This does not excite me. Southeast utilities and regulators and congresscritters have shown no interest in expanding renewable energy in the region, but have encouraged the construction of new coal plants. Electric cars in the Southeast will be running off of coal and nuclear power -- and that's not really an improvement.

Let's get electric cars in places where the carbon footprint per kWh is low, not where it's high. Let's get those electric cars in the midwest, in California, etc.

Actually it is an improvement, but not by much. Studies have been done that show even when recharged by 100% coal power EVs reduce CO2 emissions by 17-22%.
http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf

Even so, we should be expanding renewable energy in the grid and using cleaner fuels in our cars.

I sense that a number of utilities are smelling 'auto profit margin' and will likely charge far, far, above normal house grid rates for access to energy - maybe even at our own houses. We need to quickly get legislation in place to standardize and make transparent access to energy or we are going to have hook-ups similar to that for cel phones - different plugs/meters for different vehicles/utility-suppliers so as to control where we charge and premiums for roaming. We may be over a barrel here, the utilities may not develop the technology unless they have guarantees that they can charge auto-energy premiums. Must this happen with every utility/communication industry - cable, telephone, cel, internet service?

I can see no reason why you would pay above the odds to charge your EV at home or in work. These could be considered "landlines".

However, if you wanted to charge at a city car park, or somewhere outside your control, you could be in for it.
This could be considered "mobile".

As Ger says, we need standard plugs and sockets to avoid a huge mess.

As a first approximation, the charging rates could be done by time of day and time of week.

I am not sure there is much to be gained by trying to make it real time so you can pick up on excess wind capacity - the best thing would be to get into a "charge at night and when you first get to work" routine and stick to it.

You would probably get 80% of the benefit for this much effort - 20% of the work.

I am sure charging EVs at night on coal electricity has little CO2 impact - what happens to the power if it is not used ? (Does anyone know ?)

@ai_vin

You are reference a 1996 report and quoting numbers “According to the World Resources Institute” which certainly does not qualify as serious LCA. Least we forget, this is another example of how California says they are going to do something but it never really happens.

New demand for electricity in California would come from importing more LNG to be burned in inefficient power plants.

Duke and Progress Energy are building 8 new nukes. The coal plant that Duke is building will replace an older plant. Duke has also announced a joint venture to build 50 MWe biomass plants.

I have worked for both Duke and a California PUD. It would be hard to find a California utility that is a better steward of the environment than Duke.

So what are you saying? That electricity from the the greater use of NG, new nukes, new coal plant and new biomass plants would make EVs even cleaner than if they were recharged from 100% coal?

BTW does that, recharged from 100% coal, ever actually happen in the real world? What state doesn't have a mix or doesn't have grid inter-ties?

And yes California didn't make this happen, yet, but let's be fair; they were baseing this on the mass production of an EV(the EV1) by a major car company(GM). Who would have figured GM would so shortsighted to have canceled the car, take back the leases and send them all to the crusher?

Quoth Jer:

I sense that a number of utilities are smelling 'auto profit margin' and will likely charge far, far, above normal house grid rates for access to energy - maybe even at our own houses.

Not likely; if they did that, folks would just defeat the charger control and its scheduling system to get the base rate.

The utilities are in this for two big reasons:

1. Being able to schedule demand improves the utilization of their assets, making them more profitable because the fixed costs are spread over more electricity sold.
2. Being able to use control over EV chargers for grid regulation avoids the use of costlier methods, reducing outlays.

It's ironic that GM's termination of the EV1 may wind up sending GM to the crusher.

@ai_vin & mahonj

What I am saying it that BEV can be no better with respect to ghg than the source of electricity. There are two big unknowns, technical and customer preference.

When you turn on a light or plug in a battery charger, somewhere a generator increased power production. To evaluate the environment impact of BEV you have to know what the environment of that increased demand. The problem is we do not know what that is.

If the rolling reserve is some old coal or natural gas plant, BEV will make the grid dirtier by burning more fossil fuel. Only the power that is needed is generated, but is it being generated more efficiently than an ICE.

Every power plant wears out each time there is a load cycle. In theory the energy wasted on charging batteries is compensated by keeping the power plant operating where it is more efficient. The idea of the smart grid is we would turn on off BEV chargers or hot water heaters to keep power plants operating at peak performance.

I am skeptical. Even if the smart grid worked well for the power plant all those duty cycles are being transferred to the millions of customer devices. If this form of load dispatching results in the unintended consequence of more frequent dispatching of repair people or fire putter out people then it will be ugly. ai_vin how is your CPR and AED skills?

