Green Car Congress: Xcel Energy Announces Six-Month Test of V2G and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles

« Battelle Ventures and Affiliate Invest $1.9M in Traffic Management Startup | Main | Global NGV Fleet at Almost 7.3 Million »

Xcel Energy Announces Six-Month Test of V2G and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles

22 October 2007

Six plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) will be on the road by the end of 2007 as part of a demonstration test of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology by Xcel Energy. The project, which will convert six Ford Escape Hybrids to PHEVs equipped with V2G technology so each can charge and discharge power to and from the grid, is one of the nation’s first real-world demonstrations of the V2G technology.

With operations in eight states, Xcel Energy will study how the vehicles perform in varied geographic regions and climates over a six-month period. Three company employees will serve as test drivers, using three of the PHEVs in typical home settings. The remaining three PHEVs will be used in the company’s fleet.

With every US home connected to the electricity grid, vehicle-to-grid technology could be key to meeting our growing energy needs. This project will allow us to explore how PHEVs can become an integrated part of a ‘smart house’ and our vision of the smart grid energy system of the future—one that allows customers and utilities to work together to balance the power grid, lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve our nation’s energy security.

—Michael Lamb, executive director of Xcel Energy Utility Innovations

Xcel Energy’s demonstration will build on its previous PHEV impact study by examining how drivers—and their vehicles—will react and perform in real-world settings. The project will explore the potential benefits of widespread PHEV use including: reducing petroleum-related emissions and greenhouse gases, enhancing energy security by reducing dependence on foreign oil, improving the reliability and cost-effectiveness of the electricity grid, exploring ways to make PHEVs more accessible and lowering vehicle fuel costs.

The project is a joint collaboration between Xcel Energy; Hybrids Plus Inc. in Boulder, Colo.; V2Green Inc. in Seattle, Wash.; and the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.

Hybrids Plus (earlier post) will replace the cars’ nickel-metal hydride batteries with a 12 kWh lithium-ion phosphate battery pack using 26650 cells from A123Systems for the base conversion to a plug-in hybrid.

To make the cars V2G capable, each will be equipped with a V2Green Connectivity Module that controls vehicle charging, collects data and communicates via a cellular modem (earlier post); and an Inverger (a 6-kilowatt inverter and charger in a single unit) from Hybrids Plus. V2Green will also supply server software enabling remote control of smart charging and V2G functions.

By outfitting the vehicles with these components, Xcel Energy can remotely control the battery cycles in each vehicle by requesting that each postpones charging or begins discharging energy back to the electricity grid.

Resources

K. Parks, P. Denholm, and T. Markel “Costs and Emissions Associated with Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Charging in the Xcel Energy Colorado Service Territory” NREL/TP-640-41410 May 2007
Hybrids Plus Escape PHEV spec sheet

October 22, 2007 in Plug-ins, V2G | Permalink | Comments (57) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/22664626

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Xcel Energy Announces Six-Month Test of V2G and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles:

Comments

I agree with plug in hybrids - I can see the advantage of shifting some of the power generation towards a point source emission that can be monitored, regulated, and controlled. I would caution people to double check their "Fuel Efficiency" numbers as these can be misleading.

But...

Is there any reason to do Vehicle to Grid technology with a normal IC engine? It only makes sense to me if the engine in the car is inherently more efficient and pollutes less than the power plant (or weighted average of the power plants) that provides power to the Grid.

Am I missing something here?

Posted by: TR | Oct 22, 2007 1:59:24 PM

TR, the majority of energy supplied to the grid by the vehicle's batteries would probably not have come from the vehicle's ICE, but rather from the grid itself. The idea is to use plugged in vehicle batteries to allow for more capacity during peak demand, rather than bringing extra power plants online.
The analogy I would use is the idea of adding capacitors to a circuit to cover transient power demands, instead of simply beefing up the power supply to cover the maximum demand that could ever occur.
Evidently, investing the up front capital in order to purchase batteries or other energy storage devices for this purpose on a large scale has not been economically viable for utilities in the past. However, if large numbers of electric cars were already plugged into the grid, it only makes sense for utilities to try exploit such a large energy source for brief periods of peak demand, as an alternative to firing up an idle power plant.

Posted by: Bob Bastard | Oct 22, 2007 2:31:31 PM

Spot on Bob. I actually see the mass acceptance of PHEVs as being a huge boon to utility companies. Their idle capacity at night could charge a vast fleet of PHEVs. While these vehicles are parked around mid-day, some of the energy used to charge them can be drained to provide peak load.

I would like to see some sort of cost-benefit assessment from the utilities end. Perhaps they should foot part of the cost of the battery, maybe as much as 1/4?

Posted by: GreenPlease | Oct 22, 2007 4:57:39 PM

GreenPlease, there are a couple of papers (including an economic analysis) that you may be interested in here:

http://www.udel.edu/V2G/

Posted by: | Oct 22, 2007 8:21:56 PM

Personally, I think the economic viability of V2G ranks right up there
with a perpetual motion machine. By far, the most expensive component
of an EV or PHEV will be the battery. This is particularly the case
when you consider that batteries wear out and will probably need to be
replaced at least once in the life cycle of an EV or PHEV, both of
which involve regular deep cycling of the battery. Deep cycling reduces battery life. V2G by definition
results in additional deep cycling of a very expensive vehicle battery
that has a limited life, thus reducing that limited life.

If the economics of storing off-peak energy in a battery made sense,
the utilities would all be doing so themselves. They aren't.
Instead, they would rather have their customers pay for this
uneconomic means of energy storage by wearing out their expensive HEV or PHEV
batteries that much sooner.

Posted by: Greener | Oct 22, 2007 9:06:02 PM

V2G by definition results in additional deep cycling of a very expensive vehicle battery that has a limited life, thus reducing that limited life.

Why would it need to deep cycle?

Posted by: jack | Oct 22, 2007 9:07:25 PM

Greener: In order to avoid putting any real wear and tear on your battery or leaving you without sufficient charge, V2G will only use a very small percentage of each battery. Using a small percentage has virtually no effect on the life of the battery. The main purpose of V2G is to "smooth out the grid" rather than be used for massive storage.

Posted by: Neil | Oct 22, 2007 9:54:28 PM

Following Greener's concern, let's consider two scenarios:

The use of BEV with A123 Lithium at 2000 discharge cycles, at a low projected future price at $500 USD/kwh (current price $1000-2000/kwh) . Over 2000 cycles, the cost per kwh is 500/2000= ~$0.25.

