Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by eldaisfish 1678 days ago
For a forum focused on meaningful and substantive discussion, the amount of incorrect information around EVs and the power grid is shocking.

GP's point is a good one although there is work happening to address that very problem. The point stands, though. EVs are a significant bump in both power and energy and will require significant investment in shoring up grid capacity. Sad this is downvoted.

>Steam turbines can take days to ramp up and connect to the grid

How is this relevant here? Also, the typical steam turbine takes hours to spin up and sync to the grid, not days. I am not aware of any steam turbines that require burning two day's worth of fuel just to connect to the grid.

>Several dams in my state barely reach full capacity and are not running 24/7.

Again, how is this relevant in a broader context? Lots of places have dams running dry just as equally many have dams overflowing.

>The co-op that supplies my power offers a flex plan that gives you free power from 11pm-6am.

Ok? This is not par for the course so i'm nor sure why you're mentioning it.

>You’re supposed to schedule your car to charge during that time.

And if you can't? What if offices suddenly have 50 EVs charging at the same time? Will this not lead to a capacity constraint? If you broaden the horizon, can this not lead to a localised collapse of the grid due to a demand surge?

>If half the cars in my county did this nightly it would be easier to predict the nightly loads.

It would also lead to a huge surge in power at the times when solar output is literally zero.

2 comments

This is obviously going to be region-dependent, but I don't think upgrading the grid is avoidable, even if we kept using ICE cars. Energy usage _is_ going to continue increasing as population grows and HVAC requirements increase.

Also, I'd like to add some perspective with actual numbers: My whole house consumed 109.49 kWh yesterday, of which only about 12kWh was my car charging (I have a PHEV). That number wouldn't change significantly if I had an EV, as my driving habits would probably stay roughly the same.

So car charging accounts for ~10% of my electricity consumption these days. Yes, that's not insignificant, but it's also not 50-75%. It's probably less impact on the grid than adding a central heat pump to a house, and I don't see people spreading FUD about heat pumps.

For the grid itself, time-of-use is _the_ important factor, as the size of wires, equipment, etc. is what determines the peak load the grid can handle. If the actual demand exceeds that for even only one minute in the year, it means we need to upgrade the grid. Operators are very interested in flattening that peak, so will offer incentives to move electricity consumption to off-peak times. Here in Québec, the evening / night is peak time in winter, as we all have electric heating, and night-time is colder. If vehicle charging is a significant burden, they'll offer incentives to move that to daytime.

>What if offices suddenly have 50 EVs charging at the same time?

They do. No problems so far.

>Will this not lead to a capacity constraint?

No. Batteries and rooftop solar.

>If you broaden the horizon, can this not lead to a localised collapse of the grid due to a demand surge?

Not with batteries and rooftop solar, no. We good?

>It would also lead to a huge surge in power

It's not a "huge surge." Many other appliances are off at night. The grid has excess power at night. The larger problems are in the day, caused by things like massive use of AC, which problems will be ameliorated by installation of more rooftop solar. Win win.

>at the times when solar output is literally zero.

Batteries.

And, sometimes, when needed, you also, wait for it… use fossil fuels or other non-solar sources! We can cut fossil fuel use drastically and cut carbon emissions, but still use them when needed, and everything will be OK!

> We can cut fossil fuel use drastically and cut carbon emissions, but still use them when needed, and everything will be OK!

Not to detract from your core point as there are ways to solve this[1], but long term the necessary level of solution is 99.9% reduction over all sources of CO2, so no, it isn’t OK unless it’s no more than 8 hours per year[1].

[0] hydrogen, synthetic hydrocarbons, even burning wood instead of coal works in this situation, so long as the costs are lower than for fossil carbon

[1] on average, with a margin of error of way more than 100% depending on all the carbon sources that aren’t electrical