By David Wojick
This article is about questions not answers. When it comes to understanding the electric power grid there is a big data gap that needs to be overcome. We have no actual data on how much electricity EVs consume or when and where they consume it.
The problem is that most EVs most of the time are charged at the owner’s residence or workplace. In both cases the electricity consumed is often simply added to that building’s total on the meter. There is no separate accounting for it so no data. There are about 7,000,000 EVs on the American road with unknown grid impacts.
We do have a government guess to a preposterous eight significant figures, based on a computer model. But there is no way to test or calibrate the model so there is no reason to believe its output.
Still we can use these conjectured numbers to make some basic points about EV power and energy usage. We will treat them as true for the moment. They are from EIA here.
Estimated total EV energy consumption for the last three years is this:
2025 = 23,532,855 MWh 2024 = 17,800,214 MWh 2023 = 13,212,000 MWh
Note that the number almost doubled in just two years. That is remarkable growth especially when people talk about the EV market being dead.
Still even the biggest number is just a tiny fraction of U.S. electric energy consumption. As a result many articles say it shows that EVs have little or no grid impact. That conclusion is seriously wrong because there is more to the grid than total annual statistics.
What mostly challenges the grid is power not energy, MW not MWh, especially peak demand. Here EVs can have a significant impact because they are in effect peak demand generators.
The typical EV only charges for a very small fraction of the time so the charge rate is quite large. In fact there is a tremendous effort to develop ever faster charging which makes the charge peak even bigger.
When lots of EVs charge at the same time the combined peak demand can be very significant. It is the impact of a lot of EVs charging at the same time that we need to understand.
Here is a wildly worst case scenario that that makes the potential impact clear. First let’s assume all the 7 million or so EVs charge at the same time. Second let’s say they charge three times a week and it takes just a half hour each time, with a constant charge rate. (This short time is reasonable because most will just be topping off to get a full charge.)
Taking the 2025 number at a round 24,000,000 MWh, that amount is drawn from the grid in 156 hours. The charge rate is just under 154,000 MW.
This is a huge demand. In fact it is roughly equal to the record peak demand at PJM which serves 67 million customers. Demand like this would quickly fry the grid.
Of course the reality is far more complex and nothing even remotely like this has ever happened. But there are only so many hours a day and most of those 7 million EVs have to be charged fairly often.
The big question is what do the potential many-EV combined peaks look like at a realistic scale? They may already be a problem at the local level.
While the reliability problem may yet be small the cost problem might already be big. It has long been claimed that many local power distribution networks will need to be upgraded to provide the capacity to handle EV charging.
Upgrading is expensive and if there is a lot going it it might be a significant component of the present price increases. Is there a correlation between EV registrations and electricity price increases?
The fact that EV power usage is invisible could be hiding problems that are serious and rapidly growing. We really need to understand what is going on.
This may be a stupid question, but why does it matter that huge peaks in energy usage derive from EV charging? The electricity needs to be generated no matter if it is for charging a battery or running a hot water heater, electric furnace, electric dryer and oven after work.
You do know that many municipalities have been mandating gas to electric conversions? Home/Business EV charging can be regulated to only permit charging at non-peak times, whereas that is much more difficult to force compliance when it comes to doing a day’s worth of household chores between coming home from work and calling it a night.
We largely have converted into a low trust society, and one of the features of that cultural model is that people give absolutely no thought to their actions as it relates to others, so there can’t even be a gentlemen’s agreement to find ways to “flatten the curve”.
Might as well plan at the social level for a peaky grid and personally for rolling brown/black outs until the whole thing ends up like Cuba where only the Politically Connected get premium electrical service.
Or, we just stick to dispatchable power that always works. Problem solved.
Yes, when any healthy, functioning system gets infected with parasites (‘renewables’), the first healing plan must be to rid it of the parasites.
Usually organisms of all sorts start to quickly recover to rude good health.
Good use of the word parasites. That’s the word I apply to most bureaucrats.
So we need renewable antibiotics? 🙂
So long as you have constant reliable energy feeding into the grid it doesn’t matter much but, when reliable energy generation is removed from the grid leaving weather dependent generation as the only choice, and the grid becomes unreliable in turn, then it really matters when you charge your EV as peak times might have little available capacity to do so.
Oops forgot the most important caveat when it comes to electricity generating…
Constant, Reliable, and Dispatchable. Wind and Solar aren’t dispatchable and so can’t be increased when demand increases.
