Clusters of plug-in cars will tax local power grids

DETROIT--If plug-in electric cars become popular in your neighborhood, you may face an electricity supply crunch when it comes to charging.

There have been a number of studies measuring whether the national power grid can fuel large numbers of electric vehicles. But the biggest concern regarding the impact of plug-ins is at the local level, where adding just a few vehicles could strain a local circuit, said Peter Darbee, the CEO of California utility Pacific Gas & Electric, during a talk at the Business of Plugging conference here Tuesday.

Darbee predicts that demand for plug-in vehicles will be very high, as turned out to be the case with cell phones. Based on early data, it's clear that purchasers of plug-in electric vehicles live near each other. Berkeley, California, for example, represents 18 percent of all customers in PG&E's territory while Fresno is only 2 percent.

PG&E CEO Peter Darbee; John Lauckner, General Motors' vice president of global program management; and George Pataki, former New York governor and counsel at Chadbourne & Parke, on a panel at the Business of Plugging In conference in Detroit.

(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)

But high concentrations of plug-in electric vehicles poses a serious challenge to utilities, Darbee said. Plug-in electric cars could draw electricity equivalent the amount needed to run one home, or up to three homes in certain places, he said.

"You can see if you have three or five electric cars arrive in a neighborhood, you're going to overload the local circuits, and that will lead to blackouts," Darbee said. "So we see it as an opportunity but we also see it as a challenge of significant proportions."

Darbee said that utilities need to work with auto companies and policy makers to ensure that customers have a smooth experience and that the grid is not stressed.The utility--considered one of the most progressive in the U.S.--is also taking a number of steps to avoid potential problems.

PG&E plans to recommend that consumers have a 220-volt charging point at home, which will allow most plug-in electric cars to recharge in two or three hours, rather than six or seven hours for a regular 110-volt outlet. Although it's more convenient for consumers, that higher-voltage charging significantly boosts the draw--as much as 6.6 kilowatts.

Darbee said that PG&E is a strong endorser of plug-in electric vehicle technology because it can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reduce imports of foreign oil. But there is a "nightmare" scenario for utilities. That's when large numbers drivers come home on a hot day when the load is already maxed out and they turn on air conditioners and lights, and plug in their cars.

"If that (charging) were at 220 (volts), the results would be pretty dramatic and pretty negative. You would create a peak on top of the current peak load. The effect would be to bring down the electrical system if you had substantial concentrations in the area," Darbee said.

To avoid that situation, PG&E plans to offer a 220-volt charger along with a timer. The consumer would be able to get off-peak rates--called dynamic pricing--by charging between 11:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m.

Smart-grid technology, whereby homes are equipped with meters that can communicate with the utility, gives more flexibility. In that case, the utility could charge three electric cars in succession or at different rates overnight to ease the draw on a local circuit. Or the utility could offer consumers a menu of charging alternatives.

In about seven or 10 years, utilities are envisioning vehicle-to-grid capability in which a plug-in electric car owner would sell electricity from a battery back to the grid. A driver could program the system so that the stored energy is sold only at a certain price, Darbee said.

The costs of bulking up local electricity circuits should be shared by all people in a service territory, he argued. "Just like when there were hair dryers or electric driers, there was a shared cost," he said.

[ballmerisanape]

That's a lot of burnt coal....

[AppleSuxLeo]

Good luck with your plug-in when we start having rolling blackouts in Calif. again.

[markab21]

Oh noes!!

We might have to invest into our aging power grid!

[kpcar]

This is 1 of the no brainer arguments I've used for years every time an "EcoWeenie" starts whining that we need to switch to electric cars NOW in order to save the planet.

These argument include:

a) What do you think would happen to the national power grid if suddenly everyone starts using electric cars? How do you stop most of the normal work force from recharginge their cars as soon as they get home from work at around 6:00pm

b) How many new power plants need to be built in order to supply the extra needed electrity?

c) What is the "Carbon Footprint" of all these new power plants?

d) If you do a lot of driving for work can you afford to wait 3 to 8 hours everytime you need to refill your "tank"?

d) Where exactly do you plan on storing the millions/billions of future dead batteries? Landfills?