Whereas if the Prius is used as a plug-out generator at 20 kw capacity, with its engine/generator capable of 10,000 hrs of continuous use as a generator. This is not unreasonable, considering other dedicated piston generators capable of 50,000 hrs of use. A "barebone" or stripped Prius now retail for $21,000, so we can estimate that the engine + generator would not cost over $10,000. So, in 10,000 hrs x 20kw = 200,000 kwh for $10,000 worth, or $0.05 /kwh depreciating cost. Adding 1-2 more cents/hr for oil changes and maintenance periodically, and it is still far cheaper than BEV as V2G.

If adapted for NG at 1/2 the cost of gasoline, this HEV plug-out V2G is competitive with NG gas turbine power plants at 40% efficiency, since the Prius itself is capable of 37% tank-to-wheel efficiency.

The cost of turbine power plant is ~$500-700 /kw. The Prius power plant at under $10,000 for 20 kw is also under $500. BUT, the Prius is paid for by its owner, who will very unlikely in its life span, ever drive the car near its maximum mileage capacity. By V2G using HEV like the Prius, it will be a win-win situation for Prius owner to recoup some of the investment in the car by being able to sell peak-demand electricity back to the grid, AND to the utility company, thereby saving the utility company the upfront investment of a gas turbine peak-capacity plant, while being able to purchase power at competitive price ONLY when peak demand is needed.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 12:35:37 AM

So, in 10,000 hrs x 20kw = 200,000 kwh for $10,000 worth, or $0.05 /kwh depreciating cost. Adding 1-2 more cents/hr for oil changes and maintenance periodically, and it is still far cheaper than BEV as V2G.

How much oil need 20 kW generator per hour ?

I'm sure that oil will be much more than 1-2 cents/kwh, close to 100 cents/kwh.

Posted by: | Oct 23, 2007 3:05:23 AM

Actually, it's probably not 100c/kwh. My wild guesstimate is around 25c/kwh with fuel.

A Prius will get about 45-50 mpg on the highway. If it cruises at 45-50 mph, then it is consuming about one gallon of fuel per hour. When running at an easy cruise, the engine is obviously not putting out all its rated power, but we can assume it is putting out up to 27 horsepower or so in order to overcome drag and rolling resistance. Perhaps a bit less, as the Prius has low drag.

(On the subject of engine output at highway cruise, see the fifth paragraph in: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_5_184/ai_n6077801)

If a cruising Prius is actually putting out 27 hp -- which is 20 kw, by the way -- and consumes one gallon per hour, and a gallon of gas costs $3, then you are getting 20 kwh for 300 cents, or 15c / kwh. If a cruising Prius actually puts out less power than 27 hp, then we would need to run the engine faster to sustain 20 kw output. But even if requirements were 33% higher, that would only be 20c / kwh in fuel. Add that to Roger's figures for the cost of buying and maintaining the engine, and you have no more than 25c/kwh or so in costs.

Now, 20c - 25c / kwh for electricity, delivered to your door, is not a particularly cheap price -- although it happens to be in the same ballpark as electricity in the part of Boston where I live. But consumer rates tend to reflect the average cost of service (cheap base-load coal plus expensive peaking natural gas), and the important things in V2G are the marginal cost of power at peak demand moments, and/or the marginal cost of dedicated smoothing and stabilization equipment if the grid gets choppy, as it does from time to time.

Concentrating only on the former, it is the case that in many parts of the country, peak power will cost more than 20c - 25c per kwh to generate and transmit to the local distributer's hub. Part of that cost is simply running an expensive peak-demand power plant, which might be less efficient or consume expensive fuel. Another part of that is recovering the capital cost of having a peak-demand power plant sit around idle most of the time. Yet another part of the cost is transmission, which grows more expensive as congestion goes up. Building more high-voltage power lines just to meet peak demand ties up capital just like building an extra power plant.

Point is, getting all your electricity from the generator on your Prius is probably not very cost effective, but using V2G to help cover peak demand can be.

Posted by: NBK-Boston | Oct 23, 2007 4:54:16 AM

I see the arguement but am not totally convinced.

Is this over simplifying the Grid? How is an ISO supposed to manage the signals to all the households? How is the ISO supposed to know how much capacity (in terms of cars or kW-hr) it has to use?

Wouldn't something like Beacon Power's Fly Wheels be better suited (in the near-term) for this type of Grid-smoothing regulation? http://www.beaconpower.com/

Posted by: TR | Oct 23, 2007 5:32:51 AM

You are all on drugs or simply very ignorant. This V2G concept will never work.

First is the energy stored in a vehicle battery. Maybe it is from grid during off-peak, maybe residual from the last driving cycle. Anyway, as already pointed out, batteries are very expensive. Grid putting in and drawing out energy adds more battery cycles thus accelerating battery degradation. Check out gm-volt.com discussion about high battery cost and how it is impacting that vehicle's design. The last thing any owenr wants to do with his expensive battery pack is put additional wear while not driving. At the very least I would expect the power company to pay a certain portion of the price for a new battery pack when I need to replace it.

Next, most cars are parked in a parking lot of an office building, not plugged in. During the peak hours, such as a hot summer day my car is not plugged in. By the time I return home and plug it in, say between 6 and 7 pm the peak demand is about to end. Plus I just drained the battery during my commute home from work. In fact, that battery will be full some time near morning when demand as the lowest. So odds are very good that my car is not plugged in and/or battery is empty when grid wants to pull electricty from it.

How do I tell the grid when it can pull electricity out? Say I did plug it in while at work because office garage does have outlets. It is a hot summer day, A/Cs are full blast on, so grid pull energy from my battery. Next I finish work, get into the car to drive home ... ooops battery is empty!!!!! If it is a hybrid it can still turn on ICE, sure. But WTF, I bought a hybrid to drive more on electric drive and less on ICE. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with a hybrid drive. So if my battery werel always drained because grid keeps emptying it at the time when I need battery energy then I would be very angry.

Thus grid pulling any sort of energy from my car's battery during day time hours is just not going to happen. I need that energy myself.

Then you talked about ICE acting as a generator. Again this is crazy. I don't want the grid starting my ICE while car is parked in the garage and filling garage with fumes. I certainly don't want to discover an empty fuel tank in the morning.

Heck, even if vechilce were parked outside say office building parking lot, still we don't want a bunch of cars generating CO2 in the middle of a city. The point of generating stations that are far aways from cities is to move pollution away from cities. There is plenty of pollution just from driving. We don't want more pollution in cities from generating electricity. On the contrary, we should be using solar panels, wind turbines, etc.