With Wind and Solar you only get the fuel when Nature decides to deliver it AND, unlike Oliver, you can’t ask for more.
Really!
/s
Currently, when there’s a power outage, the gas station still can pump gas (I think anyway, correct me if I’m wrong). But good luck trying to recharge your EV.
If your local gas state can still pump during a power outage it is likely because they have a Diesel Generator parked near by.
Back in the 30’s they certainly could but you had to hand pump the gas up into the pump’s reservoir first, before dispensing it into your tank
“Back in the 30’s…” – and in the 1940’s in Australia, once you got out of the city. I was allowed the ‘privilege’ of going back and forth on a pump handle a number of times. Gravity feed works every time, no electricity required. You’ve got a long memory mate.
Many gas stations had diesel generators backups so that is generally true.
And even if they don’t- smart people load up their gas tanks with bad weather arriving soon just in case. They they know they can go whatever distance they’ll need until power comes back on- a lot more than those with an EV. And you can also store more in those small cans.
Aren’t 5 gallon cans wonderful. Like carrying 1000 spare AA cell batteries to keep your EV going when the main bank is depleted.
Only 1000?
Using 120,000 BTU/gallon you get 1,240,000 Wh in 5 gallons of gasoline.
Using 5Wh for a single AA cell, I get 248,000 AAs to equal 5 gallons of gas.
I was being sarcastic. 🙂
You are being the engineer I should have been in my reply. 🙂
Many EV owners also own an ICE car. That solves that problem.
How elitist of you, Iit does matter for those who aren’t wealthy enough to afford two cars when only one is needed.
At least he admits that there is a problem related to EVs.
How dare EV owners also own an Earth destroying vehicle!
He also ignores the fact that his cohorts are trying to make the buying of ICE vehicles illegal.
EVs are about 1.4% of all vehicle on the road in 2024 per Google AI.
1.4% does not sound like many when coupled with ICE ownership.
4 million EVs does sound like many, but how many of those own both?
Per UC Berkeley, 90% of EV owners also own one or more ICE vehicles.
Per Google AI.
There are between 285 and 290 million ICE vehicles on the road.
Per Google AI.
Many is supported. Solving the problem is unsupported.
It matters because supply doesn’t just “happen”, it has to be generated and that takes both equipment and fuel. Both have to be available when and where they are needed.
This is true regardless of what you are using to create the power, however it is a lot worse when the supply is also unpredictable.
It is because the Grid (the generation connected) has a maximum power output, and this cannot be exceeded. There is not sufficient driving power available, just like your car trying to accelerate up a steep hill. The effect of this is that the voltage falls, and circuits trip out as they are overloaded, and the problem gets worse very quickly. Our normal method to fix this is called hot or rotating reserve, whole power stations running with no load ready for increasing demand. Wind and solar cannot do this, because they are always run at the full power available, and no one wants to pay for conventional stations to run with no load. Simple enough but critical to 24/7 electricity! Also a large conventional power station has a huge rotating mass, and this stored energy covers the peaky nature of the load, but this is a secondary consideration.
“no one wants to pay for conventional stations to run with no load”
But those same people seem to be agreeable to paying to curtail electrical generation that exceeds demand (WTG & SV).
The curtailments are at retail prices (other terms are also used).
Power stations running with no load is fuel and labor costs, which is less than the retail prices.
So we either way we pay extra when load is low.
Clarification: when the load is low and ruinables are attempting to power the grid.
regulating them to non peak times concentrates their peak which might be the new peak.
Currently, a lot of maintenance is scheduled for those non-peak hours.
That is a factor that has not play into the conversation here or elsewhere until now.
Well done.
” … but why does it matter that huge peaks in energy usage derive from EV charging?”
Maybe it’s because time of the charging (demand) is important when planning electric grids. Gasoline stations have lots of pumps — enough for morning and evening rush — more than would be needed if the demand was constant all day and all night … weekdays and week ends.
Private EVs are/will likely be charged overnight when grid demand is otherwise low and most people are sleeping — so no fatter wires to homes needed. Related is this story from the UK …
Why the UK Grid Had to Prepare for TV ShowsThe National Grid’s Energy Balancing Team literally studied:
They used historical data and forecasting models to predict spikes and bring fast‑response power sources online (like pumped‑storage hydro).
(Copilot AI)
A lot of people will not power their EVs overnight because they live in apartments or condos and cannot power from their upper story domiciles.