[erifkind]

a) automatic timers to charge electric cars overnight would help significantly, as well as the normal practice of charging spare batteries and switching them out. Electric cars need to be engineered with that capability. Or, perhaps service stations can do it. Lots of logistics to be worked out, obviously, but the country would have to take an approach that seriously dealt with all those issues.

b) Lots and lots of new power plants - as many of them using new clean technology as possible. Huge amounts of sustained research, engineering, planning and construction jobs need to be created ASAP to accommodate the forward push to make this happen. And a new army of teachers needs to be created to retrain people in dying industries to do these jobs. Again, a huge challenge, but not impossible.

c) Hopefully as small a carbon footprint as possible. See answer b.

d) We need to research the technology to more efficiently and completely recycle batteries. Same basic approach from answer b.

When people talk about switching NOW, they (should) know that they are casting a net that will catch the affluent early adopters. They purposefully overshoot in their message to the public to motivate more people to at least consider being early adopters.

Having said that, there obviously is no way to switch the majority of the public at the present time. The idea is to get innovative, get creative, and keep our priorities straight so these changes can happen over time. You can use all the arguments you want, but it is the overarching objective that people must really agree on. That objective is to keep the planet habitable for humans.

[methos2000]

I agree w/ erifkind's answers to a)-d)#1, but as to d)#2: d) Where exactly do you plan on storing the millions/billions of future dead batteries? Landfills?....

The metal in EV batteries (lithium) is easily recycled. In fact, even low end starter batteries on existing cars (lead-acid) are highly recycled. The real question is not what is done with the dead EV batteries, but rather, what will the recycling program look like? Will the automotive companies buy back the batteries? Or will third party companies break down the batteries to raw materials?

[SpeedPsycho]

As an engineer, II'd like to point out that even a low efficiency coal or other power plant will be much more efficient than thousands of small gas engines starting and running up 2+ times a day. Even better if we invest in scrubbing coal plants.

And if we go nuclear *fingers crossed* I have no doubt we can provide more than enough energy for charging these electric vehicles with over 10X less the pollution. Nuclear tech is amazing.

If the electric companies like PG&E are on top of this now, they'll have time to invest in what is almost guaranteed to happen. It won't be overnight, they have time to start working on solutions now.

[kpcar]

To erfkin:

Psst . . .
If everyone in a city like New York is on a timer to activate at the best time . . .
Well then they'd all activate at that premium time - Still stress on the power grid

Building all those new power plants - clean or not clean - still creates a giant overall "Carbon Footprint" just in the building construction process . . .

Throwing multible trillions of dollars at possible new technological infrastructure based on the idea that the earth is about to be killed by the SUV (fossil fuels) boggles the mind . . .

I personally have no problem with the idea that we, as the guardians of this beautiful planet, should strive to keep it clean for future generations . . .

I do however take offense at those that try to use the excuse of "Global Warming/Climate Change" as a social political tool . . .

Temperatures rise and fall, year to year, century to century, millennium to millennium . . .

The very idea that the we (The human race) have caused/changed the earths climate . . .
Or worse - That we (The human race) can effectively strive to manipulate the earths climate through legislation . . .
Is the height of all aroganse . . .

A single volcano spews out more "Green house gasses" in a year than the entire industrialized world . . .
CO2 is what is exhaled whenever we breath . . .
The Sun emits more energy in 1 second than all of our entire industry . . .
The Sun is what causes Ice Ages as well as Warm Periods . . .

It has done that for the entire history of the Earth . . .
Long before the 1st car . . .
And will continue to do so long after there are no more cars

[galeso]

a) total blackout, exactly like now when they all turn on lights/air conditioning as soon as they get home from work at around 6:00pm

b) none, just put solar panels on your house, garage, your yard, over the street, ...

c) less than now, but still adding CO2 to the atmosphere when we need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Hey, am I the only one to notice that nobody is seriously talking about removing CO2 from the atmosphere? All the ice in the world is melting now, if we only reduce output, we gain what, a few years, maybe a couple of decades at best. Then there will be no more Ice Road Truckers!

d) drive to work? What a waste of energy.

e) in your backyard, much better than recycling the lithium.

