Hacker News Reader

Comment by thebruce87m | Hacker News Reader

> Electric vehicles would destroy the current grid

I’m not convinced it’s a simple as that.

My EV chargers at night during low demand. The energy provider decides exactly when (they start and stop multiple times per night), and gives me a rate of 1/4 of the normal as a benefit.

My usage pattern is to charge every night, but I only use about 10% during a normal day. So on average I am close to fully charged at any one time, and can therefore go a week without charging.

There is also vehicle-to-grid as you described.

My national grid had so many people making inaccurate statements about EVs that they made a page specifically to address them: https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele...

View on HN

>My EV chargers at night during low demand

Easy when EVs are 1% market share. If/when they are 25%+ you can't hide behind low demand at night time.

I don’t know all of the variables to calculate that properly, things like electricity savings from closing refineries and petrol stations are things I can’t calculate. I do see a lot of people spreading FUD on the topic that don’t know either so I’m interested in what your numbers are. What do you think the impact of 25% EV ownership would be?

Edit, from my article:

> Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle.

So let’s say for 25% of people converting we would have a 2.5% increase in demand on a daily basis. If we spread that over a 6 hour period then we then get back to 10% uptick during that 6 hour period.

Here is the total energy production in the UK over a week: https://electricityproduction.uk/total/?t=7d

I can see that a 10% daily average (4 Gigawatt) bump at night would still put us much lower than daytime, so demand would still be considered low.

Not sure of all my maths and assumptions, happy to hear other views.

Grids are constantly adding capacity to keep up with demand. It's not going to go from 1% to 25% overnight.

Right. From OP's comment I get the sense that the real problem is that Calgary's grid is poorly managed and may not be well placed to add the necessary capacity. For other, better managed grids in the world, you're almost certainly right.

Better managed = more expensive. Are electric customers ready for that?

Better managed is not necessarily more expensive in the long run, specially when tanking into account secondary benefits such as improved economy because companies that care about stable grids build factories there. But yes, short term it is more expensive.

It makes sense that we'd see temporary taxes, surcharges, and the like to upgrade the existing system. The question is: How long is "temporary"?

In the US, a century is NOT out of the question for a "temporary" tax:

> The Spanish-American War has been over for more than 100 years, and now so is the tax imposed in 1898 to help fund it. As of Tuesday, all phone companies selling long-distance phone service are legally required to eliminate the 3 percent federal excise tax on long-distance service, which had been established in 1898 as a luxury tax on wealthy Americans who owned telephones.

Ref from 2006: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/telecom-tax-imposed-...

If think skilled management is expensive, just wait until you see what incompetence costs.

the HN crowd tends to be overzealous about the pace of change in several industries. Electricity here is a good example.

No, the electric grid is not constantly adding power capacity. In fact, capacity expansions are planned on the timescale of decades. the previous comment is accurate - everyone switching to EVs even on a single, 80 home street can cause havoc for which we are unprepared.

Unprepared but solvable problem.

The HN crowd is split across a lot of grids. Here are things my grid is doing:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Link

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/09/worlds-larg...

IMO, the helplessness of the US people when they talk about electricity distribution is hearth breaking.

It's not even a "our society can't orchestrate this", but the opinion is usually "it's impossible for people to organize that way".

Weirdly makes me happier with how Australia is progressing, a real 'it could be worse' situation

> it became operational on 1 October 2021 ... was first proposed in 2003

Hardly disagrees with the "timescale of decades" remark parent is making.

But it does show that it changes though. If there is a 10 year pipeline with multiple projects in it then it’s not static.

My claim was that change on the electric grid is slow, moreso at the distribution level. No one is claiming that change doesn't happen so you are arguing against a strawman.

If there is a ten year pipeline, design decisions are made years in advance. Hence my claim that even a single street switching to EVs will cause havoc.

> No, the electric grid is not constantly adding power capacity.

My strongest interpretation of this was you were saying that no capacity was being added. Any other interpretation doesn’t make sense. Everyone already knows that grids don’t have new capacity added on a constant basis, so nobody would say it. Even if it went through a growth phase, that would stop at some point for any number of reasons.

I’ve done some calculations elsewhere in the thread that ( I think ) show that a 25% uptake of EVs in the UK all charged during the same 6 hour off-peak period would still not meet peak day demand. Even without those calculations I don’t see how you can claim a streets worth of EVs would cause havoc.

The single most challenging issue in conversations about these topics is the role of time in the electricity sector's design process.

The average home car charger is the largest consumer of power in a household, often by as much as 2x - 3x the next largest device. That next largest device is often a heat pump, radiant heat or electric stove. Calculations for the grid as a whole ignore the fact that there are local and regional capacity bottlenecks, where meeting demand becomes a problem and the solution requires years of planning.