The points you raise certainly require discussion.
Some are, IMHO, a bit off the mark, but the point about electrifying everything fits in well with the EV demand discussion and we could end up (I hope not) with a heat pump in every house and an EV in every garage type of world.
Part of the issue of your stated cultural model is people have been trained to let the government do the thinking for them. As more government control is imposed, less critical thinking by the public will happen.
And yes, we see it today, the Political Elite build mansions on ocean property while telling us the ocean is going to drown us. Those elite consume electricity at rates equal to multiples of individuals.
I have no problem with someone creating wealth for themselves and spending their money however they wish. My problem is when they say “good for me, but not for thee.”
It’s not just about generation, it’s also about distribution. The transformer that feeds your home likely feeds several others as well. It was sized based on typical household loads. If everyone in the homes around you converts to electric vehicles, electric stoves, electric heating, etc., the pole transformer may be too small which can lead to overheating and failure.
I moved into a new development a bit over a year ago. The homes are not wired for 220v so even if I wanted a an EV it would be impractical as I would have to charge it off a 110v outlet. Basically that’s a waste of time. My BIL does this but he lives 1 mile from work and I think he said he charges at something like 4 miles per hour. If he has to make a longer trip he drives over to the single charging station in town, crosses his fingers that a) it’s working and b) no in use already to get a full charge.
Work did make provisions for a charging station but its never been installed and likely never will be.
It matters because power is not magically created, nor is it magically transported from where it is created to where it is needed.
Power generation also has to be planned, so that the equipment necessary is available, when it is needed. Large changes in total demand as well as the timing of that demand, have to be adapted to.
As for where the demand is, do you believe the existing power lines have infinite capacity? Because if you do, they don’t. As demand goes up, more and bigger lines have to be built to handle the new load.
Don’t your remember that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”?
Arthur C. Clarke, Third Law of Prediction
Yeah, and why should anyone object when I fire up my combination 30 foot cross section Mach 5 wind tunnel/AI data center any time I want? Huh? What’s the big deal, anyway? Can’t we all just get along?
Too bad so sad-
Forestry company parks electric truck despite spike in diesel prices
I’ve been waiting to hear about electric log trucks. That company must be owned by a dedicated green energy believer that they bought it in the first place. They must be extremely naive.
It was an experiment, a test case.
Cost differential favorable (in a big way) to diesel.
Range of EV truck was half that of diesel, making the economics worse, not just in paying the driver for time to “refuel” but also the “fuel.”
And if the truck’s EV battery starts a fire- with many tons of logs on the truck- it’ll be a nice bonfire. Hopefully not in a forest burning it down too.
I think what would be most ideal, would be a dedicated grid network connected to every solar and wind farm in every State or across America. This Renewable grid network would have batteries located and connected to this grid network. This network would be live and also charging all these batteries every day when the sun is shining (it doesn’t shine everywhere, so that’s why they are sharing) and the wind is blowing. Then all the EV Charging locations across America would be connected to this Renewable Grid Network.
The great thing about this is our other national grid would have less power needed to transmit at this time. All EV’s in America that charge at a EV Charging station would have all the power they need as long as their batteries have enough stored. If by weather chance the batteries start running low, the worst thing would be that it’s time to park until the sun comes up in the morning and or the wind starts blowing.
I think this would be a great way to solve all electrical challenges at this time.
Your thoughts?
The cost alone of a “dedicated grid” would be prohibitive.
But the greenies don’t care about cost. We must spend all our money to “save the planet”. /s
As long as the proponents of renewable power and EVs, electric stoves, etc. are the ones who are required to pay for it.
I think you mean, spend all of YOUR money. Greenies never spend their own money on their wonderful schemes.
That was supposed to be a response to Joseph.
I’m assuming your post was sarcasm/trolling. Its still April 1st in some areas.
Yet…
So double the grid by duplicating new right of way (or digging up a LOT to lay down another line), new towers, new transformers, new meters, and somehow no one cheats and plays arbitrage with the competing grids. At least $2.3 Trillion for the US or about 8% of the GDP. And how many years to accomplish this? 30? 50? Because whole no industries need to come on-line for the raw materials, the manufactured goods and the installation. This will also be profoundly political so quadruple that estimate for the expected California/Minnesota/NY levels of fraud and grift with only Party Members being served (if anyone receives anything at all). The engineering would be outsourced to India, the mining to some third world, and China experiences a windfall in transformation manufacture. So you get third-world engineering and product quality made by low trust people who are looking for ways to game the system.
