Slipstreaming EV's - A viable pathway to extending range via OTA?

[Dids]

That also looks like a viable option for setting up comms between vehicles. I haven't seen that variation before. The range is pretty limited for LTE, do you know if it will work at the same time as connecting to a tower to get data as well? There's obviously also the cellular telemetry path, but there's no way to guarantee package delivery, let alone latency through a tower or network.

The question I suppose is how fast it connects/reconnects, and how dependable it is. Obviously 1-2 seconds is too long at those distances and speeds (60mph = 88ft/s).

This sort of throws up a more general question and that is what is the necessary range for secondary comms in this scenario? Is it enough to have LOS (line of sight) or does it need to go further, if it's not the primary comms? I suppose I'd have to map it out a bit better first.

I have not read the 3ggp standards since version 14 but at that time Proximity Services and especially Vehicle to Vehicle had very low latency in the order of micro seconds. I think ProSe is an island head arrangement with a modem broadcasting services or requesting service and is independent of the tower which is always the controller. My Samsung Note 10 modem is mimo and has the hardware but ProSe is disabled by the network for security and because they have no way of profiting from it. I am fairly certain DOD and DOT use LTE, I know homeland security does and if I could sign on the emergency services AP LTE direct would be enabled. The V2V @SwampNut is talking about is LTE direct, or at least the Vehicle to Everything that replaced V2V is

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

My thoughts:

If you're going to set up a system for automated drafting, you shouldn't leave any efficiency gains on the table without logical reasons. With proper programming and low latency between the sensors and the braking circuit, the ultrasonic sensors in the bumper could be effective and allow 24" following distance. LTE could be used for basic communication between vehicles with emergency braking instigated by the ultrasonics.

With the "rules" pre-programmed, ultrasonics can take care of braking rate. The only downside is the convey can only brake as fast as the slowest braking convey member and the braking rate must be slightly modulated at initiation. The slowest braking rate of all vehicles in the convoy could be communicated via LTE to all vehicles that join the convoy and vehicles not able to match the minimum acceptable braking rate would not be allowed to join the convoy.

Yes, rare, extenuating circumstances might cause contact/damage between the vehicles, but that's possible with any convoy system and it should not be of the injury or fatal type. More importantly, it would be many times safer than driving it manually.

I think efficiency gains with vehicles 24" apart would be in the neigborhood of 40-50% at 70 mph.

Perhaps more ideally, the cars would be retrofitted with slightly more powerful ultrasonics allowing a 4-foot following distance. Efficiency gains would not suffer much. I know these close distances seem very foreign and uncomfortable to most people but that's just because they don't understand the actual limitations and capabilities of such a system. Dedicated computer controls can have very low latency, so it mostly comes down to the milliseconds required to actuate the brakes. EV's have the edge here since regen braking can be switched on instantly, before the hydraulics have actuated fully.

 

[rr6013]

My thoughts:

If you're going to set up a system for automated drafting, you shouldn't leave any efficiency gains on the table without logical reasons. With proper programming and low latency between the sensors and the braking circuit, the ultrasonic sensors in the bumper could be effective and allow 24" following distance. LTE could be used for basic communication between vehicles with emergency braking instigated by the ultrasonics.

With the "rules" pre-programmed, ultrasonics can take care of braking rate. The only downside is the convey can only brake as fast as the slowest braking convey member and the braking rate must be slightly modulated at initiation. The slowest braking rate of all vehicles in the convoy could be communicated via LTE to all vehicles that join the convoy and vehicles not able to match the minimum acceptable braking rate would not be allowed to join the convoy.

Yes, rare, extenuating circumstances might cause contact/damage between the vehicles, but that's possible with any convoy system and it should not be of the injury or fatal type. More importantly, it would be many times safer than driving it manually.

I think efficiency gains with vehicles 24" apart would be in the neigborhood of 40-50% at 70 mph.

Perhaps more ideally, the cars would be retrofitted with slightly more powerful ultrasonics allowing a 4-foot following distance. Efficiency gains would not suffer much. I know these close distances seem very foreign and uncomfortable to most people but that's just because they don't understand the actual limitations and capabilities of such a system. Dedicated computer controls can have very low latency, so it mostly comes down to the milliseconds required to actuate the brakes. EV's have the edge here since regen braking can be switched on instantly, before the hydraulics have actuated fully.

Your approach is absolutely TeslaVISION-esque right scheme.

After 3hr grueling traffic into the city, it’s apparent that there exists two systems of convoy under discussion. Both are necessary. One aero-eco and Semi-trailer convoy centric above 45mph. @HaulingAss has scoped this version pretty well.

A second non-aero, mixed convoy version for cars, trucks and trailers under the speed of 45 mph. @JBee scoped the second version as the commuter friendly, open to non-Teslas and essentially a non-technical solution that relies on tailights. EV’s are totally capable of managing stop&go commuter traffic with ADAS or in-car processors.

