An Overhaul of the Electrical Grid Required for EV

I've wondered the same thing for years. The only sensible solution for lower car emissions is to go to natural gas fuel. Replacing gasoline with electric will require a much larger infrastructure. But it wouldn't take long to switch to natural gas. I worked in the 70s for a company with a propane fleet. It was hard to notice the difference in driving and I'm sure the tech has improved.

The problem with natural gas is the energy density.

It is only about 70% of gasoline,so it would require a larger storage system,with high pressure containment tanks.

It would work well in short commuter trips,and the maintenance is very low compared to gasoline,however they do still require oil changes just like gasoline,even though the oil will never look dirty.It will look pristine and new,but will have lost a lot of the lubrication properties.

Storing hydrogen in a chemical/nano scale matrix has potential and research is going in that direction.

I took a stab at doing this for the UK in June 2017 (shown below). The UK is about equivalent in size to the average US state so multiplying my conclusions by 50 will give a ball park for the size of your problem.

"A big concern is the low number of charging points and the cost of installation but that is just the tip of the iceberg. UK transport annually uses 54.2Mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent). That equates to 630346000Mwh of electricity. Divide that by the number of hours per year and you would need to install 70Tw (Terawatts) of distribution capacity if the demand was evenly spread. But the demand will not be evenly spread so assuming a utility factor of 0.33 you need 210Tw of distribution capacity in the form of overhead power lines, underground power lines (15x the cost of overhead line), switching stations, substations, and local distribution to the charging points. The "Western Link" is a £1bn project to connect 2.2Gw of renewable power recently installed in Scotland to the Wirral in North West England. That is about 420km with approximately 90% of the route in a sub-sea cable. One technical hitch in this project has cost £149m in price over runs (to date). The iceberg that is lurking below the UK government's eye line is 100x the capacity of the Western Link and 200x the route length to achieve reasonable distribution across the whole of the UK. At a conservative estimate the distribution infrastructure cost is £8 trillion or 4x the current UK GDP (based on today's cost and not including for inflation). But the UK public does not need to panic at the prospect of finding the electricity distribution cost out of taxes, we don't have anything like that amount of electricity generating capacity."

The units used in paragraph 1 are confused.

The overhaul of the Electricity Grid will need to be funded by a tax on electric vehicles to cover the added load they add to the system.

Also with the reduction in tax from the loss of the milking cow, the tax on fuel, where will the shortfall come from but the EV drivers and won't they bleat louder than a herd of sheep at shearing time.

I hear some of you say baa humbug but it will happen once the polies hip pockets hurt.

While the classical sources of electrical energy are not likely to be sufficient to meet the increased demand, one must take a few factors into consideration to see that the electrification of transportation may be possible.

1- An electric vehicle consumes a fraction of the energy consumed by a similar combustion engine vehicle.

2- Local renewable energy production is likely to fulfill most of the consumer demand. It is likely that a few sq meters of solar panels on the roof of most dwelling will be used to re-charge the seldom used vehicles.

3- Most of the vehicle charging will happen at night, where the grid is usually under-used. This will "increase" the production capacity of the current grid.

4- People will change their habits to take advantage of new technologies and ways of living. The increase of working from home is an example. The reduction of business travel is another one. There are many other changes in the making.

5- Load shedding will become common practice. It is already implemented for large energy consumers but will move to the general public as technology become available. An example is your hot water heater that can usually be reduced in temperature setpoint during peak demand without affecting your quality of life.

6- Some regions have surpluses that will be traded with others. Over long distances, this can be seasonally advantageous to even out the demand. We already see this with Quebec selling electricity to the north east states in the summer to meet their air conditioning (AC) needs and buying some or at least reducing the sales dramatically in the winter when the states AC load is minimal and Quebecer’s need for electric heating is at its peak.

Therefore, the electrical grid will be used to feed / supplement those vehicles that are used more intensely. This cuts the peak demand to a fraction of the apocalyptic scenarios presented by other commenters.

