason they just about give the Leaf away on the used market. Next comes the charging efficiency. I'm guessing no more than 70% with a Level 1 charger and 80% for Level 2. If 50 million people had this vehicle (on average) the impact on the system is pretty direct. I know that Silicon Valley firms have "free" charging stations, which would be a requirement because otherwise there's not enough juice to get home. Then There's the time of use charges to factor in. Doesn't do any good to act like everyone will only charge at night given the short (and shrinking with time) ranges of these vehicles. 

My brother "loaned" me his Leaf 2 years ago and refuses to take it back. He bought a Prius. 😂

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Funny, my brother's Leaf has a status indicator that shows how many miles to empty. I can leave the house with a 75 mile range and watch it drop ten miles by the time I get to the end of the private drive 0.4 miles. Let's say it's a 24kwh battery, and I'd be lucky to go fifty miles on a charge. By EPA standards it's kwh/100 miles so mine is 50kwh.

Given that no one in Kalifornistan only drives 50 miles there's probably a good reason they just about give the Leaf away on the used market. Next comes the charging efficiency. I'm guessing no more than 70% with a Level 1 charger and 80% for Level 2. If 50 million people had this vehicle (on average) the impact on the system is pretty direct. I know that Silicon Valley firms have "free" charging stations, which would be a requirement because otherwise there's not enough juice to get home. Then There's the time of use charges to factor in. Doesn't do any good to act like everyone will only charge at night given the short (and shrinking with time) ranges of these vehicles. 

My brother "loaned" me his Leaf 2 years ago and refuses to take it back. He bought a Prius. 😂

A used Leaf is hardly a bleeding-edge vehicle. I don't think anyone sells a new pure EV with less than 120 miles of (EPA) range, and by the time we get to  the 10% penetration you specified, I doubt many of them will still be on the road, with the exception of folks who keep an old one for commuting and  drive less than 20 miles each way to work. The average drive per day in California is about 37 miles.  L1 and L2 chargers are nothing more than a big ol' relay with some control circuitry. They switch the AC house current directly to the car, where the AC-to-DC charging circuit resides. This means the efficiency differences are in the car's convertor.

According to ieee, L2  (89%) is indeed more efficient than L1 (84%)

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7046253

You don't need to charge "at night" to stay off-peak. Peak rates apply from 4:00PM to midnight. You can charge at home after midnight, and charge at work from when you arrive until 4:00. But since all EVs except older Leafs can go more than 60 miles, almost all daily commutes are covered. Sure there are lots of use cases that are exceptions, but again, you asked for an analysis at the 10% penetration level.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

13 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Funny, my brother's Leaf has a status indicator that shows how many miles to empty. I can leave the house with a 75 mile range and watch it drop ten miles by the time I get to the end of the private drive 0.4 miles. Let's say it's a 24kwh battery, and I'd be lucky to go fifty miles on a charge. By EPA standards it's kwh/100 miles so mine is 50kwh.

Given that no one in Kalifornistan only drives 50 miles there's probably a good reason they just about give the Leaf away on the used market. Next comes the charging efficiency. I'm guessing no more than 70% with a Level 1 charger and 80% for Level 2. If 50 million people had this vehicle (on average) the impact on the system is pretty direct. I know that Silicon Valley firms have "free" charging stations, which would be a requirement because otherwise there's not enough juice to get home. Then There's the time of use charges to factor in. Doesn't do any good to act like everyone will only charge at night given the short (and shrinking with time) ranges of these vehicles. 

My brother "loaned" me his Leaf 2 years ago and refuses to take it back. He bought a Prius. 😂

If I were making a point, I wouldn't make it with woefully outdated technology and designs.

You do you though.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

If I were making a point, I wouldn't make it with woefully outdated technology and designs.

You do you though.

If I were making an economic case, I'd recognize two things. Not every Californian can afford brand new EV equipment and second, even the brand new (today) vehicles will age, specifically the batteries and their capacity. I guarantee the 120 mile vehicles are not going to be 120 miles next year, and will decline at least 10% every year. The reality is Americans keep their vehicles as long as they can, those who aren't in the top economic tier. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

14 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

A used Leaf is hardly a bleeding-edge vehicle. I don't think anyone sells a new pure EV with less than 120 miles of (EPA) range, and by the time we get to  the 10% penetration you specified, I doubt many of them will still be on the road, with the exception of folks who keep an old one for commuting and  drive less than 20 miles each way to work. The average drive per day in California is about 37 miles.  L1 and L2 chargers are nothing more than a big ol' relay with some control circuitry. They switch the AC house current directly to the car, where the AC-to-DC charging circuit resides. This means the efficiency differences are in the car's convertor.

