Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 278 posts

Re: EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

#261

Post by causality0 »

ciphol wrote: post #212
causality0 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A standard US dryer outlet is rated for 30 amps at 240v. For a sustained rating of 80% that's 5760 watts, which at 4 miles per kwh is 23 miles per hour, not 30. Frankly it would take a hell of a lot to convince people to be ok with getting home, plugging their car in, and having the charge level go down instead of up. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with it.

Imagine you get home, plug your car in, the car runs your home heating for the remainder of the evening for free, then you go to sleep and the car recharges for cheap. Sounds like an attractive proposal?

It would have to be quite a difference in how much power costs, at least 25 percent or more.

Re: EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

#262

Post by dan-robertson »

tsimionescu wrote: post #216
dan-robertson wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess when I look at that chart I’m actually optimistic: - coal and oil not really growing (but there is Covid at one end and no Ukraine war effects). This is especially noteworthy for coal because china continues to increase coal power generation so the only way for it to be flat is many others decreasing - the ‘other’ section growing at 16% per yer (doubling in less than 5 years) is basically renewables I am sad…

I think you are being optimistic because you are neglecting the urgency of this issue. We have maybe 10 years left to get to 0 emissions. We are not even decreasing. If this graph were something happening in the 80s, I would be ecstatic (well, if I had been born and had known about global warming). Right now, it's far too little far too late. This is not a time for finding a new way of abundance, it is a time for acc…

I don’t think the crises or emergency phrasing is particularly accurate. We have already locked in a great deal of climate change over the coming decades and urgent actions now won’t change that. I don’t think ‘emergency’ should apply to situations where things get worse over the next 30 years but actions today may cause them to be less terrible in 80 years.

The narrative about shrinking economies doesn’t make sense to me because for lots of countries like the US, they emitted more when their economies were smaller. We don’t want to go back to that.

I think pushing to reduce emissions by shrinking economies is unconscionable as it effectively corresponds to reducing standards of living across the world and particularly harms the poorest countries. I also dislike it because it is obviously politically unpalatable and so the people who favour it either long for some kind of authoritarian to impose it[1] or get to smugly say they were right while their desired plan doesn’t get implemented. I would much rather governments were pushed towards policies that would be desirable to people while also reducing emissions.

[1] I also note that the biggest authoritarian country is burning more and more coal with increasing emissions while the biggest non-authoritarian countries have falling emissions and growing economies.

Re: EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

#263

Post by garbagecoder »

danans wrote: post #137
garbagecoder wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little bit more complicated than that. They've held onto their legacy concerns about certain non-carbon power sources for other reasons, and many environmental groups seem convinced that there is no future where the planet is safe and our current economic system stays in place. I could even be convinced of the latter, but I know enough to know that both of these policies are political poison pills in effect. P…

> They've held onto their legacy concerns about certain non-carbon power sources for other reasons, Is there a reason you are unable to just use the word "nuclear"? Non-proliferation was, and still is, a major concern for nuclear power. Add to that the fact that current uranium supply lines end in Russia. It may have a role in the future, and we should continue to invest in that possibility, but it's far from conclus…

Yeah, because nuclear isn't the only one. Environmental groups never object to hydro power, right? They've never objected to helping brown coal be replaced by less CO2 emitting ones in poor countries right? They've never objected to replacing biomass burning with coal or coal with natural gas? Nope. They go to Africa and tell people to put soda bottles in their roof instead (ie our trash).

It's not just nuclear, but nice try.

The rest is too hostile to bother with. Sorry I dared question holy environmental groups who have never shot themselves in the foot.

Of course it will have to change. The point is how. I want it done, I just don't want to sacrifice our industrial society and I don't want to listen to pseudo-science justifying bad trade offs just because of vibes, mostly because I don't think most other people will either and then you get little or nothing.

France—not the US, ok, since I know US bad—has this all figured out. I'm sure you think I'm some sort of global warming denier or whatever. I'm not. I urgently want solutions. So urgently, I'm willing to look for less than utopian solutions.

Anyway, so how's this approach working out for you? Have we solved it?

Re: EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

#264

Post by causality0 »

themitigating wrote: post #191
causality0 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A standard US dryer outlet is rated for 30 amps at 240v. For a sustained rating of 80% that's 5760 watts, which at 4 miles per kwh is 23 miles per hour, not 30. Frankly it would take a hell of a lot to convince people to be ok with getting home, plugging their car in, and having the charge level go down instead of up. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with it.

Why wouldn't you be comfortable?

Because I might have to go somewhere without hours of notice. Maybe I need to go somewhere I can't leave the car plugged in. Maybe I'll get stuck in a traffic jam. Maybe I'll have to drive to a hospital a hundred miles away, as has happened before.

I might sign up for this if my household kept at least one ICE vehicle, but not otherwise.

Re: EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

#265

Post by phkahler »

dublinben wrote: post #65
phkahler wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you know that the standard DC chargers communicate with the vehicle using PLC (Powerline communication) chips even though that communication is not over the high power conductors? I've always had the feeling the grid operators got that included because they thought they were going to communicate directly with the battery management system to control it as they wish. It never happened and now the standard is stupi…

>stop wanting V2G, nobody actually wants it. Utilities really want V2G, so it's probably going to happen one way or another. It's probably less applicable to an individual homeowner, but commercial and other fleet operators are going to find this appealing at the right price. For example: https://www.proterra.com/press-release/massachusetts-electri...

Yeah, but sequential charging will eliminate that and reduce the fleet owners costs.

Re: EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

#266

Post by coryrc »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #255
coryrc wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When speaking of battery cycles and lifetime, people almost always mean "full cycle equivalent". So when you say "I only go 80%->20%" then that would be considered 0.6 cycles counted against the lifetime.