I do agree that an important increase of the grid capacity will be needed, and it is likely that this will slow down the transition to all electric transportation. Eventually, the society will adapt.

Keep an open mind, things will work out in the end.

You simply proved that those who don't want to adapt to the change will find reasons to go against it. Just like the luddite did during the industrial revolution.

Not everything is blue skies but your negativity is disappointing. Try to have a good even if you brought clouds into mine.

("You simply proved that those who don't want to adapt to the change will find reasons to go against it.")

...You mean like facts?

None of this is realistic....I notice you have no facts or figures to backup your flight of fantasy here...

EVs convert around 77% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12%–30% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels. But we have to take into account the generating, transmission and storage losses of electrical supply....Electrical generation efficiency ranges from about 35% to maybe 40%, so that brings the efficiencies into the same neighborhood....

Average travelled miles per year of a vehicle are around 15,000....I don't classify that as seldom used...and solar panels don't generate electricity at night....and the solar system and storage for an EV would probably run north of $60k...I wouldn't dismiss that as "a few solar panels"...

Running power plants at full capacity during the night, as well as the daytime hours, will also increase fuel usage, doubling emissions....Oops

People are not changing their habits anytime soon...working from home is a product of the pandemic, when this passes so will the working at home for the most part as well as business travel....

No idea why you are spouting load shedding as a good thing...it's not a good thing, it's a disruptive thing, it's a financially costly thing, from both the supply and the consumption side....It's a terrible thing....

Peak demand will only increase from here, that goes without saying as electrical demand increases each year and the population is still growing, start adding all these electric cars and you ain't seen nothin' yet....no amount of electric trading will meet the demand....

....as for PV residential systems and battery storage and all the electrical components that go along with that....I'm looking to reduce maintenance on my property, the last thing I need is more equipment to maintain...and that's discounting the outrageous cost involved....I just don't have the time or energy, and I think that is the case with most people....

Clean, non-polluting, Co₂ free energy, with a small footprint....

It's a nice calculation, but neglects the fact that internal combustion engines are at best 40% efficient. A calculation based on pouring 2/3 of that fuel away on the road first and considering only the remaining 1/3 will give a more practical electricity requirement.

It's hard to replace a solution that has evolved naturally through the process of free economics. It will be costly throwing that all away and starting over, a cost that is now hidden by government subsidies, but one that we will all eventually have to pay.

Just sayin'.

Everything that the government gives away came from taxes from the people.

The Gov'mnt does not produce anything,it simply redistributes money from taxpayers;sometimes for good causes,and other times it goes into the pork barrel to feed all the little piggies that gather around the PAC table.

Utilities will resist large scale solar power generation by consumers.consider Hawaii: the utilities are now CHARGING people to put their excess power onto the grid,claiming the people are using THEIR poles,wires,and facilities to redistribute power.

Where did they get the "THEIR"---?

All of the hardware and distribution was paid for by the consumer by monthly fees.

I expect other utilities will do the same as the solar contribution increases.

And of course,as was previously said,road taxes will increase according to the mileage accrued by your EV.

Resistance is futile: BOHICA !!

I'm gonna take a DILLIGAF pill and chill out.

When I took a passive solar energy class about 35 years ago, the instructor told us to spend about 1/2 of our budget on energy conservation to the structure, and then to look at how to spend the balance on solar (passive preferred over active). That recommendation is still valid, but probably the proportions should shift towards a greater amount on conservation.

Take this advice and apply it to our energy consumption. Conservation is a one-time expense while consumption is a continuing expense. Around the year 2000 a UN committee looked at energy consumption world-wide and reported that for everyone in the world to have equal access to energy the amount consumed per-capita in the USA would have to be about 1/10 of the consumption at that time.

