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

Charging cars at home at night is not the way to go: study

news.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–394 of 394 posts

Re: Charging cars at home at night is not the way to go: study

#391

Post by bryanlarsen »

kadoban wrote: post #57
bryanlarsen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tesla Model 3 SR ships with a battery expected to last ~750,000 km. If you had that vehicle, how much would you need to get paid to compensate for reducing that range by 1km? I'd accept 0.1 cents, how about you?

That seems low, that'd be $750 to reduce it to 0? But yeah there should be a way to choose a fair price or just let the market decide.

But I'm never going to get 750,000 km out of a model 3, the suspension or other moving parts are going to give out first. So I can sell ~500,000 km worth of battery range without losing any actual range.

Re: Charging cars at home at night is not the way to go: study

#392

Post by yazaddaruvala »

discretion22 wrote: post #279
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't judge this framework on a few year time horizon, but the time horizon to migrate to 100% EV fleet for Ontario. The problem with 100% EV fleet a regular grid will be overloaded and customer's will not be incentivized to care. This framework future proofs the Ontario grid from such a "wall". Now that the framework exists in Ontario, prices at certain times in the day can grow 10x, 100x, 1000x where appropria…

If time of use had even a 10x premium, people in Ontario would simply switch to simple tiered pricing which is available as an alternative to time of use pricing. Each Ontario electricity company is required to show you which would be cheaper for you and allow you to switch to the cheaper tariff to obtain cost savings.

Got it, so then Ontario has good hardware and no incentives. Everywhere else has no hardware and no incentives. Still one step better for Ontario.

If/When the Ontario grid starts to feel the pressure of EVs, it is a choice between (No Electricity + Tiered Pricing) XOR (Electricity + 10x premium Time of Use Pricing).

I have a feeling everyone will complain but understand that the only option was to keep the grid running.

Re: Charging cars at home at night is not the way to go: study

#393

Post by olivermarks »

dymk wrote: post #68
olivermarks wrote: post #2

Fire risks are also much greater at night if you are charging a BEV in your house while asleep. Far safer to charge in an open area preferably away from other vehicles and stuctures. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20210113.as...

The press release you linked to is about cars catching fire after they crash. Can you give a source for how many cars catch fire spontaneously when they're stationary and charging?

I don't have a source of data but this article might be useful if you've watched the NTSB video and other material

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/04/tesla-f...

'Battery-powered vehicles have not been shown to catch fire at rates higher than gasoline cars, but when fires do erupt, they burn longer and hotter, propelled by lithium-ion batteries that supercharge the blazes, experts say.'

Re: Charging cars at home at night is not the way to go: study

#394

Post by upsidesinclude »

qqqwerty wrote: post #353
upsidesinclude wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen BART? The freeways in every major metro of CA? You are defending politics and not engaging the reality of failed infrastructure in the state. Now they are going to lead the country in developing a new paradigm in power infrastructure? The same that has PG&E blowing up neighborhoods because the company got so much tax incentive to continue building they failed to record where they placed capital assets a…

Turn off fox news for a bit and try getting your information from reliable, nonpartisan sources. Currently, over 60% of Californias electricity comes from clean sources (hydro, renewables, and nuclear). And we are well on target to hit 100% before our goal of 2045. These are facts. PG&E has nothing to do with this. Most power plants in the state are owned by third party investors, not by the utilities. Perhaps you sh…

You are in a politics bubble.

Don't try to couch my comment in your political view.

PG&E is an example of how the policies used in CALIFORNIA fail the people of CALIFORNIA.

That is relevant. These are facts.

If you DIED because of infrastructure failures, maybe you'd feel differently! You know? Because you'd be dead and all...

Post reply on HN