The feeder running along my street assumes a maximum power at each house of 10 kW and that 33% of houses consume that peak power at the same time. Imagine now if all houses added a 7 kW car charger, all charging during the night, every night. That is the havoc i refer to.

It’s not a sustained draw all night for every car. I averaged 17kWh/day in the last week. My energy provider schedules the charge in 30 minute chunks. It will charge during the peak time if it wants too ( and I get off-peak charges).

Both the UK and US have this already.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele...

> Through smart charging EVs can in fact help to balance the system, helping consumers use green power when it’s plentiful (and often cheaper) and avoid times when there’s more load on the network. Vehicle-to-grid technology could even send that power back to the grid when needed.

> With this in mind, the UK Government has introduced Electric Vehicle Smart Charge Points Regulations, which ensure that EV charge points will have this smart functionality.

> Similarly in the US, Smart Chargers and Time of Use Rate programmes will support balancing the load throughout the day.

Here in NL there are continuous upgrades. Yes, the grid is stretched, and there are spots where commercial (or even additional residential) capacity is not available. But at the same time, the grid is upgraded on all levels, from street to international connectivity. It takes time, but EV's are no issue. Excess solar around noon is.

NL is smaller than West Virginia and very densely populated.

This entire thread started with a comment talking about how the grid hasn't been upgraded to keep up with demand. We've also all seen what happens in places like Texas during cold periods. Even beyond just demand, look at how California has a utility that regular burns down entire cities due to poor infrastructure and maintenance.

The entire thread started with a comment claiming that the cold ruins everything and the province is mismanaged so that's that there is no solution.

But that's not that, clearly there is a solution, and that's to start improving the grid and increase the use of EVs. When every house has a battery backup system and charging infrastructure, and they build more power generation capabilities, nuclear or green, then you will see a hugely more robust grid and cars that will actually work well in even the coldest months.

> that's to start improving the grid and increase the use of EVs.

Notably, one of these needs to occur before the other.

They can happen at the same time. Especially with programs encouraging people to build their own solar. I did that and at least in the summer months cover 90% of my power usage. Winter is more of an issue but this doesn't need to be in a bunch of discrete ordered steps.

> They can happen at the same time.

Ok, maybe I should have said "one of these depends on the other"

Yes, but they are not milestone events. They are trends in ongoing processes. You don’t need to finish A to 100% before you start B. They can run in parallel.

Is anyone denying this? You seem to be the only person introducing complications into the electrification of Calgary by having a weird polemic about EV cars you can't articulate.

"JeffSnazz 5 days ago | root | parent | next [–]

> that's to start improving the grid and increase the use of EVs. Notably, one of these needs to occur before the other."

The point was that while they are related, you don't need to wait for the grid to increase to also increase the number of EVs. They can happen in conjunction.

Solar is least effective when (in this case) demand is the highest - winter, especially during a big storm.

Cities are also the least effective place (in general) for solar, with lots of obstructions, higher density of demand, etc,

Sure, but, we're responding to someone in Calgary describing an overloaded electrical system in a relatively poor province, exceeding capacity during the coldest weeks of the year, as gas pumps freeze. Today.

On a long enough timeline, setting aside money, sure, we can add:

- add a backup battery to each house

- add charging infrastructure to each house

- build more power generation (nuclear or green)

I don't think that's in dispute, and I'm not sure what to call it. Not off-topic, but...just sort of ramming forward describing something obvious, but as if it addresses something topical.

Just a note that Alberta is not a poor province, and in fact has the highest GDP per capita of all the Canadian provinces. (Nunavut and the NWT have higher GDPs due to their large mining sector combined with tiny populations.)

We also have the highest electricity bills of any Canadian province.

The issue in Alberta is corporate grift and a hegemonic government that has a revolving-door arrangement with oil and gas companies.

With the way prices are dropping for solar and batteries. As well as how many electric grid monopolists are not willing to pay much too home owners for electricity we are not far from huge influx of home batteries.

the provincial government has halted new wind and solar projects for at least a period of time, while the federal government continues to clamp down on any attempts at new fossil fuel plants, hydro takes decades and nuclear is a non-starter. Your first sentence is categorically false here, when discussiong near-term demand increases.

Adding capacity to a grid is not like getting another rack of hard drives in server room.

That's not really true. US electrical consumption is down 30% since the 1980s. You can thank significant advancements in electronics and electrical equipment.

Many capacity projects are simply to replace aging, no longer economical plants.

LED lighting and VFDs have reduced demand quite a bit, particularly the variable frequency drives since 50% of all electrical use is powering induction motors.

