Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SpiritualTwo5256 t1_jdm0e69 wrote

Reply to comment by grundar in There Is Still Plenty We Can Do to Slow Climate Change by nastratin

The problem with all of this is that the grid has to be transformed. To add in hundreds of millions of cars to the grid is going to break most of them. I expect that many of the grids will require voltage changes. Going from 120 in the states to 220-240. Otherwise we will have to adapt millions of transformers for higher loads. We will need billions of miles of new power lines and infrastructure to handle the new loads everywhere. And it all has to be done in the next 20 years.

3

OriginalCompetitive t1_jdmcj26 wrote

20% of new cars sold in California are EVs. So far it’s been pretty smooth. In Norway it’s 80% EV. No major breaking points have been identified so far.

6

grundar t1_jdmx2sd wrote

> The problem with all of this is that the grid has to be transformed.

Yes, and that will be an enormous amount of effort, both to replace generation and to upgrade transmission.

At the same time, though, maintaining the existing grid is also an enormous amount of work. A large fraction of the power infrastructure will need to be upgraded or replaced by 2050 anyway, and the existing grid relies on enormous effort to extract hundreds of millions of tons of coal and gas every year.

"It will be a lot of effort" is true of anything to do with the overall grid, so it's not a useful argument against any particular proposal -- there is no easy option.

> To add in hundreds of millions of cars to the grid is going to break most of them.

“A future grid will absolutely be able to handle a future demand of transportation electrification.”

In fact, since EV charging has such flexible timing, it's a great option for easily integrating larger amounts of variable renewables such as wind and solar via time-of-use pricing (this article goes into more detail).

> I expect that many of the grids will require voltage changes. Going from 120 in the states to 220-240. Otherwise we will have to adapt millions of transformers for higher loads.

How would that help?

Changing home voltage from 120v to 240v is unlikely to do anything to help the grid, as the higher-voltage transmission lines would carry the same amount of energy (and current) either way. Running more transmission lines where needed is almost certainly a better option, and it's one the industry is already very familiar with deploying to address increased consumption.

6

SpiritualTwo5256 t1_jdqjc00 wrote

Higher voltage allows more wattage. It’s the amps that create the heat which makes things fry.
And if we don’t have nuclear as a base load carrier, we will need most cars connected to the grid during the day and especially a commute times. The duck curve sucks!

1

grundar t1_jdr9dkj wrote

> > Changing home voltage from 120v to 240v is unlikely to do anything to help the grid, as the higher-voltage transmission lines would carry the same amount of energy (and current) either way.
>
> Higher voltage allows more wattage. It’s the amps that create the heat which makes things fry.

Sure, but changing homes from 120v to 240v does nothing to lessen the amperage being carried by the high-voltage transmission lines, and those are where the grid is constrained.

2

Alpha3031 t1_jdqm51m wrote

Actually, in the US least-cost pathways with adequate transmission capacity show much less deployment of diurnal storage (about half), solar and nuclear compared to the scenario where transmission is constrained. Sufficient transmission capacity to minimise cost is about 2 to 3 times current levels (compared with up to about 20% increase for constrained), and results in close to double the deployed wind substituting for the ~30% decrease in solar.

1