Given such an application is commuting-specific, Tesla could sell into non-Tesla OEM’s such a system. That would command brand loyalty just to have standardized commuter traffic control.

You needn’t sell a Tesla to have people want a “Tesla PUREvision inside” to make a car commute easier. It begins to build the abstraction layer above traffic, routing, transit and Godview(ala Opticaster) that DOT-types could ape over.

 

[HaulingAss]

Your approach is absolutely TeslaVISION-esque right scheme.

After 3hr grueling traffic into the city, it’s apparent that there exists two systems of convoy under discussion. Both are necessary. One aero-eco and Semi-trailer convoy centric above 45mph. @HaulingAss has scoped this version pretty well.

A second non-aero, mixed convoy version for cars, trucks and trailers under the speed of 45 mph. @JBee scoped the second version as the commuter friendly, open to non-Teslas and essentially a non-technical solution that relies on tailights. EV’s are totally capable of managing stop&go commuter traffic with ADAS or in-car processors.

Given such an application is commuting-specific, Tesla could sell into non-Tesla OEM’s such a system. That would command brand loyalty just to have standardized commuter traffic control.

You needn’t sell a Tesla to have people want a “Tesla PUREvision inside” to make a car commute easier. It begins to build the abstraction layer above traffic, routing, transit and Godview(ala Opticaster) that DOT-types could ape over.

I don't think a system based on ultrasonics would be manufacture specific. The close following distances would require the cars to have similar braking characteristics but that would be taken care of with the required "handshaking" before joining a convoy. There would also be very low latency between the processing of the ultra-sonic sensors and application of the brakes.

 

[rr6013]

I don't think a system based on ultrasonics would be manufacture specific. The close following distances would require the cars to have similar braking characteristics but that would be taken care of with the required "handshaking" before joining a convoy. There would also be very low latency between the processing of the ultra-sonic sensors and application of the brakes.

I was enraptured at the thought of a car working the dregs of slow, agonizing commuter stop and go driving. Since speed and aero are non sequiturs there’s an opportunity to down-technify what isn’t needed. Vision systems can comfortably function and range the vehicle ahead queueing off signal, brake and acceleration. That really bifurcated the convoy use cases.

Suddenly there was a 90% relevant daily driver “commuter convoy” use case that never exceeds 45mph. Someday, open standards would provide every EV the ability to commuter convoy. Its an enabling scheme were it engineered to correct for convoy cutters who brake disrupting the stream flow of a convoy.

And the aerodynamic “range economy case” doesn’t begin until 45mph rarely exceeding 75mph for Semi tractor-trailers. That one needs low latency, network protocol and RT processing. Tesla can not only make the second system, it can differentiate and brand economic savings to the Semi product.

I might be wrong there could be two convoy schemes differ only in speed and application. One Tesla could define open standard for commuting traffic with vision only systems. Another Tesla could engineer, integrate into it product design and brand attach to the Tesla Semi marque only for ADAS in professional use.

Naive is expecting OEM’s to agree much less use in-common any systems that enable cars to self-commute in mixed traffic without paying a manufacturer for such a feature.

 

[JBee]

I don't think a system based on ultrasonics would be manufacture specific. The close following distances would require the cars to have similar braking characteristics but that would be taken care of with the required "handshaking" before joining a convoy. There would also be very low latency between the processing of the ultra-sonic sensors and application of the brakes.

The main problem I see with using ultrasonics is that there will still be a delay between vehicles braking, in that one vehicle after the other has to register enough of a change in distance and compute the rate of change before being able to modulate the following car brakes. As we now recently found out, Tesla is actually removing the ultrasonic sensors as well, meaning this can already be done with the vision based system as well, as it is apparently good enough to measure distance for precision parking.

With a wireless system, or even the the brake light modulation setup described, the braking information is provided to the rearmost following car nearly instantaneously. Meaning that all vehicles in a convoy can slow down at the same time without a systems a delay between them, because each vehicle conveys the intent to brake along the whole convoy before the first car is even mechanically braking at the full rate.

 

[JBee]

I was enraptured at the thought of a car working the dregs of slow, agonizing commuter stop and go driving. Since speed and aero are non sequiturs there’s an opportunity to down-technify what isn’t needed. Vision systems can comfortably function and range the vehicle ahead queueing off signal, brake and acceleration. That really bifurcated the convoy use cases.

Suddenly there was a 90% relevant daily driver “commuter convoy” use case that never exceeds 45mph. Someday, open standards would provide every EV the ability to commuter convoy. Its an enabling scheme were it engineered to correct for convoy cutters who brake disrupting the stream flow of a convoy.

And the aerodynamic “range economy case” doesn’t begin until 45mph rarely exceeding 75mph for Semi tractor-trailers. That one needs low latency, network protocol and RT processing. Tesla can not only make the second system, it can differentiate and brand economic savings to the Semi product.

I might be wrong there could be two convoy schemes differ only in speed and application. One Tesla could define open standard for commuting traffic with vision only systems. Another Tesla could engineer, integrate into it product design and brand attach to the Tesla Semi marque only for ADAS in professional use.