So again, we are not going to use any car ICE for generating energy. It is insane. In fact, the entire concept of many small distributed power sources like these cars sending energy into the grid only to come back to us is insane. Instead, we shall use our cars to power our own homes when grid fails. There is no need to send power away only to return back. We generate our own power for our own needs at minimum travel distance.

That may be solar panels and wind turbines for normal operation, as well as a car for emergencies. In any case, the grid serves only one purpose well. It takes gobs of energy from large sources (generators) to smaller consumers (office buildings, houses, etc.) It only makes sense to send energy backwards from homes when it is very cheap and plentiful. Such us from solar panels which would be wasted otherwise.

Posted by: q | Oct 23, 2007 6:35:38 AM

NG-powered Prius will bring the fuel cost/kwh to half that of using gasoline.
Note that since the Prius' efficiency is comparable to that of a gas turbine, if NG can be purchased at the same bulk price as the utility company can, there will be hardly any fuel cost differential as the result of V2G via NG-powered HEV.

If this is seriously contemplated, perhaps a means of communication to the utility network via a radio transceiver would be necessary. Or, perhaps an internet network signal going over the power circuitry line may do it for communication.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 6:39:06 AM

I once attended a lecture given by Prof. Andy Frank http://www.veva.bc.ca/home/ (bottom right) who is considered the "father" of the PHEV. At no time in the lecture did he ever suggest that V2G be used for electrical generation. His whole point was to allow the battery storage of the V2G EVs to allow for the use of less oil (and NG). Using the cars as generators would be counter productive to the goal of independence from petroleum. The goal is to take advantage of a small portion of a great many batteries to even out the demand side of the equation and thus make better use of the supply capacity.

Roger: on several occasions I've seen you amortize the cost of an EV battery based on deep cycle lifespan. This would be by far a worst case scenario. The wear and tear on a battery is geometrically proportional to the depth of discharge. You can get millions of 1% discharges out of the same battery that you could only deep discharge 2000 times.

Posted by: Neil | Oct 23, 2007 6:49:32 AM

g,
Welcome to the 21st century, when micro-computer and power electronics seems to be able to do the hitherto impossible. It can allow for very good synchronization with the grid frequency. A dedicated V2G car will be connected to the grid during predicted peak power demand somehow. A dedicated parking spot with electrical socket will have to be provided.

Each Prius can generate 20 kw, so there must be more than enough V2G generating capacity than the highest peak demand in order for the scheme to work.

Admittedly, the scheme is harebrained. But, look at the summer black out in California some years ago, and don't you just wonder if there is a quick way to generate quick peak power capacity without major investment by the utility company?

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 6:52:36 AM

Neil,
Do you have data on the relationship between what percentage of SOC vs frequency in order to max out a battery kwh lifetime potential?

My cell phone instruction stated that since the battery can be recharged up to~300 times, so not to recharge it until the battery is low in order to max out the battery's wh potential in its lifespan.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 6:58:23 AM

Roger,
Technically it may be possible and even feasable. I didn't dispute technical feasability. I am a programmer, so know a few things about computers.

Of course, utilities would love to save money by using consumers' cars. You still didn't explain why would consumers want to offer their cars for utilities to use.

If there is a blackout such as in California or the big one couple of year ago in the north east, do you think that I would offer my Prius to generate electricity for the grid while I sit in the dark?????

I read an article about some man who plugged in Prius into his house during a hurricane when electricity was out. Of course, everyone will use their own Prius for their own power needs BEFORE offering energy to grid.

The point is that all/most of the benefit is for utilities and grid, while consumers see little in return. Thus consumer WILL NOT WANT to offer their Prius cars for this purpose.

Posted by: q | Oct 23, 2007 7:05:20 AM

Roger,
Prius uses 40% to 80% SOC range as maximizing NiMH chemistry lifespan. This is the common knowledge that NiMH don't like deep discharge nor full charge. Hence Prius' miniscule battery pack capacity is further reduced due to this limitation of being able to use only half of that capacity.

Lithium chemistry might tolerate deeper discharge, so probably handles a wider range. However they generally handle well over 300 cycles.

Also keep in mind that car batteries are designed to be much more robust then phone batteries.

Posted by: q | Oct 23, 2007 7:09:13 AM

Roger: When I attended Prof. Franks lecture I spent much of my time thinking that the last thing I wanted was someone else using up my precious battery cycles. So after the lecture I got a chance to talk to him directly. When I queried him about this concern he answered me to the effect that they wouldn't be cycling the battery deep enough to effect its lifespan. I'll look for a more formal link but for now I found the following quote from the battery university (the site looks a little out of date)

"A battery often receives many short discharges with subsequent recharges. With the smart battery, these cycles do not count because they stress the battery very little. On satellites, the depth-of-discharge is only about 10%. Such minute discharge cycles put the least amount of stress on the batteries in space. With shallow discharges, however, nickel-based batteries require a periodic deep discharge to eliminate memory.

Lithium and lead-based batteries do not require a periodic full discharge. In fact, it is better not to discharge them too deeply but charge them more often. Using a larger battery is one way to reduce the stress on a battery. "

Posted by: Neil | Oct 23, 2007 7:40:55 AM

g,
Let's imagine in the future, HEV market penetration will be 1/10 or higher, and imagine further that HEV's will be offered with the V2G option, paid for by the utility company, not all at once, but monthly, based on regular participation. The V2G car owner will be give credit or be paid monthly for each kwh supplied to the grid during peak demand.
Over the life span of the car, this payment may be as much as 5,000 to 10,000 dollars, thus more than the hybrid option for the car. The V2G option is already free.

Every workplace will, by local regulation, offer a certain number of V2G sockets on certain dedicated parking slot, similar to the requirement for handicap parking spots, and people with V2G-capable car will sign up for these preferential parking slot, which is located closer and has a roof over it for economic reason, thus protecting your car from damaging UV light, rain and hail. It's kinda like a VIP parking. Look at all the incentives for choosing a V2G option.

If each HEV can put out on average 10 kw power, it will take only 100 cars to generate 1 Mw of capacity. A few thousand cars, which is only 1-2% of cars in a small to medium size municipality, and you will way more than cover peak demand for that city.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 7:45:00 AM

So where is the business case for utilities paying HEV owners $5K to $10K over 10-20 years? That would be great as it would pay for several battery pack replacements. However, there is no information pointing to utilties wanting to pay so much.

Again, where is the business case for cities to build the infrastructure (sockets and such)? Often cities stuggle with existing expenditures and don't have much extra money for such projects. Also why would cities want HEVs generating MORE pollution in city cores???? Makes no sense.