[linuxmonger]

That last line bothers me;
'The costs of bulking up local electricity circuits should be shared by all people in a service territory, he argued. "Just like when there were hair dryers or electric driers, there was a shared cost," he said.'

Not at all true, the power plant here was built as a privately funded operation, and I pay based on the amount of power I use.

[doubtthat]

You sir, have seen the light. The power company here is jumping on the socialist bandwagon where costs are shared by all. We already have a working model in place, you pay for your usage. You use more, you pay more. It has worked for years and continues to work.

[sbwinn]

Anyone NOT see this coming? Environmentalists shutdown every proposed power generation plant in California for the last 30 years with lawsuits and regulations, so what can you plug your electric car into?

[dargon19888]

And this is new?
<MockSarcasm>
SHOCKING!
</MockSarcasm>

And for all of those left wing nutcases who don't want a nuke generator in their back yard or want to fast track new nuke plants, you're going to get what you deserve.

Even if the cars ran on hydrogen, how do you think you'll generate the hydrogen?

Start planning now....

[SactoGuy018]

I can tell the people that will benefit from a plug-in hybrid are those homeowners with solar panels on their roofs.

[SpeedPsycho]

That being said, I can tell you the people who will benefit from hybrids are solar cell manufacturers and land owners...

For the modern lifestyle, only the most energy efficient homes can support themselves with solar using their own roof space. And it's expensive... but that is quickly changing. Add a car on top of this and even they won't be self sufficient without a backyard full of panels.

But, it's a great goal, and I'd love to see it.

[grinningevild]

Simpler than smart grid, would just be nice to be able to put it on a timer like my water sprinklers, to automatically turn on late at night so I don't have to go downstairs to plug my car in at midnight. Yes, less elegant a solution but quite cheap and simple.

On the other note, I thought that the electric cars could in theory provide a backup electricity to the grid during peak times and actually decrease blackouts?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10269723-54.html

[Joe Real]

I agree that at the local level, this could be a nightmare when 3 or more EV's would plug-in to charge. Google has proposed software for scheduling recharging time so as not to stress the local level, but could mean a lot longer charging time.

The strain would be too much on hot days when most Air Conditioners are on. However, hot days are correlated with sunny days especially in Berkeley where they have excellent programs for solar power. The installation of solar PV is practically free, and you pay for it via tax deductible property taxes. So when pairing with solar PV, the strain on the grid should be reduced. For one, the extreme example of Berkeley, California, it has generally mild climate with few having air conditioners. But when it get hots, and you happen to have solar PV it should offset the demand.

I really plan to have solar PV installed, perhaps, around 12 kW capacity, when I get Volt and Aptera. I don't plan on exchanging being at the mercy of oil industry with that of PG&E or the utility industries.

So if you want to purchase an EV or plug-in hybrids make sure to install as much solar PV.

The only problem right now is the exorbitant pricing of solar PV. While we have news that the cost of production has come down to sub $1/watt, and all the magnificent advancements in the ease of installation, all of these wonderful savings are still being hoarded in the middle and the prices at residential retail haven't come down significantly.

[Been_there_Saw_it_before]

Long ago I lived in Fresno, it is not a bad place, my mother and sister still live there. The low number of "green" cars has to do mostly with the attitude of who lives there. Now I live south of Berkeley, have a hybrid Civic, and drive it to Fresno for visits. Round trip on less than ten gallons of gas.

The one thing ignored in these type of articles and following discussions is not how the energy is delivered to your house, car, factory, or farm, but rather, where it is going to come from. Whether it is 120 volts, 240 volts, hydrogen, compressed air, or something else, it does not really matter. What does matter is whether the energy comes from burning something (coal, oil, gas, etc.), splitting something (uranium), fusing something (deuterium), catching something (solar, hydro, tidal, etc.), or some undiscovered source.