Then there is the cost in terms of energy, from extraction, refining, manufacturing, transporting, deploying etc. Totally negating the whole economic purpose of building a side-by-side infrastructure.
At this scale, millions of people are taken off-line from whatever productive life they had (its near 100% guarantee that the current crop of welfare deadbeats would not participate due to low IQ, drugs, criminal/predator behavior, zero work ethic, disabilities, sloth, etc.
And back to Why? Who benefits? With White Erasure and Replacement Theory, this is all built on debt that will never be paid to be gifted to a
nationeconomic opportunity zone of third-world savages and drug addicts and their socialist overlords?I like your points, but dislike your negative phraseology.
A concept worthy of discussion.
Tossing out alternative ideas for discussion should be respected, not down voted.
I do not believe for a variety of reasons it is practical.
It does however, eliminate the need for inverters since DC is involved in all aspects.
The real kicker is the size of the infrastructure batteries and the very real hazards they create.
The economics others have already addressed.
The other downside is having to wait until the sun rises or the wind blows. That would require every charging station to also have a motel connected to the AC grid, which will add demand.
A family on vacation, instead of a 15 minute stop for fuel, would have up to half a day per recharging added to their travel which results in an equivalent loss of time at the destination.
Consider also cargo transportation and the resulting hike in prices. Drivers get paid.
Consider also the impact on EMT vehicles. “Can’t get to the fire until morning, sorry.”
“Tossing out alternative ideas for discussion should be respected, not down voted”.
mmm…let those who are innocent cast the first stone.
Here comes the Flame Warrior.
Intermittent power generation and unpredictable peak demands (worst case scenario holiday season an all EV drivers travel and fast charge)…
I remember “waay back in the good old days” a tour through a coal fired powerplant the operators “bitching” about the big peak around noon when all the housewifes used to turn on the stove/range and cook. Well since this habit habit worked like clockwise 7 days a week they laughed about it as well for it was easily to control.
Can’t see that happening with different car models and varying battery capacity/travel distances.
(worst case scenario holiday season an all EV drivers travel and fast charge)…
Or the Strait of Hormuz imbroglio goes on longer, and TSA still doesn’t get funding and Congress doesn’t have the Good Sense to scuttle that whole 9-11 originated scam. There are still reasons why people will be spooked to increase the operation of more EV and plug-in hybrids.
“9-11 originated scam”? Please illuminate.
This is another “shoot, ready, aim” for the AGW crowd. If/when a saturation of EVs in a particular area cause local grid overload they’ll initiate mandatory charge times to start but if the EV count continues to grow the only options are 1. Limit those who can have a car 2. Charge/tax for the grid upgrade (guess who’ll pay for that!).
Well, in the end it is all about who controls what and the aim of the state and private companies is to take that away from the consumer as much as possible while at the same time pushing the idea that the consumer is taking control ( lowering thermostats, only use electricity at non peak hours etc). First by asking, then by regulating, always on the heel of some form of emergency. So we get what we got during Covid19. To keep us ‘safe’. Bring in QR codes, Digital IDs and CBDCs, Stablecoins to control it even more.
Use people’s mobile devices to control access.( Apple in the UK has basically forced people to identify themselves via Digi ID in their latest update, without the state actually forcing them to!!
Think about that for a minute.
Make mobile devices essential for everything, then take control of the system via personalisation. And soon enough PCs will require the same thing and yr old system will be rejected.
Your energy ( grid, home solar) and transportation (cars)system will only work when online.
So, better install a home system that still functions independently without the need to be online while you can.
There is a reason why generators are flying out the door. And people are stocking up on fuel and food. Get enough wood and a woodburning stove before the state completely regulates stuff. This is no longer paranoia..
Concur.
A minor bit of exaggeration on a couple of points, but otherwise spot on.
Could written the same article about running AC to cool your house, it takes about the same amount of energy as charging a car. But of course it would be silly, because we have been doing it just fine for years.
The other thing is that you can charge your car at night when you are not running the AC. Presumably that uses the same wires, the same infrastructure.
No Problem.
Doing it just fine until the “renewables” garbage. And who says you won’t use AC at night?
They want to force electric water heaters and heat pumps on us. Both of those will definitely be used during the night.
Because you can use one resource to good effect on one hungry application does not mean you can add another hungry application without inducing overload on that one shared resource source.