The second issue is more important. Are customer preferences going to select BEVs? Every time journey past the parking lot on my way home, it sure looks like they are handing out one way tickets to stupidville. What is with the red $75K convertible parked in the handicapped spot? GM based mass production of BEV based on the California mandate. Have you been to California? What is with all the jacked up 4wds? First it does not snow in LA and San Jose. Second a high center of gravity is a good combo for slick roads and clueless drivers.

The is a problem with leftist mandates is getting the National Guard to enforce the mandate when you will not them drive their hummers to the riot.

In other words, BEV are not a good environment choice which precludes rational people as customers. If do provides a rational reason to use BEV, I will change my mind. Then there are all the folks who by POV on some other basis.

From the grasping-at-straws department:

If this form of load dispatching results in the unintended consequence of more frequent dispatching of repair people or fire putter out people then it will be ugly. ai_vin how is your CPR and AED skills?

And when you choke on your manufactured outrage, who's gonna pay for the EMTs?

it sure looks like they are handing out one way tickets to stupidville.

"They"?  Wrong pronoun; should be first person singular.

@E-P

Grow up! Do you need [/humor] in a post to help you distinguish what should not be take literally.
“Being able to use control over EV chargers for grid regulation avoids the use of costlier methods, reducing outlays.”

E-P has previously is lack of knowledge of generating electricity and grid regulation. Since this basically make believe, maybe E-P would entertain us by explaining his theory.

"In other words, BEV are not a good environment choice [sic] which precludes rational people as customers. If do provides [sic] a rational reason to use BEV, I will change my mind. Then there are all the folks who by POV on some other basis."
What?

"E-P has previously is lack of knowledge [sic] of generating electricity and grid regulation. Since this basically make believe [sic], maybe E-P would entertain us by explaining his theory."
Huh? Perhaps you should entertain the notion of improving your proofreading skills, or else undergo vision correction surgery like our good friend Wintermane did. It is difficult to determine whether the logic of your posts are sound when they lack a basic level of grammar and legibility.

The Kit P troll claims to have expertise, but he is obviously not conversant with any of the work that's already been done in the area, including actual tests of the grid/battery interaction and estimates of the value produced.

@E-P
Linking out date, irreverent stuff is not the explaining your unverified theory.

Oh, look at him sputter incoherently!

And all because I was irreverent!  (What did I do, remind you that whatever god-like qualities you have are the personality failings from various pagan pantheons?)

This is great.  Someone make popcorn.

“Being able to use control over EV chargers for grid regulation avoids the use of costlier methods, reducing outlays.”

E-P please explain current method for controlling grid voltage, frequency, and power factor.

Then explain the properties of batteries and devices to convert DC to AC can be used as a control function.

It is irrelevant when your links are old reports written by folks who want to sell you equipment. What would relevant is a report by Duke Power saying that a large number customers feeding power into the grid would lower the cost to Duke Power and therefore Duke Power should help pay for and maintain the equipment.

Neither Duke or Progress issued a press release, Just Advanced Energy.

Kit P, are you dyslexic? You claim to be an engineer. Do you ever have to write reports? If so, do you have someone to proofread them?

E-P please explain current method for controlling grid voltage, frequency, and power factor.

No, Mr. Troll.

No, I am not going to bother quoting the sections of the above-referenced reports which address the exact points you imply have not been addressed.  No, I am not going to give you the education you obviously (by your failure to show what's wrong with the claim) lack.

No, I am not going to spend my time writing something that will be absolutely wasted on you.

“If so, do you have someone to proofread them?” Yes, Bob.

@E-P,

So Kit P is a troll?

OK, gotcha. Thanks!

To educate E-P, the frequency of the grid is controlled by speed regulators of generator prime mover. A very well tuned cruise control. Every generator on the grid is synchronized together in phase.

Grid voltage is controlled by the voltage regulator at the generator. Power factor is controlled at generator by over exciting the voltage regulator. Power factor can also be adjusted close to the load with such things as capacitor banks. These may be the ‘costlier methods’ that E-P is referring to. AEP is actually demonstrating the use of batteries but I have not read any results but if it is a good idea many utilities will start doing it.

The history power point presentation that E-P linked is interesting. Before power point presentation in the early 90s, California mandated BEV to improve air quality without regard for who would buy them or where the electricity would come from.

BEV MIA.