"If each HEV can put out on average 10 kw power ...."
IT CANNOT put out 10 kw power. Neither city nor HEV owners want the car engines running right under their office windows. Nobody wants HEVs adding yet more pollution to cities. On the contrary, they are trying to reduce pollution from car travel.

Just picture a bunch of HEVs generating electricity during one of those hot summer days and all the smog getting yet worse. It would be a disaster. Why would I want my car running all day long during a hot day and engine getting very hot, etc. Plus I walk out of office directly into all these fumes?!?!? It is nuts.

Again, consider other factors besides technical feasability. Consider pollution. You cannot just run bunch of ICEs any place any time.

In fact, it is far easier to force people to reduce A/C usage than run a bunch of HEVs.

Posted by: q | Oct 23, 2007 8:15:34 AM

G, they aren't going to be remotely starting cars and running their engines to generate electricity. You're making an empty objection.

Posted by: jack | Oct 23, 2007 8:23:00 AM

10 kW out of PHEV...??
10 kW / 200 V (Gen III Prius Voltage) = 50 Amps.

At 6.5 Amp-Hr capacity and cycling it at only 1% of capacity (i.e. 0.65 available A-Hr) you get 47 seconds worth of smoothing capacity per vehicle. And that's assuming 100% inverter efficiency.

There is definitely potential for V2G - no doubt it makes some sense. But IFF the Generator of the car is cleaner and more efficient than that of the grid (see my first comment). When we have an engine that runs off fairy-dust/hopes/dreams/the cynicism of Americans than I'll sign up.

Posted by: TR | Oct 23, 2007 8:44:43 AM

I am not a V2G expert or anything, but I do not think that there is any effort going to be made to start the engines without drivers. The capacitor analogy is, I think, the most appropriate. Instead of numbers like 10 kW from 100 cars, I think that with population and penetration of this technology, that they are thinking more along the lines of 0.01 kW from 10,000 cars.

q, your example of a hot day is appropriate, but instead of the PHEV generating at that time, the electricity provider wants to be able to draw a little off the battery (knowing that you have an ICE to get you home) or at least to stop your car from drawing juice from the grid (if it does not have at least ~60% charge in the batteries).

Roger, it sure would be nice if these roofed parking structures were covered with PVs

Posted by: Kevin | Oct 23, 2007 8:48:50 AM

If utility wants to draw a tiny portion of a battery capacity and considering relatively small battery packs with SOC limitations, it seems to me that they would not be able to get much energy at all. Not enough to make any difference.

Let's look at some real numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prius

Latest model has 1.3 KWh battery pack
Next gen should double the pack, so say it has 2.6 KWh

SOC range is 40% 1.04 KWh to 80% 2.08 KWh = 1 KWh

You can only get about 1 KWh from the next gen Prius. Say utility only draws 10%, so 0.1 KWh per car.

For a utility anything below a 1 MWh is a pocket change.
1,000 / 0.1 = 10,000 cars

You need at least 10,000 cars to have any sort of impact!!! Of course, some cars may not be plugged in (in use), some may be empty, etc. so you may only count on half the cars actually being available to use. Now you need 20,000 cars to be able to get 1 MWh.

How much infrastructure is that? How much cost? Utility will decide it is far too much hassle. Much easier to build a coal plant and start it as needed. Much less problems.

Posted by: q | Oct 23, 2007 9:55:11 AM

jack,

If they don't start ICEs then utilities won't get much energy (see pervious post). Without ICEs there is not enough energy to bother with this entire scheme.

Posted by: q | Oct 23, 2007 9:56:13 AM

V2G seems like just another mis-information campaign to confuse/complicate progress so we can "keep it simple stoopid" and just use more of what we already got (yeah, I'm speaking stupid language about using OIL) I agree with TR, but can think of work-arounds for many problems he mentions at the expense of massive complications and expensive oversight. Who would actually want that or even think that is progress? Isn't the peak drain during the sunniest hottest of daylight hours? Hey lets invest trillions on something like V2G because it's far better than solar, did you know we'd have to invest trillions on solar? Wait, I'm thinking...ouch! Who the hell is in charge in this country? Oh, the oil industry's talking head. never-mind! Just invest trillions on oil wars, not solar cells which would provide jobs and actual progress!

Ahhh, thanks!
-S

Posted by: SM | Oct 23, 2007 10:00:37 AM

If they don't start ICEs then utilities won't get much energy (see pervious post). Without ICEs there is not enough energy to bother with this entire scheme.

First of all, what this sort of thing does is load balance. It's using power put in at night, stored in car batteries, and releasing it back during peak periods, as needed. It lowers the need for the amount of peak (on-demand) power capacity and better utilizes baseload power. It also provides a dual-use of storage instead of having reduntant storage mechanisms.

Without all the economic data (including risk assessment with respect to things like brown- and blackouts), there's no way to tell how this all breaks down economically. You're just shooting in the wind without any hard data. As for "infrastructure," basically all that it may entail are the sorts of devices used in intertie systems to send power back to a grid and meter, as well as some systems-level software and hardware to interact with the vehicles -- which the utilities already employ when they control things like people's air conditioners during peak demand periods. Bottom line is that utilities wouldn't be persuing this if they didn't think it had economic potential.

The US uses around 4 trillion kWh annually. Assume that half of that is consumed during an 8 hour period (obviously averaged over the time zones). That means there's around an average 700 million kW draw during working hours. There's around 230 million vehicles in the US national fleet. To provide a 10% buffer, assuming all vehicles were connected, would come out to 300 watts. That's an inconsequential amount of energy. Eight hours of that is the equivalent of driving a Tesla 10 miles.

Point is, there's plenty of potential capacity if the nation continues to have a large vehicle fleet and eventually most or all vehicles have the capacity to run 40 miles on electric power.

Posted by: jack | Oct 23, 2007 10:16:33 AM

Hey lets invest trillions on something like V2G because it's far better than solar, did you know we'd have to invest trillions on solar?

V2G and renewables are not substitutes, they are complements. Imagine a much bigger share for wind power. It could easily be used to charge the batteries in people's vehicles at night (or produce H2 for FCVs), then be used at peak daytime periods to deal with high demands on the grid.

Posted by: jack | Oct 23, 2007 10:19:17 AM

SM;

The local paper is reporting that the current US Adminstration has spent only $757 billions (about $540 billion Euro) on Oil wars in the last 7 years. That's a lot of wasted money but a far cry from $$ trillions.

At about $25k per home, you could equip about 30 million homes with appropriate solar systems. This would be enough to close the most dirty coal fired power generating plants and/or keep the first 30 million PHEVs/BEVs on the road.