My tractor used to pull a trailer full of wood up the hill to my house OK, but if I also hitched up the skid behind the trailer, the journey came to a total halt halfway up the hill every time.
Did I say anything about “renewables” garbage?
How did I miss all the angst when we started to have AC, a similar boost in power consumption. I just don’t think it’s a big deal. It certainly wasn’t in the 50’s and 60’s.
And, okay, some use AC at night. Maybe not so many.
Because when AC was added- there was sufficient ff power plants to handle it. There’s well over 100 million cars in America and most get used most days- not true of AC.
So, if anyone happens to need AC at night during a heat wave, they’ll just give up going to the supermarket.
50s and 60s.
My childhood home was warmed with natural gas.
We had no AC.
We put box fans in the windows so we could sleep at night.
Sweating was common and socially accepted.
AC was not as common back then as you assume.
I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s and we were one of the richer families in the neighborhood. We had a single wall unit to cool the whole house and we were only allowed to run it during the hottest summer days. Even as late as the 70;s, there were no homes with whole house AC and many that still didn’t even have a wall unit or two.
Actually same for me.
AC was introduced over decades, 30 to 40 years at least.
Lots of time to adapt.
The green idiots want to force EVs on everyone practically overnight. Also conversion to all electric households at the same time.
Valid comparison.
AC was not forced.
The introduction timeframe for EVs is roughly on par with the decades of AC.
The difference? AC was desired. AC was economical. EVs cannot make the same claims.
AC must generate peaks, sure. But they usually are not anywhere this high-powered.
More to the point, between air being heated by sunlight rather asynchronously (even if they were all facing the sunrise, the top floors see it first), AC temperatures set differently and heat exchange rates of the houses being not the same, the initial peak front must be blurred. After that, it depends on how much power is really consumed.
Building-scale ventilators+AC may be more prone to it, but those are strangely uncommon. As if the goose-steppers for some reason missed the few areas where economy of scale could actually help.
AC generally presents a constant demand once the initial momentary surge during power on clears.
EV batteries are high demand step functions lasting much longer.
In addition, not everyone coordinates their AC turn on at the same moment, so those minor turn on surges are statistically distributed.
EV charging does not fit that model.
Clarification: EV demand step functions last much longer that AC inrush surge.
All the ACs run at the same time on hot days without a 150,000 MW spike so it is not the same as charging all the EVs. We really need some data here.
It’s often necessary to run the AC at night.
Depends a lot on where you live. In places with high humidity, temperatures do not fall rapidly after the sun sets.
Winter peak is at night in bitter cold with no solar or wind.
I can envision the torches and pitchforks vacating the shelves at Kmart if this comes to pass.
AC was introduced gradually, over the course of 30 to 40 years.
It was also gradual.
At first, only a few companies (such as movie theaters) had AC.
Then gradually the richer people were able to afford room AC units.
Then gradually more people had window units.
Then gradually, the rich started installing whole house units.
Over time, the number of homes using them gradually increased.
.
There was never a sudden jump in demand such as the socialists desire to force everyone into EVs over a few years time. While at the same time forcing everyone to use electric stoves, electric water heaters and heat pumps during the winter.
BTW, the amount of energy needed to charge all those EVs is several times what is being used now, and that is before you factor in electric water heaters and heat pumps.
You are going to need a massive investment in new infrastructure.
It isn’t that EVs have little impact, EVs are only a small percentage of the entire market so having little current impact is to be expected. BUT if they were half the market their impact would increase by a significant amount.
Much like saying Wind Turbines have little impact in avian life compared to Cats. There are only 400,000 – 500,000 turbines globally but there are 600,000,000 cats. Though I have yet to see a house cat take down an Eagle or even a Hawk. Those interact are generally not good for the cat.
Like Wind Turbines vs Cats, current EVs vs potential impacts to the grid is just a matter of ratio. Increase EV exposure, increase grid destabilization possibility.
Greenies fail to understand how much of the planet will need to be covered with their wind and sun machines- causing immense ecological damage of all sorts. On, and tens of thousands of huge battery systems.
The problem with Solar is that it only produces anything near capacity for 4 hours a day. There’s 2 hour ramp up time in the morning from 8-10am and an equal drop off in the afternoon from 2-4pm. So with solar you need to gather your 24 hours worth of need basically from 10am until 2pm on sunny days thus you need sufficient capacity to allow use from 10-2pm plus sufficient overcapacity to recharge your night time battery storage in the same amount of time. Solar-Plus-Battery is the only way to make Solar Power available at night during Peak Demand. And you need massive amounts of panels solely dedicated to recharging TWhs of Batteries in 4 hours.
