While there are appropriate and economical use cases for battery power, home and grid backup are inappropriate for colder, darker climes. Especially in winter.
In the US, (gas and propane) home generator sales have TRIPLED in a decade. Grid reliability in many areas is worse because of poor grid maintenance and a focus on intermittent renewables.
In my snow belt area, new high end (top 20%) homes come standard with 10kw + generators.
When it comes to powering THEIR homes, politics are almost always ignored. Left, right, environmentalist, climate activist, and climate skeptic are identical. All want THEIR house powered and give zero effs about the means.
I have one 11kw whole-house generator which I seldom use, because it gobbles propane compared to my two small portable generators. The first year I had those two portable generators, I fired up one or the other 40 times, and that was less than the year before when I realized the whole house generator was not something I needed to fire up so often.
I was told that the reason PG&E (California) had so many power outages was because their budget for paying extreme rates to buy "excess" rooftop solar power had been exhausted, and when they went to the PUC to raise their rates to pay for it, they were told cut spending elsewhere, and they did, from tree trimming near power lines. I have no independent confirmation, but I did notice that for several years, PG&E trimming crews were scarce on the ground. Now they are burying power lines, at tremendous cost, and it would be interesting to know the politics behind that. The PUC is well-known for being the retirement home for washed up loyal Democrats.
More than that - PG&E was hit with multi-billion dollar settlements for major gas explosions in San Mateo County, CA. Destroyed a bunch of homes and killed a number of people. You can guess who's paying for those power lines to be buried - we PG&E customers. PG&E touts declining rates, still the highest in the country.
They also got blamed for the Camp fire in Paradise which killed 85 people, and I never understood that; it was dry as a bone, all of California is, because it doesn't rain from May to October. Anything could have set off that fire -- cigarette butt, hot catalytic converter, careless campers, homeless bums. The real culprit is the regulators who won't let forests be cleaned up because the eco-warriors sue the daylights out of everybody.
Being an executive in a regulated utility like PG&E has got to be one of the worst careers imaginable. No real authority to be innovative, but plenty of responsibility when the PUC wants to blame someone.
My PG&E kWh have declined 10% from a year go and I haven't changed anything which could affect that; don't have A/C, switched to LED light bulbs years ago, and power meters say my computers only use about $10 per month. But the rates have gone up 3-4%. I've long since given up trying to understand and compare all the itty bitty charges they throw in. For instance, my latest bill has a $1.38 Recovery Bond Charge and a $-1.38 Recovery Bond Credit.
To drag in economics, the problem with all these is that I have no incentive to lower them because I don't know what they are.
...."This failure is upon us because for years, in order to enlarge dividends, bonuses, and political contributions, PG&E cheated on maintenance of its grid, to the point that the grid became unsafe to operate during our annual high winds, so unsafe that the grid itself failed and ignited many catastrophic wildfires," Alsup wrote.
Both PG&E distribution and transmission lines were involved in sparking catastrophic fires in 2017 and 2018.
Cal Fire cited distribution lines that came into contact with trees as the source of many of the October 2017 fires that swept much of Northern California, including large swaths of Sonoma, Napa, Lake and Mendocino counties.
The November 2018 Camp Fire, which killed 85 people and destroyed nearly 14,000 homes in and around the Butte County town of Paradise, started when a badly worn piece of hardware on a high-voltage transmission tower failed, allowing a charged line to swing free and arc during a period of high winds."....
I don't know how much to believe, coming from public TV in California. The PUC tells PG&E what to do, and they jump. The idea that PG&E could cheat that much and divert so much money elsewhere, without the PUC noticing, just doesn't pass my smell test. Besides, November of that year had seen no rain for 200 days or so, dry tinder everywhere, and anything could have set it off. Blaming PG&E, or anyone, seems more like an excuse for the state and eco-warriors to avoid taking blame for not thinning the forests.
Nice, but the basic limiting factors to EV use still exist. Use of HVAC greatly reduces range. Adding weight also reduces range; look at EV pickup trucks. There's a reason why you see many EVs in mild climates, such as much of Coastal California, and relatively few in places with hot summers and cold winters. To my mind, the hybrid is the best of both worlds and can be used anywhere.
I do liek the reflection, "As optimists, we like to think there’s a breakthrough just over every horizon, yet after chasing down too many rabbit holes to count, I have concluded that, for the next 5 to 10 years, lithium-based batteries will remain the gold standard."