Of course, to close all coal fired power plants and generate-distribute enough clean power for 150+ million PHEVs/BEVs you will have to invest at least 8 to 10 times that much.

Posted by: Harvey D | Oct 23, 2007 10:31:07 AM

Roger: FYI. I found this quote on the Motorola site:

" The relationship between DOD and cycle life is logarithmic. In other words, the number of cycles yielded by a battery goes up exponentially the lower the DOD. Research studies have shown that the typical cellular phone user depletes their battery about 25 to 30 percent before recharging. Testing has shown that at this low level of DOD a lithium-ion battery can expect between 5 and 6 times the cycle numbers of a battery discharged to the one hundred percent DOD level continuously."

Posted by: Neil | Oct 23, 2007 10:32:19 AM

750 billion is a far cry from 1,000 billion? Hm - seems kind of close to me.

The latest oil wars aren't the only oil wars we've waged, nor is the "normal" military budget (and "security" and "intelligence" expenditures) included in the war costs. Most conventional measurements for the cost of the Iraq/Afghan wars have to do with the "supplementary" expenditures for expenses above baseline military budgets, which are substantially higher than they have been in the recent past.

If you add in the costs to people all around the world in terms of much higher oil and natural gas prices brought on by all this "instability," it easily gets into the trillions.

Posted by: jack | Oct 23, 2007 11:09:55 AM

g,
Your skepticism is reasonable, given this revolutionary idea. But, let's consider this:
The grid is aging and is busting at the seam from overloading. WE desperately need distributive power generation to ease the load on the aging grid. Overhauling and upgrading the grid is very expensive.

Peak load capacity is expensive due to gas turbine only used for a small fraction of the time. Gas turbines are very expensive machine due to the nature of gas turbines AND the low production number. Car engines are cheap due to the very large production number. GAs turbines wear out quickly if it is frequently being turned on or off or throttling in respond to peak load fluctuation. Car engines can be throttled ad nauseum without harm, or can be stopped and restart like a HEV without harm.

HEV's has 1/4 the pollution emission of a non-HEV. Running steady state for power generation generates very little pollution, even lower than that put out by the power plant. Only 100 cars can put out the equivalence of 2 MegaWatt of power.

HEV investment goes largely idled for most of the day. The car is driven for 30 min to 1 hr. the most daily, while the rest of the time it sits idle doing nothing. This is a terrible waste of capital investment.

For a $1000 investment an utility company has to pay for the V2G option of a privately-owned HEV, they get back 20kw of capacity. To buy a gas turbine for this, they will have to pay $10,000-14,000, PLUS a load of money to upgrade the grid to handle the extra load, or massive black out can happen.

Due to the enticing nature of VIP parking, the utility don't have to pay too much above base cost per kwh of peak electricity in order to get the HEV owner to sign up fo V2G service. With such a low investment, utility co. can make enormous profit!

A NG-HEV can be fueled at home, thus halving the fuel cost, and V2G participants can buy so much NG a month at bulk rate similar to what the utility co. pays for NG. A V2G owner, if paid $0.10 per kwh, will earn $10,000 after 100,000 kwh output, or 5,000 hrs of engine steady running at 20 kw power level. This is only 1/2 or less of the engine's durability.

Thanks, Neil, for the info on battery DOD charging vs. frequency.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 11:32:22 AM

Assume the engine burns only one gallon of fuel each of those 5,000 hours. At $3 per gallon of gas, that is $15,000 of fuel burned. I don't know about you, but I would hardly allow the power company to run my engine for 5,000 hours in return for $10,000, when my cost is $15,000 for the additional fuel burned, plus having to replace the engine in half the time, plus returning to my car to find the tank empty, etc.

Posted by: greener | Oct 23, 2007 12:12:11 PM

Assume the engine burns only one gallon of fuel each of those 5,000 hours. At $3 per gallon of gas, that is $15,000 of fuel burned.

I'm sorry, but could someone who understands V2G raise their hands if they believe that V2G is the intention to burn 5,000 gallons of gasoline per vehicle to generate electricity.

[no hands rise]

Posted by: jack | Oct 23, 2007 12:23:29 PM

greener: I wouldn't worry too much about using your car to generate power for the grid. I personally don't think I'd want a running car sitting in my garage for any length of time. I also don't think generating electricity from oil is an option. NG is a pretty good idea, but I'd rather use some PV panels on my roof. Most proponents of V2G are more interested in the ability to utilize the battery capacity of PHEVs and BEVs to store energy from intermittent sources or just reduce the need for spinning reserves on the grid. It would also be nice to have the generating capacity in case of emergency.

Posted by: Neil | Oct 23, 2007 12:54:01 PM

For NG, it will probably be $5000-7000 fuel cost instead of $15,000 for gasoline, or a lot less if V2G owners get to purchase NG at bulk rate as compensation for their participation. And then again, they'll pay the owners more, may be $0.15 per kwh. Let's not use gasoline for the purpose of V2G, folks!

Those who don't like ICE-HEV V2G do not have to participate. It only takes 1% of vehicles to participate to be sufficient. The ability to park in VIP slot and to make a few thousands dollars profit for the use of a car that sits most of the time doing noting is sufficient incentive for me. Modern ICE-HEV's engine and generator are very durable. Piston engine generator can go for 50,000 hrs before overhaul. My Prius ran for 5,000 miles per oil change and no oil is consumed at all at each oilchange interval. The Prii used as taxis ran for 500,000 kms with no problem, and that is stop and go traffic with much higher stress on the engine, generator and motor.

Rooftop PV panel and wind turbines are also great as peakload relievers, but, if the sun do not shine, or in evening hrs when solar output is markedly decrease, or when the wind does not blow, then you will appreciate the ability of these ICE-HEV V2G kicks in to give the extra juice and save the grid from collapse.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 1:50:55 PM

One step further, there may be a plug out line for the coolant of the HEV and another line for the exhaust in order to harness waste heat from the engine that can be used for space heating, adsorptive cooler, or water heating. That way, we don't have to worry about running the car in a garage with closed door. The exhaust line vented outside and in so doing, is going thru a heat exchanger to harness the heat from the exhaust.
This can double the energy efficiency of the vehicle to nearly 80% or higher, and more money to be saved.

Much more importantly, this will encourage far more people to buy HEV, and the potential in fuel saving will be enormous.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 2:09:20 PM

1 gallon gasoline = 115,000 BTU = 33.7 kWh

At 37% efficiency, yields 12.5 kWh.

That's about 25 cents/kWh at $3/gallon, over 30 cents at California prices.

