Engineering Explained: If Gas cars are banned, Can The Grid Handle Electric Cars?

[HaulingAss]

This is something I have always thought about, thank you Jason for doing the math

Jason's video makes a pretty serious error of omission in his calculations regarding the amount of additional electricity that would be required if EV's displaced ICE cars. Specifically, ICE cars actually consume quite a bit of electricity that would no longer be required if they weren't driving around.

Oil refineries are substantial consumers of electricity. Certainly, we would still have some oil refineries for plastics, planes, etc. but the portion of electricity consumed for gasoline in the refining process must be backed out. Refineries use so much electricity from the grid they have their own power substations. They also use huge amounts of water which is typically pumped to the refineries with electric pumps and treated at water treatment plants that use electricity. As these refineries shut down it will eliminate a surprising amount of electrical demand.

Really, electricity is consumed every step of the way when it comes to ICE vehicles and the gas and oil they consume. Most oil derricks in the US run on grid electricity. It takes a lot of energy to pump that oil out of the rock formations that contain it, sometimes at great depths. Much of that oil gets to the refineries via pipelines with huge electric pumps. Gas stations consume a surprising amount just pumping the gasoline from their underground tanks. Oil change shops use electricity to lift vehicles before draining the oil several times per year, per car. And there is the heating and lighting for all facilities that cater to servicing and fueling ICE cars. The amount of electricity consumption that EV's displace is significant and that should be backed out of the equation when estimating increased electrical demand due to transition from ICE to EV's.

Sponsored

 

[CybertruckAgent]

In terms of long-term planning for energy infrastructure, I'm curious why you think there is a limit on generating all of our electrical needs with using solar, wind and battery storage. In practice, there would be some legacy hydro and nuclear also (because it would make no sense to shut them down once built) but what specifically do you see preventing most of our electrical needs being met with wind, solar and storage?

Efficiency mostly. Go watch Elon’s interview with Joe Rogan recently where he’s very down on Solar. There’s just not enough energy produced with our current tech. Crissa above pointed out that even if we put solar roofs on every single structure in the United States (utterly impossible when you consider the cost, availability of materials and lack of public consensus), it would only generate less than half of the electricity we would need today as a best case scenario. My issue is more with the OP’s concept of an outright ban on ICE and inferring a “what if” scenario of banning fossil fuel production. Elon perfectly summarized my position in that interview. I believe we must move towards a sustainable future, but we must also be conscious of our needs today to protect humanity in the interim, and that will involve a big need for fossil fuels for a very long time to come.

 

[Dids]

Efficiency mostly. Go watch Elon’s interview with Joe Rogan recently where he’s very down on Solar. There’s just not enough energy produced with our current tech. Crissa above pointed out that even if we put solar roofs on every single structure in the United States (utterly impossible when you consider the cost, availability of materials and lack of public consensus), it would only generate less than half of the electricity we would need today as a best case scenario. My issue is more with the OP’s concept of an outright ban on ICE and inferring a “what if” scenario of banning fossil fuel production. Elon perfectly summarized my position in that interview. I believe we must move towards a sustainable future, but we must also be conscious of our needs today to protect humanity in the interim, and that will involve a big need for fossil fuels for a very long time to come.

You should read Crissa post again. I think she said current roof space would produce 6 terawatt at 150 w per sq meter or 2 trillion kwh and that's without solar farms. And she was being cautious. Most new cells are over 20% efficient .

 

[firsttruck]

Efficiency mostly. Go watch Elon’s interview with Joe Rogan recently where he’s very down on Solar. There’s just not enough energy produced with our current tech.

In Joe Rogan interview Elon was only talking about solar on a car or pickup truck.
We need higher solar conversion efficiency because the space available is so limited vs the power needed to move the vehicle. For these vehicle you need greater efficiency because there is not enough space.

This space constraint is not important for solar on most homes & businesses.
The current 20-21% is good enough and today the price per watt is low enough that ROI is reasonable. It is expected efficiency may stabilize around 20-24% but price per watt will still go even lower.