Wow, what an interesting read. The information gives me the desire to improve my knowledge beyond the basic electricity class I took in high school. It would be nice to have some comparative analysis of where the popular trend of EV takes us. It’s tough to get a complete unbiased 360 degree review. The government subsidies always distorts cost/benefit analysis. Cradle to grave, what is the impact of EV’s vs gasoline powered vehicles in all aspect financial and environmental. Laying aside the new ideas on nuclear, what happens to my existing costs on the power grid in an all EV world. Lastly, what about the article in the WSJ reporting how EV’s failed to work in extreme cold temperatures? Just asking for a dose of the “rational” part of this fine publication I enjoy reading weekly.
I looked into it when I had my solar panels installed because I was interested in battery backup anyway. Turns out they had a minimum installation requirement (IIRC 3 Tesla Powerwalls), and required a million dollar liability insurance rider. They also only have a few different battery systems they work with (so they can call for power in their operations center). I simply didn't have that much room, and I didn't like the idea of being on the hook for problems that might damage their distribution system, so I passed. But I like the idea of shifting power consumption from production and spreading the load out to my neighbors. I could see where the coop might try to get a vacant lot or larger area of the utility easement set aside for neighborhood battery storage. That way it's away from individuals' homes and less risky, and also monitored by professionals who get paid to maintain it. It's also a lot more "fair" to the neighbors who don't have large roofs or space to install their own battery backup system since everyone can benefit.
I seem to recall there was a company in Israel that had developed an electric car with swappable batteries about 10 years ago and went bankrupt within a few years. Since it wasn't being subsidized by a government (such as is the case with NIO), I do wonder if such a concept is currently economically feasible.
BEV vehicle sales have grown as a result of government coercion, subsidies and misleading marketing. Nothing to do with the quality of batteries.
Prime example of the lies?
We are persuaded that a particular BEV will achieve a 300 mile range. We buy the car only to be 'advised' in the operating instructions that to achieve a favourable battery life we should not let the charge fall below 20%, or beyond 80%.
While there are appropriate and economical use cases for battery power, home and grid backup are inappropriate for colder, darker climes. Especially in winter.
In the US, (gas and propane) home generator sales have TRIPLED in a decade. Grid reliability in many areas is worse because of poor grid maintenance and a focus on intermittent renewables.
In my snow belt area, new high end (top 20%) homes come standard with 10kw + generators.
When it comes to powering THEIR homes, politics are almost always ignored. Left, right, environmentalist, climate activist, and climate skeptic are identical. All want THEIR house powered and give zero effs about the means.
I have one 11kw whole-house generator which I seldom use, because it gobbles propane compared to my two small portable generators. The first year I had those two portable generators, I fired up one or the other 40 times, and that was less than the year before when I realized the whole house generator was not something I needed to fire up so often.
I was told that the reason PG&E (California) had so many power outages was because their budget for paying extreme rates to buy "excess" rooftop solar power had been exhausted, and when they went to the PUC to raise their rates to pay for it, they were told cut spending elsewhere, and they did, from tree trimming near power lines. I have no independent confirmation, but I did notice that for several years, PG&E trimming crews were scarce on the ground. Now they are burying power lines, at tremendous cost, and it would be interesting to know the politics behind that. The PUC is well-known for being the retirement home for washed up loyal Democrats.
More than that - PG&E was hit with multi-billion dollar settlements for major gas explosions in San Mateo County, CA. Destroyed a bunch of homes and killed a number of people. You can guess who's paying for those power lines to be buried - we PG&E customers. PG&E touts declining rates, still the highest in the country.
They also got blamed for the Camp fire in Paradise which killed 85 people, and I never understood that; it was dry as a bone, all of California is, because it doesn't rain from May to October. Anything could have set off that fire -- cigarette butt, hot catalytic converter, careless campers, homeless bums. The real culprit is the regulators who won't let forests be cleaned up because the eco-warriors sue the daylights out of everybody.
Being an executive in a regulated utility like PG&E has got to be one of the worst careers imaginable. No real authority to be innovative, but plenty of responsibility when the PUC wants to blame someone.
My PG&E kWh have declined 10% from a year go and I haven't changed anything which could affect that; don't have A/C, switched to LED light bulbs years ago, and power meters say my computers only use about $10 per month. But the rates have gone up 3-4%. I've long since given up trying to understand and compare all the itty bitty charges they throw in. For instance, my latest bill has a $1.38 Recovery Bond Charge and a $-1.38 Recovery Bond Credit.
To drag in economics, the problem with all these is that I have no incentive to lower them because I don't know what they are.