Do we need McMansions? Do we need the most powerful gas guzzlers we can buy? Do we need to have everything we want when we want to demand it? Do we need to have our "castles" on five-acre (or the hectare equivalent) lots set privately away from others?

The OP is correct in pointing out the expected failure of a substitution of renewable energy sources in place of fossil-fueled energy, let alone the cost of grid upgrades. SE and others have pointed out the impossibility of doing such a direct substitution. The bigger problem is the unavoidable necessity to change our life-styles, to treat our neighbors and strangers as equal in importance to ourselves.

We got to the present situation over decades of incremental changes. They were encouraged by certain technological developments such as the incandescent light bulb, the electric motor, the automobile, and many others. We can make new incremental changes, but only if we are willing to admit our own errors and inadequacies. The present road we are traveling on is a dead-end road, lighted by billboards advertising the ability of new technology to solve all the problems we have created. It is time to turn around, to admit our folly, to do better.

--JMM

The economic engine is what drives society forward, the quest for a better life for ourselves and our children, and the boilerplate for that is cheap plentiful energy...

Without the promised advancement in life and comfort for our loved ones, there is no motivation, no growth, no joy, no hope...People from all over the world flock to the United States for a better life, it's been this way since the beginning....

Capitalism reflects the free will of the people, and that is what drives innovation and prosperity, and as a result has built the greatest nation, and the greatest economy the world has ever seen....

What you propose is diametrically opposed to that thing that has made America a great country...Self determination and controlling your own destiny is the goal in life, this is true for all life....better to live one day as a free man, than 100 as a slave....

Are you suggesting that my neighbor's needs or wants must always be subordinate to my own? That I am more important? In asking this I am not suggesting my position is a doormat--I am suggesting a role of cooperative equal. In this role we have to recognize the limits to our present lifestyle.

I'm saying that in order to help your neighbor, or anybody else for that matter, you must first be successful in your own life...your role as a co-struggler does not lead to a successful outcome...I mean misery loves company, but it doesn't solve the problem...It's like a man who can't swim jumping in the water trying to save another drowning man and all the time shouting "I'll save you!!"....you both end up drowning....

I suspect there could be numerous examples where two people working together can solve a problem that has baffled them individually. Your swimmer statement shows that two people with the same approach and background could fail dramatically. Back to the topic in the OP, I suggest that everyone's ideas are important, even when they appear impractical, or socially unacceptable, or impossible to achieve at the present time. Lets focus on the limits we face based on available resources in this world and work together to find ways to keep from destroying this earth or making life on it unrecognizable to us.

In my opinion, we have two resources on which nearly all others depend--time and solar energy. The second of these we use in many forms, such as wood and foods from photosynthesis or long-term stored forms such as oil or methane.

You might want to focus on your freedom first, because without that you have no free will to do anything....

Hello,

I encountered and have had the similar strategy re-inforced relating to energy efficiency. The first is to reduce/eliminate the inefficiencies so that the resulting energy actually needed is minimised. For buildings, that's insulation improvements, A/C efficiency, building monitoring equipment and such.

The auto industry in USA has some ownership of the cumulative fuel usage currently experienced. They influenced legislators to regard efficiency in "ton miles per gallon" rather than MPG. Thus a vehicle that used twice the fuel to move three times the mass was regarded as more efficient. Remember that there is still only the same number of passengers in each of those vehicles. That industry was rewarded for increasing total fuel consumed.

Where I am, we are currently reviewing a total local government fleet migrating to EV's including heavy transport and earthmoving gear. We are investigating offsetting that through a private/public partnership renewable energy system to recharge while machinery is idle.

Vehicle servicing needs seem to be around 20% of ICE, so there will be staffing changes to reflect that. Reduced servicing also represents additional uptime for the equipment.

Still early days, but momentum is building.

Good! I've been wondering if all the electric utilities are planning for the huge increase they must generate and supply. They probably are, but I haven't yet seen any comments in the media.