Nobody in their right mind is going to use motor fuel to run the grid except in emergencies. The people who are talking about it (Roger Pham & Co.) need to get their heads on straight.

Posted by: Reality Czech | Oct 23, 2007 2:25:37 PM

Realty check,
re-read my previous posting:

"For NG, (Natural Gas) it will probably be $5000-7000 fuel cost instead of $15,000 for gasoline, or a lot less if V2G owners get to purchase NG at bulk rate as compensation for their participation. And then again, they'll pay the owners more, may be $0.15 per kwh. Let's not use gasoline for the purpose of V2G, folks!"

This V2G deal will also accelerate the adaptation of NG vehicle and help reduce petroleum dependency, while increase utilization of HEV.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 5:47:26 PM

Thanks, Reality Czech, for illustrating how much we have been price gouged regarding high energy prices at the pump!
Remember that the efficiency of an HEV engine is comparable to that of a gas turbine at the powerplant. Ergo, the $0.25/kwh reflects high energy price (petrol) and not any superior efficiency from the utility company.
I pay ~13.7 cents/kwh where I live, so it must have cost the utility co. ~under 10 cents/kwh to produce the electricity, more like 7-8 cents. A large proportion of power plants where I live use coal-fired steam turbine at ~35% efficiency the most!

So, if coal is gasified into either H2 or converted to methanol or methane, we would be paying less than half for energy cost at the pump. Something to think about, isn't it?

Even wind electricity to H2 via HT-SOEC at 1.4 x .92= 128% efficiency, and at wind electricity at $0.07 /kwh, 33kwh/1.28= 25kwh wind electricity needed, 25 x 7 cents= 180 cents, or $1.8/kg of H2 or equal to 1 gallon of gasoline. Adding profit and other costs, and wind to H2 can be brought to competitive price with retail petrol at the pump!

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 6:40:41 PM

Adding to above, if CO2 and steam are both fed to the HT-SOEC (high-temp Solid Oxide Electrolytic Cell), we will get methane as product, all in one step. Methane has 3x the energy density of H2 at a given pressure, and so is more appropriate for current HEV technology. Methane can be transported long distance via pipelines, so, HT-SOEC apparatus can be set up in the desert Southwest USA, using concentrated solar heat and electricity to feed the SOEC, with CO2 and water trucked in or transported via pipelines. The methane product will be flowed back to the west coast, mid-west and other regions for consumption.

Alternatively, HVDC (High Voltage DC) power lines can be built to transmit the electricity from the desert to the rest of the country, and this electricity will be combined with the waste heat and waste CO2 from a gas turbine power plant for HT-SOEC to produce methane and H2. I'd bet that with the price of petrol as high as it is right now, even renewable energy fuels will be competitive in the market place without government incentives.

In the future, when >50%-efficient H2-ICE-HEV will be developed, or FC-hybrid become more affordable, then H2 will do just fine by itself.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 23, 2007 7:33:13 PM

Hold on people. V2G will NOT be working on the small sized Prius battery packs, not even Prius 3 packs, but could work on Volt sized packs or larger. V2G will NEVER require anyone running their motor while parked. It would occasionally take a very small percentage of your battery charge to temporarily help support the grid, no harm no foul, end of story.

Posted by: John | Oct 23, 2007 7:47:17 PM

Lots of fun reading on this one! V2G is nowhere near ready for prime time. But it does raise the interesting issue of allowing a single source energy supplier to take control of your vehicle.

The need for peak power mitigation results from over-reliance on electrical cooling of homes and offices, manufacturing etc. So, maybe the utility should think about less complex ways to get their customers to cool structures more efficiently (insulation, blinds, thermal architecture, heat pumps, telecommutes, etc).

Next, if the "grid" was reconfigured to encourage community PV/wind generating systems, single family, multi-units, shared rooftop, etc. AND next generation net metering managed the return to grid loop - the problem of peak demand could be addressed incrementally.

The grid needs to become a matrix of the present grid overlayed with newer, smaller supplemental power sources. These small systems can be private sector or community/municipal efforts that sell power to local PHEVs/BEVs and sell excess power back to utilities. The benefits are significant:

Second-source energy supply.
Renewable resource.
Security enhancement (hard to damage hundreds of sources)
Small business opportunities i.e. JOBS.
Major hedge against grid & utility failures.
Diversification of energy resources - avoid monopolization of energy like petroleum did.

V2G is an engineering exercise at this stage. It could play a role in the small overlay grids. Too soon to know. But we would like to see an overlay of small energy suppliers who can use next gen net metering to sell their power to local consumers.

The intelligence added to a vehicle for V2G should be used to give the consumer an opportunity to "shop" for lowest or greenest energy suppliers. This keeps the energy industry diversified and puts a portion of market control in the hands of consumers, aka "the people." IMO

Posted by: gr | Oct 23, 2007 8:09:24 PM

We seem to have two competing pro-V2G visions here. One is that in order to store enough power to make V2G worthwhile, the V2G participants would have to allow their vehicles ICE to be run for thousands of hours. The other is that in no way does V2G involve running the ICE of the V2G participant vehicles. In fact, it wouldn't even require deep cycling of the participant's batteries. It would simply involve the occasional use of a "tiny fraction" of the battery capacity of V2G participant vehicles.

I argue that neither of these scenarios is likely. The argument against the first scenario is that nobody is going to want to allow the electric utility to run their vehicle's ICE remotely for any period of time, let alone for thousands of hours. Would you stand for the utility starting your ICE, running it for hours, depleting your fuel supply, wearing out your engine? Would you want to be anywhere near a parking lot on a hot summer day with hundreds of ICE's belching out pollutants? Would you want to work near such a V2G lot?

The argument against the second scenario is that it would produce such a miniscule amount of additional power, the infrastructure cost would be ridiculously high relative to the benefit received. I believe the capacity of the Volt battery is about 5kWh. A "tiny fraction" of this capacity (say 10%) is .5 kWh. That's about 5 to 10 cents of electricity. What would be the cost of supplying the infrastructure to take an occasional 5 to 10 cents of electricity from a PHEV battery?

The problem with using the V2G vehicle's motor to generate the electricity is that nobody would stand for it.

The problem with using the V2G vehicle's battery to supply the electricity is that it either supplies so little electricity back to the grid that its not worth the infrastructure cost, or if a greater amount of electricity is drawn from the battery, it wears out the extremely expensive batteries much more quickly.

Posted by: Greener | Oct 23, 2007 8:53:35 PM

The proposed Volt battery pack is 16 kWh, not 5 kWh, engineered to stay within 30-80% SOC. That means there's 8 kWh of power available, and even at 10%, it would be 1.6 kWh.

