Some thoughts on the future of automotive EVs

[jonescg]

I know you're playing games here, but for the benefit of a casual reader:

All electricity generated is consumed as it is created. Rooftop PV, wind farms, gas peaker plants - if it's on the grid it's delivering power somewhere like water finding the lowest point.

Whether it's consumed by the house the panels are installed upon, or consumed down the street, or consumed at the other end of an interconnector - all energy generated is consumed, not spilled or vented. Even pumped hydro and battery storage are simply calculated as a demand on the grid.

We know there are half a million rooftop solar systems in Western Australia of about 7 kW each. We know the insolation each day and we know the efficiency of the systems. We can calculate the energy delivered to the grid, and this is seen as a reduction in thermal generation in the middle of the day. Hell, Western Power can integrate the reactive power on the grid and determine to within 5% the exact amount of rooftop PV at any instant. If all that PV was doing nothing, why are we seeing system demand drop to under 500 MW in the middle of the day? That PV is being consumed everywhere, at all times, on the grid, including at the end of a public charge point.

As for CPOs selling 100% renewable energy, we all know it's an accounting exercise, but they have power purchase agreements from large scale RE generators. As long as the energy consumed through all of their chargers is less than or equal to the energy purchased by the generators, they can lay claim to 100% RE on their network. But if they sell more power than they bought, they will need to buy more, and that justified the construction of new RE generation.

 

[Hillhater]

If all that PV was doing nothing, why are we seeing system demand drop to under 500 MW in the middle of the day? That PV is being consumed everywhere, at all times, on the grid

Thats an odd vision of what you imagine is happening..
Of course RT solar is not “doing nothing”,.. its mainly doing what it was bought for,…. Powering the home it is installed on .
on average, very little of it is being fed back into the grid, but because it is being used to power the owners home, that home will have a greatly reduced demand for grid supply…..hence the demand drop on the grid during peak sun hours.

there are half a million rooftop solar systems in Western Australia of about 7 kW each.

Err ..? there may be near half a million in WA,… BUT.. they are certainly not all connected to the SWIS grid !
Many are in the 80% of the state not connected to the SWIS !
….And they certainly are NOT all “about 7kW”, . many were installed 10+ years ago before systems greater than 3kWh were commonly available.
However even if we assume that the entire 2000 MW (approx) of RT solar is connected to the SWiS, you cannot possibly think that all 2000MW is being fed back and available for grid distribution !

 

[jonescg]

on average, very little of it is being fed back into the grid, but because it is being used to power the owners home, that home will have a greatly reduced demand for grid supply…..hence the demand drop on the grid during peak sun hours.

...However even if we assume that the entire 2000 MW (approx) of RT solar is connected to the SWiS, you cannot possibly think that all 2000MW is being fed back and available for grid distribution !

You're *this* close to getting it! It's like accepting that 2+2=4, but refusing to accept that 4-2=2.

 

[nicobie]

Now, call me disengenuous but, but i do not believe that the entire RT solar generation is being fed into the grid,?
…...rather that the majority of it is being consumed behind the meter and NOT available for grid distribution !

And what's the difference if it's used behind the grid or not? Somebody is using it instead of using grid power. 6 of one, half a dozen of another.

 

[harrisonpatm]

And what's the difference if it's used behind the grid or not? Somebody is using it instead of using grid power. 6 of one, half a dozen of another.

I'm not saying I agree with all of his points, but I imagine his response would be: if all the solar power being produced during the day is being consumed behind the meter, then it's not all going to be sent to a public charging station. Or vice versa. Which is how this derailment got started.

I get what @jonescg and @nicobie are saying too, that private solar production used to offset grid use is still contributing to grid use. But I can also see why @Hillhater considers it double dipping, when you say my rooftop solar panels are powering all the house that have solar, you can't also say they're going to public charging stations. Some of it is, absolutely, I'm not going to put an ammeter on every house that has solar. And every house that has gets powered by their own solar panels is one less house that the grid needs to power, lending to total overall percentage of solar/renewables.

Ah, Hillhater, you're at your disingenuous best today.
I said the power from a public charge point, during the day, was about 60% renewable. Here's a snapshot of the West Australian gird at 1:48 pm:

That's a neat app, maybe my area has that too, I'll have to look.

 

[Hillhater]

That's a neat app, maybe my area has that too, I'll have to look.

No,.. thats a very missleading interpretation of the actual data.
For example, they have NO ability to measure how much electricity is being generated by Roof Top solar either Daily, let alone in real time for a “live” presentation
There are much better presentations.
Which area are you in ?