By 2000/2001, California figured out the where the electricity was not coming from, their grid. Now we come to the 2001 power point presentations that E-P linked. It was proposed that BEV could feed back power to the grid to compensate for lack of generating capacity where and when it is needed. Same non existent solution but now it can fix a new problem.

The theory is California wind mills that generate electricity when and where it is not needed and BEV could store the energy returning it to the grid when and where it is needed.

The first problem with E-P’s theory is battery charging is a different set of equipment than feeding power back to the grid back.

The second problem is that the BEV charging station is not going to be where the BEV is when feeding power back to the grid back is needed. Ooops the BEV moved!

Both of these problems can be solved with one solution that is suitable for air quality issues for California. Create parking structures covered in solar PV assuming that the equipment for feeding power back to the grid back is the same for solar and BEVs.

An equivalent solution to a 1000 BEV parked in the same spot with 1 MWe solar system would be a 1 MWe CHP stationary ICE generator at a capitol cost of $1.5 million.

Quoth the troll:

To educate E-P

You just keep telling yourself that, until the nice men in the white coats come for you.

the frequency of the grid is controlled by speed regulators of generator prime mover.

The frequency of the grid is controlled by the balance of power input vs. output. To quote a source which actually has authority,

Traditionally, frequency regulation is managed by varying the output of fossil fuel or hydro generators connected to the electric grid.

Every generator on the grid is synchronized together in phase.

No they aren't. Phase varies from point to point on the grid, because power flow is proportional to the sine of the phase difference between ends of a line. The more output a generator produces, the more advanced its phase becomes compared to the points downstream.

Grid voltage is controlled by the voltage regulator at the generator. Power factor is controlled at generator by over exciting the voltage regulator.

Wrong twice, but subtly.

1. Grid voltage is controlled by the injection of reactive power (volt-amperes reactive, or VARs). VARs can be generated by over-excited synchronous generators, by capacitors, or anything which generates a waveform where current leads voltage.
2. Power factor is the ratio of real power to total volt-amperes; it is the cosine of the angle between voltage and current.

Grid voltage can be increased at any particular point by connecting a capacitor across the line. Strange, but true; AC grids are highly counter-intuitive, as are induction motors.

Power factor can also be adjusted close to the load with such things as capacitor banks.

That's the first thing you said that was right. You're batting 0.250.

These may be the ‘costlier methods’ that E-P is referring to.

Whoops! Wrong twice in one sentence:

1. The reference was for grid regulation, not power-factor correction.
2. The "costlier methods" involve powerplants which can vary their output rapidly. These are, aside from hydro, usually the most expensive powerplants to run.

Batting 0.167.

The history power point presentation that E-P linked is interesting.

Thank you for proving that you didn't even look; neither report came anywhere near PowerPoint. Batting 0.143.

The theory is California wind mills

Nothing to do with wind turbines. Batting 0.125.

The first problem with E-P’s theory is battery charging is a different set of equipment than feeding power back to the grid back [sic].

With the AC Propulsion reductive charging system, they are exactly the same. The induction motor's inverter system treats charging the same as regenerative braking, except that it doesn't need to generate reactive power to excite the motor.

Looks like you're 1 for 9, and that's not including points I decided not to address. I think that's better than your historical average, but your grasp of English grammar appears to be slipping to compensate.

@E-P

Actually E-P I asked you twice to explain when you linked multiple documents. The information I provided is 100% correct. However, I am afraid you failed practical power plant electrical theory and I would not allow you to work under my supervision at the power plant. Nice text book answers, I sure your professors would be proud.

You are close enough that we can continue the discussion. Your links lead me to power points that discussed wind.

From, Vehicle-to-Grid Demonstration Project: Grid Regulation Ancillary Service with a Battery Electric Vehicle

“An existing electric vehicle was retrofitted with a power system that allowed the vehicle to feed
power from the vehicles battery pack back to the grid as well as to pull power from the grid to
recharge the battery pack.”

Like I said “a different set of equipment than feeding power back to the grid back.”

Specifically,
“AC Propulsion has developed a drive system for electrically-propelled vehicles that includes an
integrated grid power interface. The system re-uses the power switches of the propulsion inverter (which drives the traction motor) as the power switches for a grid-tied inverter and uses the motor windings as the inductors needed for the grid-tied inverter (Figure 5). This provides a bi-directional high-power interface to the electric power grid with no extra power components
over what are needed for propelling the vehicle.”

Not cheap E-P, and likely not reliable in a POV. Ooops the BEV moved!