[JRP3]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'Y')ou could snap your fingers and make every one of those a PHEV, there are still so many obstacles in the way, the need for qualified mechanics, space for disposal of dud batteries, the increased strain on the grid, etc.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JRP3', 'O')n the other hand I've read well argued calculations that the grid can handle all PHEV needs quite easily as is and that it's actually better for the grid to have a more even load than powering down at night as we do now. The majority of the population will be able to charge at night, and can be encouraged to do so by a cheaper night rate.

[JRP3]

Here's one post suggesting that the grid can handle the load:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is the source you quoted me.

http://caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html

Anyway, here's how the calculations on the amount of electric cars could stay connected to the grid work:

Off peak is when most would be charging, 8 PM until 4 AM. Offpeak there exist about 12,000 MW, but we'll give it a little 2,000 MW buffer.

The typical electric car consumes about 250 wh/mile, pickup trucks more, compacts and sports cars less.

The typical transmission efficiency of electricity to an outlet is about 92%.

The typical charging efficiency of a sophisticated enough charger to where you can plug it in and leave it, like a PFC charger for DC conversions, or any AC charger for an AC-powered EV, is about 92% as well. A lithium battery is about 95% efficient.

Lets say the typical car is driven 33 miles per day, about 12,000 miles per year. This means that on average, the electric car is going to consume 8,250 wh of electricity from the battery pack, 9,700 wh from the outlet, or 10,260 wh from the power plant. Most will be plugged into 110V outlets sucking about 20 amperes of current from the outlet. This would be enough to charge the car in 4.5 hours(If the car drives 60-70 miles, you're looking more at the 8 hours I stated in the chat, which is the typical range for a lead acid conversion. Li Ion conversions with a 50 kWh pack can go 300 miles, are more efficient overall, but could take over 10 hours to charge from a 110V 20A outlet. 220V 40A outlet brings that to about 3 hours, 480V 200 amp fast charger, 30 minutes.).

So, during off peak, we have 10,000 spare MW with a 2,000 MW buffer. The electric cars on average, assuming all were plugged in at the same time, would draw 2.2 kW from the 110V 20A outlet, or with 92% transmission efficiency, 2.39 kW from the power plant.

10,000,000,000 watts divided by 2,390 watts. That's 4.2 million electric cars you can handle from that California power service with a 2,000 MW buffer.

That is if and only if all the cars charge at the same time. Since they won't, it could obviously handle more.

If you look at the other extreme, 10,000 MW spare times 8 hours off peak space leaves 80,000,000,000 watt hours that can come from the plant during that time period. That's 73,600,000,000 watt hours that make it to the outlets, 64,326,400,000 wh that make it inside batteries(92% charger, 95% battery efficiency). This would in turn charge back up 6.6 million battery packs, or 6.6 million cars.

Even so, not all cars will charge off peak. Some will charge on peak, when there is still 5,000 MW available. Keeping that 2,000 MW buffer, we can charge a maximum of 1.26 million electric cars at once during on peak hours.

Spread the charging all out over the entire 24 hours, we could have about 10 million electric cars supported by California's grid, not 10,000 like I stated in the chat. I was off by a big factor there. Smile

[TonyPrep]

Thanks. That's for California only but I don't think I've even read an argument against a theoretical handling of electric car charging at night. The post I still can't find talked about the need for down time, maintenance, usual faults, etc, that all serve to reduce the capacity, from the nameplate capacity, normally. Having to have the grid up near capacity more frequently would end up degrading it. Whilst the ballpark figure of doubling the capacity simply to cope with the power needed by cars is wide of the mark, the argument calculated an increase in capacity of about a third would be needed.

[Gandalf_the_White]

I think the first thing I need to do at this point is thank all of you for the effort you have made in this thread. Some of you have really let the pressure out and spoke your mind, and shared your heart on some things.

Scalability is the issue that plagues any alternative to oil, I think we all know that. The scale of our dependence on oil is so vast. I actually do believe there will be a die off sometime this century of probably 50% of the world's population. I have at least two reasons for that belief. That said I think it is wise to invest in alternative energy. There really is no such thing as zero impact living for any species, but I agree with those who have suggested that symbiotic living within the ecosystems in some way is better. I do not agree that all human stewardship of the environment has to end in disaster but we have clearly not been very wise in the first swipe at quote a modern society.

I did some study on wind power and found out that there is 1GW of electricty sitting off of Milwaukee in the shallow areas of Lake Michigan. All totaled (though it is not considered the highest quality resource by those who assess wind power) Wisconsin could have a few gigawats of wind power in place in ten years under a crash program. The State needs about 11 gigawatts in the near term, most of that comes from coal and other fossil fuels.

If we went on a crash course in conservation as well and could reduce demand for electricity by 30% and cap growth we are 30% short of what we need currently. With patterned outages we could slowly learn to live without the TV, computer and every light in the house on all the time. We are starting to get close, to the point where we use electricity when needed.

Alot of that other 30% can come from hydro and biomass (inluding the good old wood burning stove).

We are not a big solar situation here, but residential solar could reduce electricity demand as well.