 

[Hillhater]

And what's the difference if it's used behind the grid or not? Somebody is using it instead of using grid power.

Well, if its being used behind the meter ( as some/most of it will be), then it is not being fed back into the grid .
And as i said it simply reduces the load demand on the grid as opposed to adding to the grid capacity.

 

[jonescg]

I'm not saying I agree with all of his points, but I imagine his response would be: if all the solar power being produced during the day is being consumed behind the meter, then it's not all going to be sent to a public charging station. Or vice versa. Which is how this derailment got started.

I get what @jonescg and @nicobie are saying too, that private solar production used to offset grid use is still contributing to grid use. But I can also see why @Hillhater considers it double dipping, when you say my rooftop solar panels are powering all the house that have solar, you can't also say they're going to public charging stations. Some of it is, absolutely, I'm not going to put an ammeter on every house that has solar. And every house that has gets powered by their own solar panels is one less house that the grid needs to power, lending to total overall percentage of solar/renewables.



That's a neat app, maybe my area has that too, I'll have to look.

Because had all those solar panels not been there, the demand for electricity would have been exactly the same, except it would have all be provided by large generators a long way away. Whether the generator and the load are a long way apart, or barely 5 metres apart, it makes no difference.

A better App is OpenNEM: An Open Platform for National Electricity Market Data
However the WA data is out of whack for some reason.

 

[Hillhater]

Whether the generator and the load are a long way apart, or barely 5 metres apart, it makes no difference.

Except that if the generator, (roof top solar), and the load ( pool pumps, water heater, wash m/c etc) , ..are behind the meter, then that cannot be considered as being available to the grid distribution for other uses……which is what the Energy matters graphic suggested.
If, as you suggest, it is possible to estimate the quantity of RT solar being fed back to the grid, why is that data not recorded anywhere in the multiple data logs that are available ?

 

[jonescg]

Because the wiring in the house IS the grid. Energy will flow to the loads throughout the home and any excess (which is actually most of it, since typical residential daytime loads are under 2 kW) will flow out onto the grid as net export. This energy makes its way down the street to any and all loads on the distribution network. What difference does it make if my EV charge point was at my home, or off the pole just beside my home?

The data is being recorded every 30 minutes and fed back to the DNSPs. They know how many kWp were installed and can determine the precise amount generated on any day of the week.

 

[Hillhater]

Because the wiring in the house IS the grid.

Ahhh ! ..now you are really stretching reality !

Energy will flow to the loads throughout the home and any excess (which is actually most of it, since typical residential daytime loads are under 2 kW) will flow out onto the grid as net export. This energy makes its way down the street to any and all loads on the distribution network. What difference does it make if my EV charge point was at my home, or off the pole just beside my home?

“Most of it “.. unless the owners have paid attention to the advice to shedule all their main demand.. wash m/c, dish, washer, pool pumps, water heater, A/C, storage battery charging, (and possibly even EV home charging ? ),…to maximise their RT solar investment returns. …
..so, yes,…there may be some left over for feeding back to the grid .. but where is the data to quantify it ?
If you charge at home, presumeably you have sufficient RT solar to ensure you are using all RE.
bur if you charge of that pole just beside your home, it will definitely not be 100% solar, and infact you cannot know at any given time what that energy mix is !
PS.. it is widely accepted that RT solar feedback is mostly consumed in the area behind the local distribution sub station, with little ever getting back onto the main grid transmission network. Hence just reducing overall demand on the main grid generators.

 

[jonescg]

I'm done here.

 

[nicobie]

Me too. You can lead a horse to water...

 

[Hillhater]

Me too. You can lead a horse to water...

….and some horses know when the water is full of horse 5hit !
…..i will say again…
..anyone charging their car from a public charger (in Australia ) ,is fooling themselves if they think they are using mainly RE. Power..

 

[eMark]

If, as you suggest, it is possible to estimate the quantity of RT solar being fed back to the grid, why is that data not recorded anywhere in the multiple data logs that are available ?

Maybe they don't want us to know as homeowner RT solar being fed back to the grid becomes sketchy business.

The data is being recorded every 30 minutes and fed back to the DNSPs. They know how many kWp were installed and can determine the precise amount generated on any day of the week.

Maybe the homeowner solar data being fed back to each DNSP is too insignificant and variable (sketchy) at this stage of DIY solar panel home installations.