As stated before, average hourly peak electricity use is roughly 700 million kWh. Assume 10% peak demand that needs to be shaved. That's 70 million kWh. That would draw 700 Wh per vehicle. Even if the utility was only pulling 10% of the pack's power (and again, this is with a first generation series plug-in), that could a 10% peak for 11-12 hours.

The thing about a nickel to a dime relative to infrastructure costs is silly. This wouldn't be a one-off thing, nor does it account for the costs of the extra capacity (both in generating and delivery) that would otherwise have been built (what is known as the "opportunity cost") as well as the savings from avoiding brownouts and blackouts.

It's completely feasible.

Posted by: jack | Oct 23, 2007 9:07:55 PM

greener: Don't forget that peak electricity is by far the most expensive for the utility because it has to be supplied by generating capacity that otherwise sits idle, or even worse is sitting there generating power that nobody can use. That's while they'll be willing to pay you enough for your power to make what you're calling the "second scenario" worth while.

Posted by: Neil | Oct 23, 2007 10:14:24 PM

jack says: "As stated before, average hourly peak electricity use is roughly 700 million kWh. Assume 10% peak demand that needs to be shaved. That's 70 million kWh. That would draw 700 Wh per vehicle. Even if the utility was only pulling 10% of the pack's power (and again, this is with a first generation series plug-in), that could a 10% peak for 11-12 hours."

Based on your assumptions, 700 million kWh is used per HOUR of peak usage and 10% of that needs to be shaved. That's 70 million kWh per HOUR. Assuming every one of the 230 millions vehicle in the country is a PHEV and every one of them is connected to the grid and free to supply power, that is .3 kWh per Hour of peak shaving. You mentioned 11-12 hours of peak shaving, that would equate to 3.3 to 4 kWh from EVERY VEHICLE in the country.

And this assumes that every vehicle in the country is a PHEV, and every one of those vehicles is available to provide power during the peak hours. Which is a ridiculous assumption. After 10 years of the availability of HEV's, they comprise somewhere in the low single digits of the US vehicle fleet. Further, to assume that every vehicle is available for peak shaving assumes that there are 230 million plus connections to the grid and that nobody is driving anywhere during peak hours. If "only" half of the vehicles are PHEV's, and "only" half of these are available for supplying power back to the grid, now we are up to 1.2 kWh of power supplied by each vehicle connected to the grid for each hour of peak shaving.

Nor does this account for the cost of providing 230 million separate connections to the grid (actually, it would take well above 230 million unless you want to assume that every vehicle is parked at the very same place during the peak period every day).

Finally, I didn't realize that GM was planning to use a 16 kWh battery in the Volt. If that is the case, I can't imagine they will be able to bring the Volt to market for the $30k price they are talking about. Now I understand why the GM CEO was talking about selling the car and leasing the battery.

Posted by: Greener | Oct 24, 2007 12:22:42 AM

Greener, you're getting a number of things turned around.

First, I thought I had made it explicit but guess I didn't in my prior post that I was referring to a scenario of 100 million vehicles. This is much less than half the current US vehicle fleet, so in the time frame that this sort of thing would have mass application (or at least wide regional application in prime markets like Southern California), you're probably looking at 7-10 years, depending on a lot of factors. A lot is going to change in that time period, so all these rough calcs have to be kept in context that they're just there to test concept feasibility.

The reason I said the amount of time that this resource could be used to shave off 10% of the peak use is that there is no way that it would be needed for that length of time, nor is that a realistic amount of time, since the daytime idle time of most vehicles is the standard work day -- around 8 to 5. And the time period that is of most concern is probably from 2-6 pm in terms of peak electricity use on the hottest days.

I didn't really go into detail about why one would want distributed storage like this, in terms of lowering redundancies for power supply across a grid and mostly in terms of helping avoid the baseline production problem associated with solar and wind.

I also don't think anyone looks at this as some sort of complete solution, merely as part of a number of solutions.

But if the issue is capacity for dealing with peak power needs, and assuming sufficient market penetration of vehicles with the kinds of electrical (or hydrogen) storage capabilities along the lines that we see with the Volt, then clearly it's feasible in terms of capacity.

The economic equation is far more complex than you give it credit as well, and I and others have touched upon this already. The infrastructure question is also relatively moot, as connecting to a "reversible outlet" doesn't require anything beyond standard 120V, and we've already covered that the control mechanisms from the utility are already established with the programs they have now for cycling end-user air conditioners and such. Metering is also a trivial consideration, especially 7-10 years from now.

No one's claiming that all the cars in America will need to be connected simultaneously and that they'll need to power the whole country by themselves.

It's just an idea that some entities are experimenting with right now. No need to get worked into a froth about it until it comes closer to fruition.

Posted by: jack | Oct 24, 2007 12:42:06 AM

CAISO publishes system load data for most of California (11m households). On hot days the 24 hour graph looks kind of like a sine wave between 25 and 45 GW. Full day usage is roughly 35 GW * 24 hr = 840 GWh. If the 20m vehicles in CAISO's service area were V2G PHEVs, at 8 kWh (40 miles) per day the full day electric usage would be 1000 GWh instead of 840. The daily load graph would be a 42 GW flat line instead of a 25-45 GW sinusoid-ish curve.

Note that most of the V2G PHEV load leveling effect comes from "filling in the valley" instead of "flattening the peak". The PHEVs intelligently charge during the 19 hours when other uses draw less than 42 GW and feed up to 3 GW of power back into the grid during the 5 peak hours. Total energy fed back into the grid would be roughly 10 GWh.

3 GW / 20m cars = 150 W per car
10 GWh / 20m cars = 500 Wh per car

150 W is laughably small, and 500 Wh represents 3% DOD for a Chevy Volt-sized pack and only a couple miles of lost range. And remember, this only happens on hot days. On most days PHEVs don't need to feed into the grid at all.

[NOTE: For simplicity I divide load into baseload and peak, which differs slightly from convention.]

The daily profile changes from 600 GWh of baseload plus 240 GWh of peak, to a simple 1000 GWh of baseload. CA peakers are typically single-cycle gas turbines, which run a bit over 30% efficient. Combined-cycle gas turbines used for baseload can achieve 60% thermal efficiency. The utilities can thus generate 400 GWh of baseload with less natural gas than they currently burn to supply the 240 GWh peak. So CA would actually burn less natural gas while also eliminating 30 million gallons/day of gasoline consumption.

Hmmmmm, maybe V2G isn't so harebrained after all.