Is that how it works? Can I just charge every night, even if I've only driven a few miles, with no more wear on my battery than if I did full cycle charges? My vague impression is "no", but I really have no idea.

It is, with lithium, basically no different to go from 80%->20%->80% once or from 80%->75%->80% twelve times.

The only complicating issue is calendar life of the battery when it is above 80%. Over time a battery loses capacity just because it exists, which I'm calling calendar life. The closer your battery is to 100% the calendar life decreases at a roughly quadratic curve (a battery at 80% has about 1/8 the calendar life loss of one at 100%). AKA you lose 8x more capacity per year at 100% than 80%. Temperature has a similar effect above room temperature or so.

So if your frequent charges keep the battery above 80%, that would reduce calendar life (increase capacity loss per year) on its own. LFP has far greater calendar life than lipo, but also cycle life too, so I think it's just as important to keep your EV at 80% or below, whenever convenient, regardless of chemistry, unless your usage will cause cycle life to end the battery usefulness before calendar life is significant; i.e. multiple full cycles per day. But also at multiple full cycles per day you probably won't spend much time above 80% even when charging to 100%.

Ah, to summarize, I'll repeat my simple advice: I think it's important to keep your EV at 80% or below, whenever convenient.

Re: EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

#267

Post by mercutio2 »

danans wrote: post #260
mercutio2 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Berkeley. PG&E’s peak EV-A rate for generation plus distribution was $.92 this summer. It doubled in a year or two. My off peak rate for charging the car went from net $.15/kWh to $.36 during the summer. It’s news to me that load shifting (if you’ve got batteries and solar) isn’t allowed by the CPUC, that does take the wind out of my sails a bit. But the peak rates are so high that just zeroing out my peak…

> I live in Berkeley. PG&E’s peak EV-A rate for generation plus distribution was $.92 this summer I live in the same service area. The peak EV2A rate (including both generation and distribution) is currently $0.55/kWh, and the off-peak is $0.24/kWh. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-plan-o... Not sure where you are getting $0.92/kWh, but would be curious to learn. > It’s news to me that load shift…

I just re-read by October PGE bill. My NEM distribution charges at peak were $.61/kWh.

My peak generation charges were a further $.31/kWh.

I don’t pay the NEM number until end of year, but I just paid it and it was another $500 of accumulated NEM charges.

Re: EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

#268

Post by tsimionescu »

dan-robertson wrote: post #262
tsimionescu wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are being optimistic because you are neglecting the urgency of this issue. We have maybe 10 years left to get to 0 emissions. We are not even decreasing. If this graph were something happening in the 80s, I would be ecstatic (well, if I had been born and had known about global warming). Right now, it's far too little far too late. This is not a time for finding a new way of abundance, it is a time for acc…

I don’t think the crises or emergency phrasing is particularly accurate. We have already locked in a great deal of climate change over the coming decades and urgent actions now won’t change that. I don’t think ‘emergency’ should apply to situations where things get worse over the next 30 years but actions today may cause them to be less terrible in 80 years. The narrative about shrinking economies doesn’t make sense…

US domestic emissions have fallen slightly - much less than US manufacturing was moved overseas.

Also, I am definitely in no way advocating for authoritarianism. I'm advocating for realistic, charismatic politicians to present the real situation to people and help them understand the urgency of this threat to the future of the world.

Not to mention, there is plenty of room for reducing economic activity without materially impacting living conditions for the vast majority of consumers. All the cheap plastic crap being produced and shipped overseas is an obvious contender, which produces both massive emissions and additional, faster working pollution. Fast fashion and fast food need more care (as they are important to many poor people around the world), but more sustainable alternatives that reduce overconsumption without impact on basic necessity are certainly possible. Regulating and reducing advertising is a more indirect approach that would help revert the trend of encouraging massive overconsumption in all aspects of life (since one of the biggest focuses of modern advertising is simply to increase the whole market, and only incidentally to advocate for a particular brand).

And note that this very much is an emergency, even if the effects are slow to be seen. It's like a contamination with prions - if you don't stop it right this second, it will inevitably produce disastrous effects 5-10 years from now, with no possibility to stop it or even mitigate it later. Just because the disastrous effects will happen later in the future doesn't make the current moment any less of an emergency.

Re: EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

#269

Post by _yb2s »

tuatoru wrote: post #117
_yb2s wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also need EV designs where the batteries are modular and easy to swap out. I wouldn't be interested in a deal where I was compensated financially for quickly wearing my non-replaceable car battery out, because the battery wear alters the usability of the car, e.g. I might find I can only take my family on shorter trips than planned, if my battery is now 80% of what it would have been. I also wouldn't want the batt…

> We also need EV designs where the batteries are modular and easy to swap out. Battery swapping is already a thing. In China. Nio[1] sells luxury cars and there are lots of more utilitarian vehicles that use battswap, but get no press outside China. In the west, Ample[2] is working with manufacturers to modularize batteries and make them swappable between vehicle brands, so a "gas station" business/industry model wi…

This is really cool! Battery swap is the 'killer feature' for me that would allow an EV to replace an ICE vehicle.

Re: EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand as early as 2030

#270

Post by nawitus »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #125
nawitus wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the price is negative during high PV production? In sane markets like Finland solar panel owners need to pay for generating electricity to the grid if the price is negative (which is it sometimes).

> In sane markets like Finland solar panel owners need to pay for generating electricity to the grid if the price is negative If this were the case, why would solar panel owners not stop "selling" power to the grid at their expense when that happens? What incentive would ever exist to pay to put power on the grid?

Apparently not generating power will cause the panel to slightly overheat which will add additional tear on the panel, so it might make sense to pay the negative prices instead.

Note that electricity generated will first be used by the consumer and only excess is sold to the grid.

Post reply on HN