 

[nicobie]

?? Volt never had a service,? no battery checks. ?
? Solar never needed attention ?… Most solar systems benefit from cleaning at least every year , and few make it that long without an inverter issue (mine certainly didnt !)
maybe you ment to say ” it never GOT any attention” ….rather than it never needed any.?

Every point you tried to make was false. The only problem I have ever had with my two volts was a frocked design of the steering column.

 

[nicobie]

Put a solar power system on my first house 21 years ago. Still working fine, zero maintenance.

It's been ~15 years for me.

Still working fine, zero maintenance.

 

[nicobie]

?? Volt never had a service,? no battery checks. ?
? Solar never needed attention ?… Most solar systems benefit from cleaning at least every year , and few make it that long without an inverter issue (mine certainly didnt !)
maybe you ment to say ” it never GOT any attention” ….rather than it never needed any.?

Don't be ridiculous. The cars were under warranty and I never have cleaned my solar cells. the rain and wind have done a good job of it. Cars electrical system has not needed any work.

 

[nicobie]

I am guessing you are refering to data from How Many Electric Cars Catch Fire Every Year [2023 Update].
which used data sourced from the NTSB ?
But it turns out the anslysis of the data was flawed ,..they compared the number of fires to the ANNUAL SALES NUMBERS for that year, rether than the total fleet number.
…and hence those car fire stats are total BS !
The USA had 174,000 car fires in last year, from a total fleet of 266 million ICE cars….….….…
which turns out to be 64.1 per 100,000.
NOT the 1,529 per 100,000 reported for ICEs,..which would have implied over 4.0 million car fires per year !
And they revised the figure for EV fires up to 4125pa. (Up from 52 !) In a total fleet of under 3 million..
so the rate of EV fires per 100,000 would be >137.5 …
…and NOT the 25.1 reported.

And those 16,050 Hybrid fires reported, were from a hybrid car fleet of approx 6,000,000
which implies a rate of 267 per 100,000 !…….slightly less than the 3474 in that report !
So, NO !..EVs are NOT less likely to catch fire than ICEs !
..infact they are twice as likely to ignite !

What a bunch of crap. Where do you get this shit? Let me guess...

 

[nicobie]

PRC, the largest supplier of pollutants, is also where the majority of electric cars are manufactured (and increasing). That also includes the Model 3 & Model Ys. It disturbs me greatly that nearly everything I buy now originates there (not to mention the added polution created just shipping it here) - and I don't see it ending anytime soon.

I don't think it will end until The US takes it's head out of its ass.

 

[Hillhater]

What a bunch of crap.

Which part ?
try to be specific !..and maybe read more of the posts for the data sources.

 

[DaLanMan]

The 4125 figure was quoted in a study for vehicle fires in the USA during 2020 when the EV fleet was approx 3.0 m.…hence the 137 per 100,000 (0.137%)
..if you want to think they were world wide fires from the < 10.0m cars, ( 2020 world total Global number of battery electric vehicles | Statista that would be 41 per 100,000.
.BUT , then we must assume the 199,000 ice fires they reported, were also from A world wide car fleet of 1.47 bn…which would be 13.5 per 100,000 !
Even at the 30 m EVs you suggested the rate would still be 14 per 100,000 !! ( same as ICE rate ?)
( But according to Statista there were only 18 m BEVs on the worlds roads in 2022, the last reported year)
…… but i agree , finding consistent data on this topic is impossible ,
..however i have seen nothing that supports ICE fires are statisticly orders of magnitude greater than EV fires..
EG….note the different conclusions in these 2 studies…

::blinks:: I have to ask if I am allowed to post the information.

If I am allowed I will, but for now just a perspective from the extended fire insurance info given out to actuaries (the guys that do the math on how much insurance should cost) from a major insurance company, loos quote would be that the likelyhood of a fire based total loss on an EV vs an ICE is roughly -86.4% (pages of data I am not qualified to interpret so will just nod sagely and figure that for what was paid for this report, it is probably accurate) when looking at spontaneous fire events the data from what I can see is fairly vague, non-interactive spontaneous fires occur like once in ever 26+m/day (so for every 26m vehicles (ice) out there one fire will just kind of happen without any known human interference. In EV's the numbers appear to be much lower at this point when you consider the acts of god issue closed (fires caused by flooded EV's in a weather event are not considered in these numbers because of the common insurance waiver due to acts of god. For actuaries if the number involved does not have a fiscal event associated with it. they do not even consider the numbers.