Considering that the ICE is less efficient than electric motors, less energy will have to be supplied than you estimate. But that would still be a massive increase, not just in the energy itself, but in all the infrastructure to distribute it. Then don't forget about NIMBY, which will surely get in the way of drastic improvements.

I've said this before: Solar and wind (and any other "renewables.") won't be able to supply the amount of energy we want (expressed as "need!"). We will have to go with nuclear whether the public likes it or not--fast nuclear without moderators to produce thermal neutrons. We need to call it "zero-carbon" energy generation to allow consideration of more sources of energy.

I think Fusion energy is the way to go,and it will become feasible once H3 is being mined on the moon.

The moon is full of H3..it has being bombarded by it continuously for billions of years.It is in the Regolith,in the rocks,virtually everywhere.

The Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere have shielded us from it,and it is very rare on Earth.

H3 is easier to fuse than hydrogen,and produces less neutrons,and is more efficient than hydrogen because a lot of hydrogen's energy is lost as neutrons,which also destroy the enclosures they are in.

A few hundred tons could supply the worlds needs for a long time.

This makes it a much better candidate for fusion than hydrogen.

As is well known,fusion produces no radioactive waste.

Fusion of H3 is the light at the end of the tunnel,IMHO.

Well not exactly, we create the tritium with the reactor, and a fusion reactor does produce a significant amount of neutron waste, that is radioactive and dangerous....

..." While deuterium is readily available in ordinary water, tritium scarcely exists in nature, because this isotope is radioactive with a half-life of only 12.3 years. The main source of tritium is fission nuclear reactors.

If adopted, deuterium-tritium based fusion would be the only source of electrical power that does not exploit a naturally occurring fuel or convert a natural energy supply such as solar radiation, wind, falling water, or geothermal. Uniquely, the tritium component of fusion fuel must be generated in the fusion reactor itself.

The tritium consumed in fusion can theoretically be fully regenerated in order to sustain the nuclear reactions. To accomplish this goal, a lithium-containing “blanket” must be placed around the reacting medium—an extremely hot, fully ionized gas called a plasma. The neutrons produced by the fusion reaction will irradiate the lithium, “breeding” tritium."...

https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/

My apologies for the wrong notation for Helium3.

It should have been 3He.

It is not H3. H3 IS tritium.

Helium3 -Helium3 fusion does not produce radioactive decay.(Neutrons).

Helium3 is not Tritium.

Deuterium (heavy hydrogen) & Tritium is the easiest to accomplish because Helium3 is rare on Earth.

It is very expensive because the walls must be replaced every 4 years.

Deuterium & Deuterium does not have a high energy yield.

Helium3 & Helium3 is medium energy yield, the only reaction that does not produce radioactive byproducts (neutrons), hence, the safest method,and I would hope the chosen future type.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37M7ffjro3I

Fission has too much conditional overhead(heat). Electrons and protons have handedness. This handedness keeps the electrons empty of momentum and the protons full of momentum. Anti matter is simply an inversion of this property. If you take an electron and charge it up.....you get a muon. If you continue to charge it up....you get an anti-proton. When an electron has the same momentum as the proton, the particle sizes are equal, and will allow the particles to physical touch. When this happens, the particles unwind each other into EM radiation. Dis-integration.

Particles have ring type structures. Of different sizes. The proton has a very small diameter, the electron has a large diameter. This makes it impossible for the particles to physically touch. The proton will slip thru the middle of the electron. This is how neutrons are made, when one gets stuck there.

When you accelerate a proton backwards, energy(momentum) is emitted and the proton now has the momentum and SIZE of the electron. When the momentums are equal the size is equal, allowing the two charges to unwind each other. Dis-integration again.

Directional acceleration prepares the fuel. No heat needed. Anti-matter reactors are sizable. An EM pos absorbing shell, and an EM neg absorbing shell gives you a DC output.

Anti matter batteries.