Sorta. The Alberta Electric System Operator mentioned that there is an increased risk of power needs not being fully met in 2031 to 2039, in part because of some power plants being decommissioned near the start of 2030 and uncertainty if when their replacements come online (2036 to 2039) as well as uncertainty for of EV charging habits and rate of adoption. But also uncertainty but the major industries that consume a huge amount of power as well and how the power generation industry will react to demands imposed by that.

That being said the key word, "Uncertainty." They're the first to admit that they really don't know. Too many factors to consider, and these are some pretty smart people that do this for a living writing these reports.

Works fine in Europe where we have percentages like that already. The mistake people make is assuming that cars are charging all the time when they are at home. The reality is that average day to day behavior cause that to be more like once a week for many drivers and that drivers can pick the moment when they charge. On any given day you might only use a few kwh. Mostly the collective charging behavior spreads out a little.

Norway is an outlier with 15%. All other countries have 2-3% at most.

I'm curious about this consistent claim that electricity is at low demand at night. Perhaps this is less true of areas in the winter with electrically provided heat?

Here is the electricity production for the UK over the last week: https://electricityproduction.uk/total/?t=7d

Not sure how it is for other parts of the world. Maybe places with heat pumps like Norway are different? We have a lot of gas for heating.

The UK is heavy reliant on gas heating currently so only a small fraction of electrical energy on this graph is used for heating. With the switch to heat pumps and other forms of electrical heating the picture will change.

The switch to heat pumps will be glacially slow. I’ve had a look at doing it on my property and my mums and gave up due to the need to change the pipes and radiators. I suspect only new-builds will go that route for a long time.

In Calgary, the overnight temp is -27 F for tonight.

When the weather gets that cold, insulation and heating have a hard time keeping up.

Homes that have natural gas furnaces draw so much that utility companies have a hard time keeping the lines at full pressure.

People start using space heaters more and more, which moves the pressure to the electric grid.

The problem with the cold is that it is worse at night, so there's less spare capacity overnight than normal.

At least, this is what we went through in the upper Midwest a few years back. Right now it's -8 and things are running smooth as usual.

Do any houses use wood for heating, or at least as a backup for times like this? My brother had a wood stove with fireplace that is somehow installed in a way that it heats his ~2000 sqft, 2 story house. I think the system was expensive to install, but it's cheaper for him to use wood than the gas furnace. Granted it doesn't get nearly as cold here in Philly as it does in the midwest or Canada... lowest temp on the 10 day forecast is 14 degrees as a overnight low. Having a backup heat source that is completely independent of the grid is reassuring imo.

If I lived someplace where temperatures went that low I'd certainly want to have backup heat, regardless of what my primary heating system was. Either wood stove or at least a kerosene space heater and a supply of fuel.

Outdoor wood boilers are somewhat popular (don't help much without power though), but I'd hazard a guess that more homes than not just have a small backup generator rather than rely on any kind of wood heat.

Might be different elsewhere; propane is cheaper than the national average where I live, so my experience might be skewed.

Ottawa, ON, Canada: https://hydroottawa.com/en/accounts-services/accounts/rates-...

I can choose my rate plan.

  Regular:
  7PM-7AM+weekends = 8.7c/kWH
  11AM-5PM         = 12.2c/kWH
  7-11AM, 5-7PM.   = 18.2c/kWH

  UltraLow:
  11PM-7AM               = 2.8c/kWH
  W/end 7AM-11PM         = 8.7c/kWH
  W/day 7AM-4PM,9PM-11PM = 12.2c/kWH
  W/day 4PM-9PM          = 28.6c/kWH

  Tiered:
  First 1000kWH = 10.3c/kWH
  Over 1000kWH  = 12.5c/kWH

Does it matter? If the utility can control EV charging times, then all that is necessary is that non-EV demand varies significantly. I haven't heard anyone claim that electric demand is anywhere near constant.

It's a consistent claim because it is consistently true.

The world does not generally operate 24/7 -- parts of it do, but most of it does not. And we (humans) tend to sleep at night.

While we're sleeping, we use less electrical power.

I mean: Think of all the things you (or any other person) might do in a normal day. Just list them out -- mentally, on paper, or whatever. Regular things, like work or school, or laundry, or eating food.

And now, you have a list of stuff that you generally do not do when you're sleeping.

So now, it should be intuitively obvious that energy consumption is reduced at night.

Here's some charts for different regions of the US that demonstrate that demand is lower at night, consistently, across all regions and all seasons: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

And some data from Alberta (home of the frozen gas pumps being discussed here) that also shows this trend: https://www.aeso.ca/market/market-and-system-reporting/

And another link that shows it for the UK: https://electricityproduction.uk/total/?t=7d

How deep do you want to dig? https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr...

Night is not low demand in a really cold winter. It’s hard to just throw on some electric blankets and turn off the house heat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com