Again, I am well aware of the scale issues. I think the states that get on board with alternatives early are going to have it much better than those who get in late even though some technical improvement will come along. But here is the benefit to everyone.

We know oil production is never going to get over 100 Mbpd and it will probably never drop below $80 a barrel again (quite possible.) So, if I can help get my State to become a poster child for massive alternative sources I think that I have helped ensure the security of at least a half million people.

But,...look you guys the southwest has the potential to produce almost the entire US electricity need...

The title for this thread was partly tongue in cheek, and you guys should not be surprised since you see my cynicism all the time. Without modern technology the planet cannot sustain more than about 2 billion people. Do you really want to sit back and watch 4.5 billion people die slowly and miserably in the next fifty years? or perhaps watch as the US becomes a bonified third world country? A world well invested in alternatives could support 3 billion.

Among the billion we might save if we go full after this stuff could be any one of our future generations, our grandchildren, our children, even ourselves.

The program for mitigating peak oil is not that hard, just think direct action in the form of a crash course in smartely done alternative sources, plenty of information about relocalization so that food can start being shipped no further than say 200 miles. Massive lifestyle changes to increase efficiency Powerdown to zero is an apocalypse anyway you slice it, wrath of God or no.

These are the things I have been thinking. Its worth the occasional principled argument or explicative to at least give it a shot. We have nothing to lose. Most of us expect a near total loss of our current way of life anyways. Energy and Environment are issues that are starting to be more and more important. A social and political awakening could happen anytime depending on what happens and how widely available the information is.

Food for thought?

[whereagles]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') mere half-million 3MW turbines to account for world demand? Let's get going!

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gandalf_the_White', 'T')he program for mitigating peak oil is not that hard, just think direct action in the form of a crash course in smartely done alternative sources, plenty of information about relocalization so that food can start being shipped no further than say 200 miles. Massive lifestyle changes to increase efficiency Powerdown to zero is an apocalypse anyway you slice it, wrath of God or no.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'D')o you think anyone is even considering any detrimental effects of harnessing a whole lot of wind power? Do you think the mix of species that has arisen, and how the environment is carved out in an area dominated by wind might be affected by diverting part of the wind to other uses? I don't know, but I think it might. Those who look for just energy solutions tend not to consider the environmental, or other impacts.

[TonyPrep]

If you paint the situation correctly then I'm not sure we should risk that particular solution, unless the experiment is very limited, so that the effects can be monitored, before large scale use is contemplated. That begs the question of whether large scale use might have severe impacts that can't be determined from a limited experiment.

So should we take further risks with our habitat, or should we aim to power down and get to the lowest level of resource use that is feasible? We can't live without impacts, nor should we try, but we must try to ensure that those impacts don't severely affect our own lives, or those of our descendants.

[Homesteader]

Thinking on possible environmental disruptions caused by harnessing large amounts of wind energy with turbines is an interesting concept.

I have to think that large scale global deforestation has freed up a great deal of wind energy in the past few thousand years that had once been captured by the forests.

If anything large numbers of turbines would only go a small way back to whatever normal wind was back before agriculture.

One only has to be walking in a large field or along a lake on a windy day and walk into the woods a short distance to see the effect of trees on wind. In Labrador the wind blew almost constantly and getting out of it was a relief. It was so noticeable that we called the edge of spruce along the lakes and rivers "wind eaters".

[JRP3]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Homesteader', '
')If anything large numbers of turbines would only go a small way back to whatever normal wind was back before agriculture.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')he increased strain on the grid only happens if we decide to, instead of charging out EVs when we're asleep, all decide to do it over the space of a couple hours at say... 3-5PM, since we enjoy wasting time and infrastructure. It's as or less likely as everyone in some area going to get gas over the same minute during the day.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'H')ow would you make consumers aware, when additional wind power is available?
It may be literally at any time.
They could sleep this time, they could work, they could be away.

[Heineken]

My days as a doomer will be over when doom takes me.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'M')y days as a doomer will be over when doom takes me.

[Gandalf_the_White]

I swear I am going to ask that they kill this thread. 2500 views. The lurkers are really scooping up what you guys are dropping here.

Just so you know, I am really advocating for finding a new planet and starting over.

[manu]

Many people will be gone from this earth by 2012. Their souls will be in some other body somewhere in the universe. The people that are left will have to live simple. Might as well start now, or get ready to hit the rocks at the bottom of the cliff.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')o... They're going to go where at night? For those who do lots of traveling and need range greater than ~100 miles, there's no point to getting an EV. For those that have an EV and want to travel farther than ~100 miles, there are rental cars. I don't see how we would need anything other than marginally larger grid capacity given likely constraints.

[JRP3]

I wonder how much of grid load could be freed up just by switching from incandescents to CFLs and other technologies? I think it's substantial but can't find a figure.

[Heineken]

Haven't you heard? CFLs are loaded with deadly mercury. Drop one and your house becomes contaminated. To say nothing of the environment when the dead ones get thrown out.

The electricity that is saved just gets used elsewhere to keep the growth juggernaut moving. Jevon's paradox.