Posted by: doggydogworld | Oct 24, 2007 10:03:36 AM

@ DoggyDogWorld:

I don't think anyone through this thread has been questioning that aspect of PHEV's. What you're refering to is just the Plug-in nature of a hybrid. I think its great to have that capability.

The question is the merit of doing short-term Grid Regulation by means of Vehicle-to-Grid.

***Does it ever make economic or environmental sense to used stored energy in the batteries of the PHEV as a means of helping the Grid when the frequency or voltage lags???***

Many people who have previously posted have made points for both sides of the arguement. It is a lot of reading to catch up fully but it may be worth the read.

Posted by: TR | Oct 24, 2007 10:42:51 AM

jack; suffice to say I think you are wildly overoptimistic in several of your assumptions. First, if HEV's which (at least in the case of the Prius) are cost competitive with comparable non-HEV's haven't penetrated more than low single digits of the market after 9 years, then I think it highly unlikely that PHEV's, which will have a huge cost differetial, will generate the market penetration to make V2G remotely economic in "7-10 years." I'll be surprised if PHEV's have achieved a greater market penetration in 7-10 years than the low single digit pentration HEV's have achieved in their first 7-10 years.

Second, providing the infrastructure to support V2G, is far more than the simple provision of a "reversible outlet." As you said, most people are at work during the peak energy usage periods when V2G could help with peak shaving. I have yet to see a parking lot equipped with outlets serving each space, allowing for a simple retrofit of a reversible outlet as your post seems to imply. The cost of installing the miles of conduit, cabling, and hundreds of outlets to supply a large parking lot would be significant. Copper electrical cable is so costly these days, it is routinely stolen for sale to scrap dealers. I could easily see this costing over $100K for a large lot.

Third, wouldn't some percentage of PHEV owners want to or need to charge during the peak hours, thus ADDING to the peak demand? Assuming that the maximum amount of battery capacity that could be used for V2G is 10%, and assuming that PHEV's are never discharged by more than 50% of capacity, 1 PHEV charging during peak hours would offset 5 that are discharging. If only 5% of PHEV's charge during peak hours, then another 25% must be discharging just to break even on peak energy usage.

I could go on, but as you said, its not worth getting into a froth over.

Posted by: Greener | Oct 24, 2007 10:51:38 PM

Greener posted: "I argue that neither of these scenarios is likely. The argument against the first scenario is that nobody is going to want to allow the electric utility to run their vehicle's ICE remotely for any period of time, let alone for thousands of hours. Would you stand for the utility starting your ICE, running it for hours, depleting your fuel supply, wearing out your engine? Would you want to be anywhere near a parking lot on a hot summer day with hundreds of ICE's belching out pollutants? Would you want to work near such a V2G lot?"

Economic 101, Greener: People would do it if it would make them thousands to tens of dollars in profit over the useful life span of their vehicle, AND to get to park in reserved, VIP-standard parking spot, which is covered and right next to the building. No more walking in the rain, snow, or scorching hot summer sun to your car. Less risk of getting run-over or mugged in the parking lot.

You see, Greener, ICE's are so durable these days that they can run as genset for tens of thousands of hours before needing overhaul. For a careful and gentle driver, the engine is still fully usable after 300,000 miles, but, because the car's interior, body and electrical system is so deteriorated with age that the car has to be junked. What a waste! The permanent magnet generator will also last indefinitely because it has no brushing to wear out. Perhaps only the bearing needs changing after 10,000 hrs.

AS for the pollution part, HEV engines are the least polluting power plants these days, with far less NOx than an utility power plant. An engine running on NG (natural gas) puts out even less pollutants than a gasoline engine, and that's why many major cities are mandating buses to run on NG instead of diesel. You are not gonna get any cleaner air when the utility power plants are running to produce peak electrical power. Many of these are coal-fired plants which belch out toxic NOx in large quantity and mercury and particulate matters.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 24, 2007 11:16:32 PM

Correction to above: "Economic 101, Greener: People would do it if it would make them thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in profit over the useful life span of their vehicle..."

Indeed, being able to run your HEV on NG (natural gas) alone would cut your fuel bill to less than half. Being able to fill it up at home means that you can simple plug it in when you get home and unplug it the next morning before going to work.
The engine is programmed to stop running BEFORE the fuel reserve drops down to a certain level, leaving you with much more than enough fuel to get home.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 24, 2007 11:26:36 PM

I didn't read all the posts in this comment thread, but there seems to be a trend about using V2G to offset peak demand on the grid. I think this is not really the right concept for using PHEV battery packs to "balance" the grid. IMHO the better idea is to use your PHEV battery as a sort of energy TIVO for time-shifting electricity demand on a very small scale (one home/business etc). If the battery charges at night when grid load is low, it could then be used to supplement electricity during peak load of the grid. The only incentive necessary is dynamic KWh pricing from the utility as the grid load changes. Every home could have a "grid load gauge" so that energy consumers could make the economic decisions about when to use which source of energy: the grid or the battery pack. I could really see this being a big deal encouraging businesses to invest in PHEV fleets.

2 cents

Posted by: Culprititus | Oct 25, 2007 7:24:25 AM

Greener, you just made a fairly extended argument against BEVs, although I'm not sure you realize that.

I'll simplify this - if and when there are a sufficiently large number of vehicles with a considerable amount of on-board electrical storage capability, V2G will be common as well.

V2G could be done right now. It's really no different from intertying renewables and having the utility cycle one's air conditioner during certain peak periods.

As for when people are going to charge, there will be variable pricing for electricity throughout the day, just like it is for many utilities now.

Case in point of you unintentionally dissing BEVs and PHEVs - "I have yet to see a parking lot equipped with outlets serving each space." First of all, there are such places - at least with some outlets for EVs. The fact that you haven't personally seen one doesn't mean they don't exist. Secondly, if BEVs and/or PHEVs get sufficient market penetration, outlets in parking lots will become common. As for the cost, are you really trying to say that it's expensive to set up some outlets? Compared to the cost of a parking structure? Especially in cities? Come on. If outlets are so expensive, why do you have dozens of them in your home?

Posted by: jack | Oct 25, 2007 8:20:28 AM

@ Culprititus

Along with that idea, how about using the PHEV as an emergency source of power as well.

Right now, most grid-connected renewable systems (solar, wind) can't "island" - when the grid fails, or goes under/overvolt, the inverter disconnects completely.

But, there are grid-connect inverters that can island - let them dump their renewable energy into the vehicle's battery for use later that night - and offer the option to start the vehicle's onboard range extender for add'l power.

Posted by: | Oct 27, 2007 5:49:38 PM