Electric Vehicles :: FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) Links

[Smidge204]

remember the driver is getting extra range that he normally could not afford since the PUD actually paid for the larger capacity.

I think I may have misunderstood your blog post, then. I did not get the impression that the deal was for V2G enrollment in exchange for additional battery capacity - if that's the case then I can fully get behind that!
=Smidge=

 

[JRP3]

I think with a fleet of EV's plugged in utilities could handle a large amount of FR by simple short term charge throttling. Say a grid spike hits, so instead of putting out more power, or drawing power from your EV, the grid simply cuts back your charge rate, say from 30 amps down to 5, or zero if needed. Since this would only be a few minutes most of the time and then charge could ramp back up again the EV driver would see no effective difference in range and the pack would experience no additional cycling. Even if some charge were to be drawn from a fleet of plugged in EV's the amount from each would be small and would also have no effect on pack life.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I think with a fleet of EV's plugged in utilities could handle a large amount of FR by simple short term charge throttling. Say a grid spike hits, so instead of putting out more power, or drawing power from your EV, the grid simply cuts back your charge rate, say from 30 amps down to 5, or zero if needed. Since this would only be a few minutes most of the time and then charge could ramp back up again the EV driver would see no effective difference in range and the pack would experience no additional cycling. Even if some charge were to be drawn from a fleet of plugged in EV's the amount from each would be small and would also have no effect on pack life.

That would be cool but afaik the J1772 standard doesn't call for the current supply signal to renegotiate on the fly, only detected at initial handshake. Love to hear otherwise if I'm mistaken on that.

 

[Reddy]

It could happen soon: http://www.avinc.com/plugin/nl007/home_charging_trends_and_the_future

I've read about V2G Full (charge and discharge the battery up to maximum 3.3 or 6.6 KW) and V2G Half (only charge or stop charging the battery up to maximum). Here's a link to a scientific paper:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11515&p=267565#p267505

As I see it, you set your charging timers for a specific end time and SOC. Then plug in. The charging station starts immediately (if the grid is ok), then turns charging on/off (Half) or charge/discharge (Full) in microscopic slurps, slowly increasing the battery's SOC until the target is reached. I don't think that technology is the problem. It's a policy issue. As a user, we're probably ok with V2G Half. However, utilizing V2G Full means that our $5000+ batteries are getting many more cycling events for a few cents worth of electricity. If I were to do this, I would need more than just "free electricity". I would need free electricity at home, work and while traveling. Even then, I would probably want at least $50/month payment so that I could pay for a new battery in 10 years.

So, do you really see the utility companies providing free EV charging everywhere AND $50/mo for every EV. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That's what I thought your (and the utility executive's) response would be.

Reddy

 

[JRP3]

Remember that partial cycles are not the same as full cycles. A number of tests have shown shallow cycling can be done for many thousands of cycles.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Oh ya, having the PUD pay for extr battery is the main point. This way we get the range on those rare occasions when weneed it and PUD is providing us a tool to jnsure they have more power to sell and their load balancing challenges are reduced

remember the driver is getting extra range that he normally could not afford since the PUD actually paid for the larger capacity.

I think I may have misunderstood your blog post, then. I did not get the impression that the deal was for V2G enrollment in exchange for additional battery capacity - if that's the case then I can fully get behind that!
=Smidge=

 

[JRP3]

If a utility is paying for extra battery why wouldn't they just buy stationary battery storage, which would be cheaper, and always at their demand, instead of possibly driving around when they need it? I don't see that concept working, grid storage is all about lowest cost.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

If a utility is paying for extra battery why wouldn't they just buy stationary battery storage, which would be cheaper, and always at their demand, instead of possibly driving around when they need it? I don't see that concept working, grid storage is all about lowest cost.

that is dead wrong. its best ROI they care about

although my idea would cost much more, your suggestion is a lot of money invested that serves only one purpose and completely takes decentralization off the table.

Having larger batteries in EVs provides a potentially larger market for the PUD plus if they also own the charging stations, that also becomes another source of revenue.

now, BP did have a great idea albeit, a bit premature, but did not have the resources to pull it off. a lot of PUDs do. after all, they created demand charges and willing to bet they wont be paying any on their own chargers.

 

[JRP3]

BP had a terrible idea, which is why it failed, as I predicted from the beginning. So far few if any utilities own charge stations, and most charging is done at home, as we know, so that part of your equation does not appear to be panning out. Stationary storage will be so much cheaper than mobile because there is no need for exceptional energy density, which costs money, that your concept is not likely to be feasible. Grid storage needs to be built with cheap durable batteries, stuff such as Aquion Energy is building. Utilities are not going to pay for batteries that they cannot fully utilize when they need to, because it would be a terrible ROI. Lowest cost per cycle will also provide the best ROI.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

BP had a terrible idea, which is why it failed, as I predicted from the beginning. So far few if any utilities own charge stations, and most charging is done at home, as we know, so that part of your equation does not appear to be panning out. Stationary storage will be so much cheaper than mobile because there is no need for exceptional energy density, which costs money, that your concept is not likely to be feasible. Grid storage needs to be built with cheap durable batteries, stuff such as Aquion Energy is building. Utilities are not going to pay for batteries that they cannot fully utilize when they need to, because it would be a terrible ROI. Lowest cost per cycle will also provide the best ROI.

no, BP's idea was sound but simply no market. EVs are not prevalent enough to support BP's network. Its like offering a 3D television network today. great idea and some day people will make a bundle on it but it aint gonna happen today. the home 3D industry is simply not ready to support it.

and that is the same with BP. the adoption of EVs has been slower than expected. battery innovations have been promised but not a single delivery as of it.

there is minimal public, governmental or regulatory support. EVs are still very much a swimmer hanging onto a life preserver but there is no boat on the other end of the line...just a big deep ocean

 

[cwerdna]

In today's (11March2013) WSJ Bjorn Lomborg has a really poor article, so much distortion it's hard to even read it all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424127887324077704578358462058151982.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has 3 letters in response to the "article".

 

[JRP3]

no, BP's idea was sound but simply no market.

An idea with no market is a terrible idea. BP had huge problems to overcome from day one. I detail all of them in a series of posts:
http://ephase.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-hits-keep-coming-for-better-place.html

 

[edatoakrun]

In today's (11March2013) WSJ Bjorn Lomborg has a really poor article, so much distortion it's hard to even read it all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424127887324077704578358462058151982.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has 3 letters in response to the "article".

Sad, IMO, that what was once a decent newspaper has been so severely Murdoched, and has sunk to this level.

The reply below correctly assesses Lomborg’s disinformative comment.

Bjorn Lomborg’s recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, “Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret,” argues that the environmental benefits of grid-connected vehicles do not justify federal investment. The author is mistaken on both the benefits to the environment and the benefits to the taxpayer...

Lomborg’s conclusions are not born out when held against real life numbers. The only thing the opinion writer and report gets right is the importance of a comprehensive accounting for energy costs and benefits in our national policies. To that end, we would urge policymakers to consider the billion dollars a day we spend on imported oil, the economic and environmental consequences of dependence on a single global energy commodity, and the “all-costs” policies employed to secure it when evaluating investments in the electric drive alternative. That’s the math taxpayers need to see

.

http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?ht=d/ReleaseDetails/id/35537" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;