This whole grid can not possible handle all the EVs is bogus.
At today efficiency & price it is practical to power current & future needs by large geography areas of U.S. just by putting powerwalls and solar panels on existing & new home and businesses with very little modification of the grid at all.

Charge EV in day at home or business when EV is sitting doing nothing.

Also reduce load on grid by summer air conditioning load.

 

[HaulingAss]

Efficiency mostly. Go watch Elon’s interview with Joe Rogan recently where he’s very down on Solar.

Elon is very pro-solar so I'm not sure why you use him to say it's impractical to have a solar powered grid

There’s just not enough energy produced with our current tech. Crissa above pointed out that even if we put solar roofs on every single structure in the United States (utterly impossible when you consider the cost, availability of materials and lack of public consensus), it would only generate less than half of the electricity we would need today as a best case scenario.

When powering over 75% of the grid from a combination of solar and wind (the rest will be largely hydro and some legacy nuclear), it will be most cost-effective to install about 5-6 times the solar and wind production capacity necessary to power peak consumption. This will be done to mitigate the impact from clouds, snow and extended bad weather. The exact amount will depend upon the weather of various regions and other considerations (like the cost of additional battery storage vs. simply installing addition solar panels).

"Current tech" is more than adequate to achieve plenty of power. Not every roof will have solar, much of it will come from large solar farms feeding directly into the grid and large battery storage systems coupled with efficient high-voltage transmission lines. Granted, it's not happening in the next few years but it will happen because it's the most cost-effective way to meet our energy and transportation needs.

Basically, I don't think you have expressed any good reason why this will not happen. It's just plain common sense once the technology capabilities, costs and other considerations are understood.

My issue is more with the OP’s concept of an outright ban on ICE and inferring a “what if” scenario of banning fossil fuel production. Elon perfectly summarized my position in that interview. I believe we must move towards a sustainable future, but we must also be conscious of our needs today to protect humanity in the interim, and that will involve a big need for fossil fuels for a very long time to come.

Huh? I thought Jason made it crystal clear that the "cars are banned" was just a theoretical construct to describe a situation where the grid had to adjust rapidly to a theoretical new reality. It's a mental exercise, not a serious proposal. No one is talking about banning all ICE and fossil fuel production. Even the currently proposed ICE bans take place over many years and are only a ban on the sale of brand-new ICE cars, not all use of fossil fuels. Zero carbon is the long-term goal and we achieve it by doing it, not legislating things away before we have replacements.

 

[firsttruck]

2018: How much solar would it take to power the U.S.?
2021: probably only 10,000 square miles
July 6, 2018 by Bill Nussey
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

 

[Crissa]

Elon is only down on solar on cars, not in general. The amount of solar you can get on the surface of a car isn't very much, compared to how much it uses. And the solar isn't very structural, unlike how he replaces roof panels with glass.

However, I think he's wrong here. He forgets that his cars have high 'vampire' drains as they maintain their battery and cabin conditions. If a car is regularly used, the extra five to fifteen miles of charge would more than balance that out. All for the better, if you ask me.

-Crissa

PS, 2 trillion kWh is over half the US annual use. And like I said, that's without putting any over parking lots or as big solar farms, which we already have 0.066 terawatts of. We have a long way to go, but lots of possible space to do it in.

 

[Dids]

2018: How much solar would it take to power the U.S.?
2021: probably only 10,000 square miles
July 6, 2018 by Bill Nussey
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

Now that it's 2021 it looks like the authour was right.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32202373/solar-panel-record-efficiency/

 

[HaulingAss]

2018: How much solar would it take to power the U.S.?
2021: probably only 10,000 square miles
July 6, 2018 by Bill Nussey
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

Good article! If the numbers are correct, it means we could achieve 100% solar production using only 25% of the Federal Land leased to gas and oil companies!

Personally, I think we might need 75% of the leased land but that's to create a truly robust system that doesn't need to rely on fossil fuel back-up. Solar cells keep getting cheaper so there is not a good reason not to install plenty to make the system more robust. This will also create huge surpluses of electricity during good weather that can be used to desalinate water and recharge fresh water aquifers. The possibilities and jobs created will be mind-blowing. We have plenty of money to do this but we chose to waste it on expensive and inefficient technologies like "clean" coal. Clean coal is the scam of the century. There's no such thing. Nuclear power is also hugely expensive compared to solar.