So, long and short, we *may* see more spontaneous ev fires but the numbers now are not sufficient to do real forecasting. Currently it is much more likely for ICE vehicles to just go poofta for no apparent reason (petrol is nasty stuff). But again, the math is exceptionally complicated. I do know that the fire insurance on my BMW Hybrid with it's big ole battery bank in the back and a 20mm cable that had to be replaced because the old ones could flash over in high acceleration events... is lower than it is in the m5 setting next to it in the driveway.

Oh, and as a friend of an actuary, I am ok with maths, he breathes them. If you are gonna argue the numbers, first look at them and realise the numbers are gonna be weirder and harder to grasp than you currently realise. Unless/until you interact with a hard maths guy you think maths are cuddly and cute. They are vicious... Like angry rhino's

--L

 

[nicobie]

::blinks:: I have to ask if I am allowed to post the information.

If I am allowed I will, but for now just a perspective from the extended fire insurance info given out to actuaries (the guys that do the math on how much insurance should cost) from a major insurance company, loos quote would be that the likelyhood of a fire based total loss on an EV vs an ICE is roughly -86.4% (pages of data I am not qualified to interpret so will just nod sagely and figure that for what was paid for this report, it is probably accurate) when looking at spontaneous fire events the data from what I can see is fairly vague, non-interactive spontaneous fires occur like once in ever 26+m/day (so for every 26m vehicles (ice) out there one fire will just kind of happen without any known human interference. In EV's the numbers appear to be much lower at this point when you consider the acts of god issue closed (fires caused by flooded EV's in a weather event are not considered in these numbers because of the common insurance waiver due to acts of god. For actuaries if the number involved does not have a fiscal event associated with it. they do not even consider the numbers.

So, long and short, we *may* see more spontaneous ev fires but the numbers now are not sufficient to do real forecasting. Currently it is much more likely for ICE vehicles to just go poofta for no apparent reason (petrol is nasty stuff). But again, the math is exceptionally complicated. I do know that the fire insurance on my BMW Hybrid with it's big ole battery bank in the back and a 20mm cable that had to be replaced because the old ones could flash over in high acceleration events... is lower than it is in the m5 setting next to it in the driveway.

Oh, and as a friend of an actuary, I am ok with maths, he breathes them. If you are gonna argue the numbers, first look at them and realise the numbers are gonna be weirder and harder to grasp than you currently realise. Unless/until you interact with a hard maths guy you think maths are cuddly and cute. They are vicious... Like angry rhino's

--L

Yep!

 

[ZeroEm]

That is a good quick summary..EV for city/urban use,..ICE for intercity/ touring (and towing).
But the world is never quite so simple !
Not many can afford the 2 vehicle solution, so a compromise would be needed fo a vehicle that can serve both situations.
That is then further complicated by the serious lack of public chargers on most intercity routes and rural areas.
..and more recently insurance for EVs has become a hot topic, with quotes increasing dramatically due to repair costs , fire risk, etc……also some insurance companies flatly refusing to insure EVs. .
(infact some domestic household insurance companies will not offer property cover if an EV is to be garaged there.!
…So the choice becomes restricted to whatever is affordable, insurable , and practical for all uses.
..not much figuring needed !

As an Engineer, i appreciate the EV concept and advantages over ICEs, but i cannot ignor their shortcomings such as initial cost, risky battery tech, unacceptable recharging issues, repair costs, technical support, etc…until those (and other) issues are resolved, i cannot justify owning one.
And anyone telling themselves that they are saving the planet by driving an eV to reduce CO2 ,..they need to understand the concept of “frontloading” initial Carbon content , and exactly where the electricity will be generated for recharging .?

My insurance did double but has come back down to ICE levels the last two years. We have an EV charge of 200% of the registration cost here in Texas. If it was an gas tax think of adding 300% to the cost. That is what it's costing me. but still cheaper than an ICE car.

 

[Hillhater]

I do know that the fire insurance on my BMW Hybrid with it's big ole battery bank in the back and a 20mm cable that had to be replaced because the old ones could flash over in high acceleration events... is lower than it is in the m5 setting next to it in the driveway.

Im sure you are aware that insurance premiums are not soley dependant on if the car is an iCE or an EV .
Together with many other factors, premiums are rated on the claim History of each model and vehicles with a “performance” character ( such as an M5) , will automatically draw a higher premium and the insurers will have the data to justify it.
A hybrid on the other hand,.…(which model is it btw ?)…is unlikely to be considerd to be in the “performance” catagory.