Yeah a couple of problems here, we can't make enough antimatter to build a reactor, and we don't have any method of capturing the energy that would be produced if in fact we could build one...that is of course setting aside the cost, which would be great if indeed we had ways and means of building such a device....So this is not an answer to a problem, it's just a giant bundle of questions and theories...

Unfortunately what you say is true. Look at the billions that's been spent on fission. Soon, small cheap desktop accelerators should be available. And nano and meta-materials are coming of age. We are developing an art of bandwidth in materials, at super small wavelengths now. And improving all the time.

It looks like the technology of the small has an interesting future. Just the passive aspect of it deserves more than the fission research resources. In my hick opinion.

I think electrical energy eventually will evolve into distributed generation;that is,generated on site.

I do not know the method of generation;Perhaps small domestic fission reactors or some heretofore unknown method.Or geothermal.Or a "magical" method of harnessing the energy of the vacuum,or harnessing energy from the ionosphere.

The costly methods now employed with millions of poles and millions of miles of wire will become obsolete.

Centralized generation will become a thing of the past.

Looking far ahead,we may have floating cities.

Buckminster Fuller said that a sufficiently sized dome could float a city using ordinary building materials due to the differential temperature of the air contained within.

Heat and ventilation would be by the strong convection currents created by the shape.A minimum of a 5 mile diameter dome would be required.

Anyone care to do the math on that:Volume and weight of the air in a 5 mile hemisphere at different temperatures vs the weight of the enclosure?

I realize this sounds like pure fantasy now,but did the people of the Wright Brothers era ever think we would fly a machine on another planet?

<...the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline to be about 37Kw kWh...>

<...it would take about 14TW TWh/day of energy...>

<...currently produce only about 4 TWH TWh/day...>

I looked at this problem due to a post recently by Solar Eagle and actually did the math.

At the efficiency of todays gas turbines, we will need about 14,000 new units in operation in order to charge the EVs if everyone in the US has one.

This does not include heavy trucks or off road equipment.

The math includes the down time of plants which must happen annually.

BTW, energy density is measured in kWh.

<...gas turbines...>

Why not use sunshine and wind instead?

The number I calculated was 14,000. The average Gas Turbine power plant runs around 300 Mw and can run 24/7.

How many solar panels would that be, and where do you put them.

Oh, and since there are cloudy days and that pesky thing called night, you better multiply the answer by 2-1/2 or so.

Now let's talk about batteries!

The real problem is that carbon solutions are being designed by politicians on a stump, and are then pushed by people who don't understand math.

Please post the math calculations you used. The 14,000 number sounds somewhat high to me.

--JMM

Yes, you are correct. I erroneously used math to convert the energy in gasoline to electricity, which doesn't account for the differences in efficiencies.

Actual is:

290 million cars in US

Average EV uses 4500 kWh per year

EVs are 77% efficient

Transmission line loss is 5%

Charges in 6 hours overnight

Plant down time included for maintenance

The actual number is half that.

I would question your "average EV uses 4500 kWh per year". That figure may be true at present when there are relatively few EVs on the road and those who buy them are doing so for targeted short journeys because of the current low mileage battery capacities. When EVs become mainstream the use and journey lengths must change to mirror the usage of conventional fuel vehicles because I doubt that the population in general will radically change their current travel patterns. To do so would defeat the object of owning a car. You need to rerun your calculations based on an equivalent kWh usage for the average mileage of all current vehicles to get a more realistic result.

I've thought about some of those very good points.

In the end, I concluded (possibly wrongly) that the crux of new capacity required won't be how much power all the new EVs use, but rather the total additional plant capacity needed during the hours of about 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM in the US when almost all of those cars are plugged into the grid.