Don’t forget the infrastructure required to get those TWhs from the panels to the batteries in 4 hours.
Not to mention pumping all that energy into those batteries in just 4 hours is going to generate a lot of heat. So at a minimum you are going to need to use some of that power the keep some mighty big fans running. Those fans will have to keep running long after the charging stops as first the heat from charging still needs to dissipate as well as the heat from drawing down the batteries needs to be dissipated at the same time.
That wouldn’t be much of an issue you simply place the Solar panels in 100 square miles surrounding the batteries.
Although for TWh of batteries more likely thousands of square miles.
Not if those batteries are constructed like the building in The Towering Inferno.
The crux of the issue.
A couple of things: (1) There are ways for an agency to get at the power usage information, if it were so motivated. DMV knows the addresses of most EVs at private homes. Somebody in the power company or state could get power usage by area, know how many EVs are in the area, and monitor usage from area to area. If also could get house sizes for each area to correct for the likely greater usage of power by larger houses, especially in the summer. From collective information for a metro area one might get his/her arms around answers to the question. (2) Avoiding concentration of cars charging at the same time: For cars charged at home, they could be put on an Internet enabled schedule. The owner inputs default garage times, which can be overridden, then the power company could control when the car is charged. This could be largely invisible to the car owner (unless the power company messes up — then, there’s always Uber). It’s no different than the power company controlling the temperature of your AC (if you allow it — that’s the way it works in my state). The technology just needs to be implemented. There is another thing: (3) Building out and strengthening the grid strike me as the most important priorities, rather than making investments in wind and solar the priorities for the power companies. Yes, we need more information to make intelligent decisions, but prioritizing grid over renewables is an easy call.
If utilities are doing a lot of upgrades to handle charging they already know what is happening locally. EIA needs to add collecting that data to what they now collect.
“There are ways for an agency to get at the power usage information”
but that would require an agency to have a lot of very intelligent employees! 🙂
Not to mention a tax payer funded budget to match.
That would intrude on personal freedom.
More significant, that would intrude on prrivacy.
That seems to be considered a non valid argument nowadays.
‘We’ have to keep the public safe, you know. !
Is there anything you know, that is actually true?
I think some get my post wrong so i will clarify:
The idea of privacy has been eroded over the years and more and more replaced by the safety argument. I did not say i agree with it. It is just an observation.
That’s why i started my post with:” it seems”.. I thought it was obvious and didnt think it needed a sarc/ ironic sign..
Thank you for the clarification.
Many article addressing the privacy versus safety, booth sides.
The day after 9/11, I was talking with a co-worker. He stated clearly that he would give up his freedoms to be safe. None of us convinced him that the only way to be safe was to hold fast to our freedoms.
Coercing us to give up our freedoms (and privacy) makes us less safe.
Good points. In my view, this is why the regulated local utility companies were so easily manipulated, here in NY and elsewhere, to promote EV’s and heat pumps. Revenue. ROI. Improved market share of the energy sources being sold for transport and heating. Sell more kWh through the same wires for better capital utilization. There are limits, of course, but what MBA-level finance thinker wouldn’t agree to go along? Electrify! It’s “Cleaner!” and “Good For The Environment!” And it boosts the bottom line “bigly” but they don’t advertise that part.
That is all for now.
I was on a Condo board asked to install an EV charging station. It sounded simple, but would have required us to upgrade a large chunk of the electricity supply as the standard wiring could not cope. We got a lot of flack for saying no – until we told everyone how much it was going to cost the Condo as there was no way we could charge the installation fee to the people charging their cars.
This was just a small scale issue for a couple of charging points. Multiply this by the kind of numbers the zealots are talking about and the real costs become apparent.
I suspect there are many cases like yours and some are paying the cost. Collectively this is already large scale. The point is we do not know what is going on.
In the UK there are about 32M registered cars. If, in future, this fleet all become EVs the additional load on our National Grid would be enormous. Most of the EV fleet would be put on charge overnight at the owner’s homes because it is cheaper than commercial chargers. If 75% of 32M cars are charging at 7KW it would add an extra load on the grid of 168GW. Currently, the UK has an installed generating capacity of about 60GW and a demand that usually peaks around 45GW. The whole plan to eliminate ICE cars seems like a fantasy to me, or am I missing something?