Go back and look at the earth rising over the lunar horizon and get an appreciation of how small we really are and how we are stuck on this planet. One radio commentator said about 20 years ago that the earth could support about 500 million people on a long-term basis. We are now at 12 times that number, having all kinds of problems, and still growing. I sure hope my kids have a future on this planet.

[knowles2]

So they are going to have to spend money to make money. What the problem, it about time these utilities companies updated there network. It going to have to be done for them to be able to handle the switch to renewable.
US like most countries in the western world are just going to have to bite the bullet and spend the cash.

[Robbie_Inc]

Have charging stations utilize solar panels instead of the grid.

[richard993]

There is a solution to every problem...

1. A house with an electric vehicle can be fitted with solar panels or a solar charging station. It is economical to do so with a payback period of 9 years and another 21 years of free electricity after that.
2. Utility companies have a process where they upgrade the grid as required when there are approvals for new apartment blocks housing hundreds of residents or when new shopping centers are established. This same process can be applied when a neighborhoods utilization rises above a threshold. Keep in mind that a neighborhood of a few hundred houses with only 20% of households getting an electric vehicle, will not have anywhere near the impact as the building approvals mentioned above.
3. There are already farms of wind turbines, solar concentration panels, thermal, tide/current based alternative energy stations used throughout the United States. There are new energy stations erected every few months using alternative green energy sources. As the projects are revamped, more green energy will become available.
4. Even if you do rely on coal, there are several ways to make burning coal have a less impact on the environment which is more economical than fitting every car with a carbon capture system. Coal based energy stations can reduce their carbon footprint by up to 90% using various technologies. Here is a link to one technology that allows this (http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/09/coal-plants-could-emit-90-less-co2-thanks-to-chilled/). It's just an example, but there are many more economically viable technologies out there that may raise the price of electricity slightly.
5. If all else fails, there is nuclear energy. There are plenty of alternative available so that we don't even need to consider nuclear at this point in time. It is an easy solution that doesn't require any further research and development (its a proven technology). But switching to an easy solution will only stifle innovation and obviously increase risk (terrorism, nuclear waste, etc...) and it is riskier than investing in new technology.

I think that energy suppliers are only trying to scare consumers so that they push their own agenda:
*** to increase the price of electricity and claim that it is the result of the increased load which required them to upgrade their outdated infrastructure ***

That's what they want. More money.

The fact is that increased usage should actually drive down their cost not increase it. So by putting out a scare campaign they can put out a justification for not reducing their rates. Why don't they use the additional profits generated from increased usage to upgrade the infrastructure and implement clean technologies while keeping the rate the same? sounds fair to me.

[Projectvenus]

Geothermal, Solar, and wind among others would solve all power needs. Too bad profit is more important than the environment.

[oliphant]

Blackouts? That's crazy. Obviously most people would be charging their vehicles during the overnight hours when there is minimal demand. In the meantime, at least for Southern California Edison, the vast majority of power (90%) comes from clean air sources including natural gas and nuclear (this according to a disclosure on my monthly SCE statement.

And as far as energy consumption, they use 220V outlets just like an electric clothes dryer and people have no problem drying clothes without the world having ended.

This smells of an industry looking for gov't handouts. "We will help you go green but can only do it if you give up X hundred million dollars for grid expansion and 'smart grids' that the North Koreans and Chinese will quickly be able to hack."

No matter what you do, you will have doom sayers saying it can't be done without them (or someone they are paid by) getting a boatload of cash.

[kpcar]

"Blackouts? That's crazy. Obviously most people would be charging their vehicles during the overnight hours when there is minimal demand."

Hmmmmm . . .
360+ million people in the U.S. alone . . .
I'm going to take a wild lowball guess at 100+ million cars that aren't currently being plugged in to the elecrical grid . . .