The following comments are speculation i.e. "flying a kite to see which way the wind blows"

Load balancing will be critical as the grid would be swamped if too many cars are plugged in at the same time. I envisage that when a car is plugged in, instead of being charged immediately, it will be issued with a virtual ticket which allocates a slot based on when capacity becomes available. While a first come first served policy would work it is more likely that the rate car users are prepared to pay will determine how high a priority they get in the queue. So someone in mid journey who needs an immediate charge to continue would pay the highest premium while the pensioner who only needs to shop the next day but does not mind if the shop visit will be later in the day will pay the basic cost. There would be a need to legislate the maximum time that charging can be delayed with penalties to ensure that power companies keep their capacity in line with demand, and a flexibility for users to upgrade their offer price if circumstances change and they need a higher place in the queue. That gives the power companies the opportunity to maximize their profits and forces the car users to plan well ahead to minimize their costs. I also foresee that fleet owners (like taxi cab companies) who have a large regular demand will be able to pre book slots as this gives more certainty to both the fleet owner and the power company.

I think you kite may have caught some wing.

Being a cynical engineer, however, I am prepared for a total lack of design and subsequent mayhem with a constantly collapsing grid.

I also have a whole house generator and a large fixed propane tank

I think you kite may have caught some wing. You need to proofread your stuff. The spell-check won't call you on mistakes if they make real words. I think you meant: "I think your kite may have caught some wind."

You are correct. That was my mistake.

My answer that it would take approximately half of the 14,000 power plant figure has been determined to be correct by AI.

To determine how many 300 MW power plants are needed to charge 300 million electric vehicles (EVs), we need to estimate the total power required for charging all these vehicles simultaneously.

Let's assume:

• Each EV is charging at a rate of 7 kW (which is a typical level 2 charging rate for EVs).
• 300 million EVs charging simultaneously would require a total power of: 300,000,000 cars×7 kW per car=2,100,000,000 kW300,000,000 \text{ cars} \times 7 \text{ kW per car} = 2,100,000,000 \text{ kW}300,000,000 cars×7 kW per car=2,100,000,000 kW

Converting this to MW (since 1 MW = 1000 kW):

2,100,000,000 kW=2,100,000 MW2,100,000,000 \text{ kW} = 2,100,000 \text{ MW}2,100,000,000 kW=2,100,000 MW

Now, to find out how many 300 MW power plants are needed:

2,100,000 MW300 MW per plant=7,000 power plants\frac{2,100,000 \text{ MW}}{300 \text{ MW per plant}} = 7,000 \text{ power plants}300 MW per plant2,100,000 MW​=7,000 power plants

Therefore, approximately 7,000 300 MW power plants would be required to charge 300 million electric vehicles simultaneously, assuming each vehicle is charging at 7 kW.

It doesn't matter what the correct numbers are, when availability and manufacturing capabilities are out of kilter.

Imagine the infra structure and supply chains necessary for a new manufacturing industry(battery) and supply chains for a new de-manufacturing(recycle) industry.

It would probably take 20 years of injunctions just for the mining permits. Most people don't have a clue as to the CHANGE needed to go with electric cars. With present tech.

Thank goodness for slow charge batteries. If someone did invent a high density quick charge battery, our grid would always be down. For decades.

Edit: A quick charge battery will probably require a limiter.

Before electric vehicles will replace fossil fuel vehicles,there will need to be localized generation and high temp superconductors carrying high power DC.

It will not happen rapidly,it will evolve,as did the automobile industry.

Relatively small fusion generators using Helium3 could provide the power needed,but the size and expense of the stations will have to come down considerably.

Mining companies will be located on the moon,and surface will look like it is covered in silver bubble wrap from the Earth because of all the domes on the surface.

The mining will be totally automated,and humans will live in lava tubes and natural caves.

Looking 100 years or so ahead(everyone is always wrong about the technology of the future,so I suspect I will also be mistaken).

I predict small fusion generators that could fit in your pocket and provide almost unlimited power for your vehicle.

Dwellings would generate their own power with no need for a external grid.

There may also be unimaginable power sources that we cannot even imagine now,such as harnessing the ZPEF.