Then of course you’ll also be converting all heating and what survives as industry to electric. I’m sure your government has this all figured out. /s
“I’m sure your government has this all figured out.”
Spot on and it is all part of the plan and the plan has nothing to do with the environment.
The UK is a small nation with a lot of people. Seems just impossible to get even close to net zero regardless of expense without the total destruction of the landscape and some damage to the seascape too. That is if they don’t build a great deal of nuclear.
One can easily get to Net Zero if one eliminated the population.
The Population Bomb, of course, is Idiot’s Guide to Population Control.
It makes sense if the plan is to substantially reduce car ownership, full stop. The plebs should go by bus.
Ah, yes, the exciting 15 minute city!
So, within every square mile there will be a factory, restaurants, gyms, schools, churches, grocery stores, department stores, and if there is any remaining room, microscopic living quarters for the imprisoned who will not have AC or heating (unless an EV flames).
Ok. /sarc
It is not a bad thing per se to think about nearby facilities in a neighbourhood that does not require people to drive long distances or drive at all.
When i lived in Amsterdam i had no need for an expensive car. I walked, cycled and took public transport.
I only took up driving age 38 when i moved to Ireland and needed to.
That works if you are fortunate enough to like the couple of restaurants in walking or biking distance. It also works well as long as the weather cooperates and you are young enough and healthy enough for all that walking.
The same goes for everything else you need to buy in an average month, plus your choices of where to work.
I do realise it depends on location.
Another point i would like to make: i was born in 1964 and throughout my childhood up till the 2000s people were not nearly as..mmm..fat as they are now, at least not in Europe. Increased food portions, more car travel and less exercise has an impact. Obesity really wasnt an issue back then but it has become a global disease. And we did have junk food, even back then and ate a lot of sugar.
I have made similar observations.
Some areas are setup so it’s doable, some are not. I live in a small town: no grocery store (has 2 mini marts), no gym, no public pool, tiny library, couple very small restaurant, one coffee shop, no hotel, one gas station, no public transportation, shared police with another small nearby town. Your basic small town in the US. I drive 25 miles to work in an even smaller town then the one I live in.
Next town that’s slightly bigger has 2 whole grocery stores, couple hotels, movie theater, limited public transportation, etc.. In other words it supports the smaller towns in the area but at 20k people it’s not exactly a big city. I have to drive an hour to reach a decent sized city with all that’s needed within it’s boundaries. Even then it’s spread out enough to not be a 15 minute city.
I once walked to the local grocery store, nearest to my house. 1.5 miles took 30 minutes (one way). I was limited to how much I could carry.
The local bus stop is 2 blocks from my house. It runs on 30 minute intervals and does not stop anywhere near the grocery store.
The point is it will take a total destroy and rebuild in my area to achieve anything like a 15 minute city.
15 minute cities are fairy tales.
Amsterdam is a city that evolved that way.
US cities have “planning boards” and “zoning laws” and such.
To convert a US city to a system resembling Amsterdam would require leveling the city and starting from scratch and that would be much, much more expensive than the proposed Net Zero nonsense.
Of course if you don’t want to work for the one company that is in the 15 minute range, that’s your problem.
Or, if the company is seeking talent and skillsets you cannot provide, you are going to be homeless in short order.
Yes, 15 minute cities are homeless shelters.
It’s funny how 15 minute cities are anti-DEI.
Yes, that IS the aim. So, hickups are used to control and regulate. Emergency legislation implemented. As in Covid19…and war times.
Emergency= give us more control and power. Any of the Iraq war legislation ever reversed? I don’t think so. Power grabs and does not give back. Next government will use it for their own needs. And so on it goes.
You want liberty and privacy? Lock yourself up.
“Any of the Iraq war legislation ever reversed?”
Yes. All of it in 2023 by the Senate.
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2023/iraq-war-20-years-ending-legal-authorization-war-iraq
No findings on the House.
Note, the War Powers Act is not part of the above.
“We really need to understand what is going on.”
Amen.
Somewhat off-topic:
The significant difference between different power generation technologies is in the ability to store fuel at the generation site.
This discussion sidesteps all gid issues deliberately.
Maybe someone will see value into writing an article that expands on these points.
WTG and SV have no fuel cost.
Loads of other costs, but those are for a different discussion.
WTG and SV have no capacity to store fuel.
Fuel supply interruptions occur daily and often hourly.
Batteries?