Powerful money interests are working behind the scenes and using disinformation to keep us dependent upon outdated and expensive technologies. It's the crime of the millennium and needs to be stopped.

 

[firsttruck]

2018: How much solar would it take to power the U.S.?
2021: probably only 10,000 square miles
July 6, 2018 by Bill Nussey
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

Good article! If the numbers are correct, it means we could achieve 100% solar production using only 25% of the Federal Land leased to gas and oil companies!

It gets even better. The oil/gas stuff is not only thing there.

13,000 square miles – the US land that has been impacted by coal surface mining [1]

33,750 square miles – this is the land set aside to grow the corn used to make ethanol, a gasoline substitute [2].

2,200 square miles – the amount of Appalachian forests that have been cleared for mountaintop removal coal mining by 2012.

 

[firsttruck]

It gets even better. The oil/gas stuff is not only thing there.

33,750 square miles – this is the land set aside to grow the corn used to make ethanol, a gasoline substitute [2].

There are many plants that do not need so much direct sunlight. In some places there is actual too much sunlight for certain plants.

Here are some plants that could be farmed under & around solar panels

Carrots
Lettuce
Potatoes
Broccoli
Tomatoes
Hemp
Cauliflower
Celery
Spinach
Cotton
Strawberries
Grapes
* The above is not a complete list there are more plants that would be compatible.

So could have 2 times more power needed just using land set aside for ethanol corn and still get lots of more edible food (except of course if they grew cotton or hemp) .

 

[Frankenblob]

Charging batteries and various types of batteries are still in their infancy.

I believe, rightly or wrongly, that if one can isolate then duplicate the vibrational frequency ( through sound harmonics/frequency vibrations) of lithium or lead acid or... ( as each element has a unique vibrational characteristic of its own) charging would be VERY VERY VERY fast. This idea simply relies on exciting/agitating the atoms to their "full capacity". Ergo, heat build up would be next to nothin and dendrites could be a thing of the past.

Alas, if it doesn't make $$$ it wouldn't be considered because who would sell a unit that ....

My 2 electrons worth.

Hehehe

 

[T3slaDad]

*chanting* Micro grids! Micro grids! Micro grids!!!

Having a few central grids is the most dangerous thing to our nation's power supply. Need a recent example? Oh hey, Texas!

If we need to rely on a few large power sources, then we are in big trouble when they fail to deliver for any reason. California, Texas, New York, the list of recent examples goes on and on. Millions of people get affected!!

Anyway, having localized grids not only reduces the insane amount of transmission loss (look it up, they lose a lot taking it to your homes!), but also helps communities develop their own independence and reliability with faster payoffs. Imagine if you lived in a neighborhood where the monthly electric bill was 25 and was independent of everyone around you? Large power outages would be a thing of the past, threats to the national grid (it's a critical resource) would dramatically decrease, etc. And what's nice is we could always build in redundant neighborhooding, just like how the nation's grid (minus Texas) does. If your demand is too high and a neighborhood nearby is overproducing, if you two are hooked up for interconnecting then you can buy and sell energy to each other to maintain a grid.

Imagine having hundreds of micro grids around you that can support your community vs having to rely on power that gets transmitted from one main provider and a handful of backups.

Also, there are tons of energy production options other than solar and wind! Depending on your demographic and land availability, your micro grid could tap into various generation and storage options!

The list of pros goes on and on... Now that we are in an age of affordable micro generation, it makes sense to move forward with the times.

 

[Crissa]

Grazing is something else which can happen unimpeded as long as the lowest point of the panels is 4' from the ground. (There's a bunch of studies on this, and they've all come back positive for this symbiosis.)
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/should-land-be-used-solar-panels-or-agriculture

It would be far more efficient than hiring guys to weed-whack when you could run some goats or cattle through. Or have them high enough to not bother the desert foliage.

-Crissa

Sponsored