According to ieee, L2  (89%) is indeed more efficient than L1 (84%)

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7046253

You don't need to charge "at night" to stay off-peak. Peak rates apply from 4:00PM to midnight. You can charge at home after midnight, and charge at work from when you arrive until 4:00. But since all EVs except older Leafs can go more than 60 miles, almost all daily commutes are covered. Sure there are lots of use cases that are exceptions, but again, you asked for an analysis at the 10% penetration level.

The article you cited (admittedly I only read the abstract) gave an average for 2 Volts and 2 Leafs. I'd be curious as to their ages, driving conditions etc, but not enough to wade thru the paper. Many many years ago when I worked for a mobile device company, they produced "reports" just like this. The real world was never as cooperative. I'm inclined to believe these numbers more "In those charges in which the battery took up less than 4 kWh, this difference in efficiency was even greater: 87.2% for Level 2 vs. 74.2% for Level 1." Add in the high likelihood these were brand new battery systems in new cars and I'll stay with my estimated values for the real world. But I'm a pessimist about most tech and all marketing claims. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

The article you cited (admittedly I only read the abstract) gave an average for 2 Volts and 2 Leafs. I'd be curious as to their ages, driving conditions etc, but not enough to wade thru the paper. Many many years ago when I worked for a mobile device company, they produced "reports" just like this. The real world was never as cooperative. I'm inclined to believe these numbers more "In those charges in which the battery took up less than 4 kWh, this difference in efficiency was even greater: 87.2% for Level 2 vs. 74.2% for Level 1." Add in the high likelihood these were brand new battery systems in new cars and I'll stay with my estimated values for the real world. But I'm a pessimist about most tech and all marketing claims. 

Since we are all making up numbers based on cursory internet searches, your guesstimate is as good as mine. You apply it by multiplying my result (1.04 kWh/day per capita at 10% EV penetration) by 4/3 to get 1.38 kWh/day per capita.

[RichieRich216 + 454]

The real question to answer is from 1949 until 2017 U.S. coal was the dominant energy behind the United States only to drop to second to Natural Gas in that year! For all those Greenies that want Carbon gone and all EV vehicles, Good luck in finding any renewables to power the hundreds of thousands of charging stations that will be needed! Though I expect to be dead of old age but I am willing to bet this conversation will be the same in 2050! Enough of the Bull Shit, Climate Change has and is a talking point that groups are making millions if not billions on and is nothing but a Ponzi scam. The can send the latest Mars lander, deployed a mini helicopter, fly it multiple times take pictures and yet no pure science on the changes the Earth has done long before record’s were kept! I remember the ozone hole in the 80’s and we all had ten years to live yet we and multiple other countries continued to set off space shuttle and satellite launch’s that blew bigger holes in the ozone then refrigerates! This is all pure 💯 percent BULL SHIT! The Hollywood phedophiles and Corporate ass holes continue to fly private jets and decry Global Warming! Wake up and see the bull shit people!

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Since we are all making up numbers based on cursory internet searches, your guesstimate is as good as mine. You apply it by multiplying my result (1.04 kWh/day per capita at 10% EV penetration) by 4/3 to get 1.38 kWh/day per capita.

Why do do per capita at all? Why not just say there are xx million vehicles times 10% times those vehicles' power consumption? Or since you've unnecessarily added factors, multiply 1.x kwh/day by 40 million citizens. That's 40gwh times 365, coming from where? @RichieRich216 wonders if it can be "green". Does anyone here believe adding 2GW of power supply will cover it completely? 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

On 4/5/2021 at 5:32 PM, markslawson said:

 I would be surprised, but then I'd be surprised if EV market share got to 10 per cent anywhere else but Norway..  

Germany Plugin Electric Share Hits 22.5% In March — 2.4× Year-On-Year Share Growth

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/04/08/germany-plugin-electric-share-hits-22-5-in-march-2-4x-year-on-year-share-growth/

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

7 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

If I were making a point, I wouldn't make it with woefully outdated technology and designs.

You do you though.

After 35 plus yrs in the automotive industry I have no qualms in stating the leaf exhibited state of the art design. Make no mistake here....$12500.00 rebates& fed tax credits is perhaps thee most beautiful tech the consumer has ever seen...and it does not end there. LAMO

This Leaf is the worlds top selling EV..period

https://insideevs.com/news/393890/nissan-leaf-sales-450000/

Nissan LEAF Sales Hit 450,000: World's #1 Selling EV, But Not For Long

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Other then Nuclear Energy, There’s nothing but fossil fuels that can provide the sustainable energy needed for EV revolution! Technology will not get you there! Additionally though never included is all the daily products, commercial and industrial items thats main platform is fossil fuel. 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

THE GRID CRASHES, because all the stupid greenies didn’t think that far in advance......