KQED reported on pg@e's woes-
https://www.kqed.org/news/11815296/pge-cheated-on-maintenance-judge-says-then-orders-new-probation-conditions
...."This failure is upon us because for years, in order to enlarge dividends, bonuses, and political contributions, PG&E cheated on maintenance of its grid, to the point that the grid became unsafe to operate during our annual high winds, so unsafe that the grid itself failed and ignited many catastrophic wildfires," Alsup wrote.
Both PG&E distribution and transmission lines were involved in sparking catastrophic fires in 2017 and 2018.
Cal Fire cited distribution lines that came into contact with trees as the source of many of the October 2017 fires that swept much of Northern California, including large swaths of Sonoma, Napa, Lake and Mendocino counties.
The November 2018 Camp Fire, which killed 85 people and destroyed nearly 14,000 homes in and around the Butte County town of Paradise, started when a badly worn piece of hardware on a high-voltage transmission tower failed, allowing a charged line to swing free and arc during a period of high winds."....
I don't know how much to believe, coming from public TV in California. The PUC tells PG&E what to do, and they jump. The idea that PG&E could cheat that much and divert so much money elsewhere, without the PUC noticing, just doesn't pass my smell test. Besides, November of that year had seen no rain for 200 days or so, dry tinder everywhere, and anything could have set it off. Blaming PG&E, or anyone, seems more like an excuse for the state and eco-warriors to avoid taking blame for not thinning the forests.
As for other topics, what about super capacitors, which are not chemical batteries?
There were rechargeable nickel-cadmium (NiCad) batteries in the 1960s.
Nice, but the basic limiting factors to EV use still exist. Use of HVAC greatly reduces range. Adding weight also reduces range; look at EV pickup trucks. There's a reason why you see many EVs in mild climates, such as much of Coastal California, and relatively few in places with hot summers and cold winters. To my mind, the hybrid is the best of both worlds and can be used anywhere.
Always better to use log graphs even though they temper hockey stick displays.
I do liek the reflection, "As optimists, we like to think there’s a breakthrough just over every horizon, yet after chasing down too many rabbit holes to count, I have concluded that, for the next 5 to 10 years, lithium-based batteries will remain the gold standard."
I am amazed I have never seen you mention Temporis, who are so big in renewable energy investing. Unless I have not paid attention!
Keep the emails coming, I love a bit of optimism as we have enough doom and gloom these days!
Wow, what an interesting read. The information gives me the desire to improve my knowledge beyond the basic electricity class I took in high school. It would be nice to have some comparative analysis of where the popular trend of EV takes us. It’s tough to get a complete unbiased 360 degree review. The government subsidies always distorts cost/benefit analysis. Cradle to grave, what is the impact of EV’s vs gasoline powered vehicles in all aspect financial and environmental. Laying aside the new ideas on nuclear, what happens to my existing costs on the power grid in an all EV world. Lastly, what about the article in the WSJ reporting how EV’s failed to work in extreme cold temperatures? Just asking for a dose of the “rational” part of this fine publication I enjoy reading weekly.
My power coop will help cover the cost of a home battery backup if they can use power from it during peak time:
https://www.holycross.com/member-programs/powerplus
I looked into it when I had my solar panels installed because I was interested in battery backup anyway. Turns out they had a minimum installation requirement (IIRC 3 Tesla Powerwalls), and required a million dollar liability insurance rider. They also only have a few different battery systems they work with (so they can call for power in their operations center). I simply didn't have that much room, and I didn't like the idea of being on the hook for problems that might damage their distribution system, so I passed. But I like the idea of shifting power consumption from production and spreading the load out to my neighbors. I could see where the coop might try to get a vacant lot or larger area of the utility easement set aside for neighborhood battery storage. That way it's away from individuals' homes and less risky, and also monitored by professionals who get paid to maintain it. It's also a lot more "fair" to the neighbors who don't have large roofs or space to install their own battery backup system since everyone can benefit.
I seem to recall there was a company in Israel that had developed an electric car with swappable batteries about 10 years ago and went bankrupt within a few years. Since it wasn't being subsidized by a government (such as is the case with NIO), I do wonder if such a concept is currently economically feasible.
BEV vehicle sales have grown as a result of government coercion, subsidies and misleading marketing. Nothing to do with the quality of batteries.
Prime example of the lies?
We are persuaded that a particular BEV will achieve a 300 mile range. We buy the car only to be 'advised' in the operating instructions that to achieve a favourable battery life we should not let the charge fall below 20%, or beyond 80%.
We are left with a range of 180 miles.