Batteries do not store wind or sunlight.
The real point is batteries are less than zero sum.
More energy is used to charge the batteries than the batteries supply when needed.
Stored hydro?
Same as batteries.
Less than zero sum.
It takes more energy to refill the hydro site than is generated.
Hydroelectric.
Storage capacity is available and a generally cooperative nature will keep the reservoir filled.
However, nature does not always cooperate, so fuel supply interruptions do occur, on seasonal or yearlong intervals.
Political decisions are most prevalent in creating fuel supply chain disruptions.
Hydrogen.
Too funny. Pass.
Hydrocarbons and coal (aka carbon fuels) are free.
The cost is in extracting and transporting to the generation site.
There is a energy debit incurred, but that is a small percentage of the energy in the fuels themselves.
Onsite fuel storage (coal and oil) is common and well understood, coal being the easier.
Natural gas onsite storage is generally not done at the same scale with a preference for pipelining the fuel to the generator.
Yes, supply chain interruptions happen.
Short interruptions are covered by onsite storage.
The frequencies and durations of supply chain interruptions are non-deterministic.
Political decisions are most prevalent in creating fuel supply chain disruptions.
Nuclear.
Uranium, like carbon fuels is free.
The cost is extracting and processing and transportation, much like carbon fuels, although the economies are different.
Nuclear reactors do not consume fuel at rates comparable to carbon fuels and therefore are much less vulnerable to fuel supply chain disruptions.
Nuclear, however, is the most vulnerable of all to political whims and vagaries.
Taken from the fuel storage point of view, nuclear and carbon fuels are the most reliable.
Do you suppose EV owners overcharge their vehicles because of range anxiety? Do they top off their vehicle’s charge every night?
I don’t worry about my ICE car being low on gas. I can drive 5 miles and refill my tank in 5 minutes. If I have a family emergency and need to drive to the city, I don’t worry about running out of gas.
It is likely that many EV owners top off frequently because of range anxiety.
Range anxiety? Some.
Top off overnight? Some, maybe more than some.
Not understanding the technology or just plain not paying attention? I would take the odds on that bet.
Look at laptops. How many are left plugged in even when the laptop is shut down?
I need a new laptop battery for just that exact reason and it is my fault.
Norway has published accurate, high quality data on the effects of PEVs (Plug-ins). With half the population, Norway consumes more electricity than Sweden,with comparable climate and living standards, due to PEVs and heat pumps, but their hydrocarbon consumption continues to climb higher. They simply have two vehicles, diesel, gasoline, and PEV, where previously they had one. Now, Norway is building AI facilities to consume yet more electricity.
Norway has abundant electrical power from hydroelectric, except that hydroelectric is limited by available impoundment of which Norway has run OUT. Norway requires now more electricity than their dams can produce. Every dry year is a disaster. This is a serious issue for Germany and the Continent who were counting on Norway as backup for electricity. The undersea cables are now turned OFF by Norway when German demands drive electricity prices sky high. It is Norway’s electricity, after all. Further, Norway is developing their Arctic Ocean oil and gas resources asap, along with their North Sea oil and gas.
How Green are Norway’s fields? 🙂
The irony is that the UK is importing oil from Norway which is the same oilfield they have but do no longer use.
Same w Holland. Stopped their own natural gas production and imports LNG from the US and Qatar. It is one of the reasons european countries have gone along w Trump. They are afraid of pissing him off, with good reason. The other one is their obsession w Ukraine/ Russia conflict in which they also need US support.
So the europeans have made themselves totally dependent. But they have started to push back because of the madness of King T. It is safe to do so now as it us pretty clear to most non Forever Trump people that we are dealing w a seriously deranged, easily manipulated individual..
First 2 paragraphs were good.
Last 2 sentences reek of TDS.
Isn’t it good, Norwegian wood?
If the actual consumption figures are being understated or being suppressed, it should surprise no one. Aren’t the actual cruising ranges being distorted because the numbers are being achieved under ideal driving conditions? Mind you this is the case with gas mileage as well, but with the questions piling up concerning EV initial prices, reliability rates, resale values, bater replacement costs, etc. no one should be surprised if EV proponents, including governments, aren’t sidestepping the real consumption numbers.
Those wires that carry electricity are no different than an oil pipeline in that they can only carry so much energy.
The difference is that you can ask a pipeline to carry more than its capacity and it will still pump the maximum.
When you ask the grid to carry more than its maximum, it refuses and stops working all together.