Naive is expecting OEM’s to agree much less use in-common any systems that enable cars to self-commute in mixed traffic without paying a manufacturer for such a feature.

I don't see different driving modes as such, rather just a convoy attachment/detachment method that triggers a change distance between vehicles, with the primary signal being relayed to the rear being the distance safety margin, where 0 is no change, +1 equals increase distance rate and -1 equals decrease distance. Each following vehicle already knows the exact following distance and velocity to the vehicle directly in front, via FSD or ultrasonic, but all vehicles in the convoy need to know what the first vehicle in the convoy sees and is doing that affects the safe braking of the convoy.

This means that the FSD in the front vehicle determines the calculated risk of operating a convoy in those specific conditions on that road, determined by vehicle braking distance, traffic density, lane distribution, weather and road conditions, upcoming traffic from reports, even erratic drivers etc. Each following vehicle considers that front vehicle safety margin and applies it's own safety margin, and displays this instantaneously to the next vehicle and so on. If a normal car merges through the convoy, nothing actually changes except the front vehicle no longer has a "safety margin" input.

Technically all FSD cars are following the leader already whilst driving down the road, even without slipstreaming mode, whilst maintaining position between the lanes and interacting with traffic and signs etc. The main difference with the slipstreaming is simply safely reducing the distance between vehicles to minimize drag. Provided it allows normal traffic to flow through the convoy, it simply creates two separate convoys, which can then reconnect.

If we are limiting this type of system for use on multi lane highways we then have to understand the specific risks involved in following at a close distance, and design a control method of reducing the consequence or risk. These are fairly numerous, but would all feed into a real time risk calculation run by each vehicle, which driver could adjust to be comfortable with, obviously within the safety margins.

There is also another factor that needs to be included and that is the ability of such convoys to reduce traffic congestion. This short video explains and shows the dynamics of traffic compression waves of which affects such a convoy system would reduce, resulting in improved traffic flow for all users. (BTW these affects are already diminished by radar cruise control vehicles without FSD)

 

[rr6013]

LOL “No more monkeys jumping on the bed” driving cars echoes “all human input is error”. Good overview that throws traffic memory, interrupts(lane changers,roosters, and phantom brakers), and a myth into the convoy problem.

I’m calling myth the presenter’s blind assertion that the car-in-the-middle actually solves for all traffic problems. We have all driven enough to recognize the value in having room(i.e. following distance) to smooth out hard stops, slowing and aide to average a relative constant speed. BUT that don’t make it a Theory as the cartoon graphically depicts. AI needs maths over philosophy to drive the algorithms in convoy. Humans have the “middle car“ anecdote as corollary to drive IRL within a safe following distance.

Traveling Salesman is creeping into convoying. Not a maths wiz, algorithms or number theory guy. SO those so equipped can lend credence where none have been established here wrt: convoy and self-commuting. Yes, there remain two use cases until technology obviates a redundancy. I agree that the two are convergent.

FSD has never made self-commuting type of claim. So commuting with it isn’t a problem for which FSD has solved and convoy is pushing it beyond “full” into the realm. Convoy is an all new extension of “self-driving through networking”. Convoy explores the complication of introducing a time device relative to velocity for a traffic gain.

Time to introduce SAT, Godview and the benefit of outside inference to the solution. Tesla may have leverage to utilize bandwidth at some future point in the development of self-driving, self-commuting and self-convoy solution domain. Tesla have Opticaster, Autobidder and VPP abstractions in other domains that it capitalizes upon solutions for greater good.

SAT network(s) could be utilized for known, isolated and geo-fenced or geo-tagged mobile situations to control traffic, manage convoys and used to project the energy-debt EV’s create. A new layer abstracted above just the convoy solution to forecast charge demand over baseload. So the solution may be resolved in reverse engineered order from the grid backwards to a set of manageable solutions for multiple actors over multiple domains.

With that Tesla could meld self-commuting into FSD, FSD cars into convoy-mode, Semi tractor-trailer convoys into something greater than FSD and integrate Tesla EV’s into an energy-demand calculation RT. That all has a decadal ring that’s over the ICE horizon Tesla is focused upon at present.

 

[JBee]

LOL “No more monkeys jumping on the bed” driving cars echoes “all human input is error”. Good overview that throws traffic memory, interrupts(lane changers,roosters, and phantom brakers), and a myth into the convoy problem.

I’m calling myth the presenter’s blind assertion that the car-in-the-middle actually solves for all traffic problems. We have all driven enough to recognize the value in having room(i.e. following distance) to smooth out hard stops, slowing and aide to average a relative constant speed. BUT that don’t make it a Theory as the cartoon graphically depicts. AI needs maths over philosophy to drive the algorithms in convoy. Humans have the “middle car“ anecdote as corollary to drive IRL within a safe following distance.

Traveling Salesman is creeping into convoying. Not a maths wiz, algorithms or number theory guy. SO those so equipped can lend credence where none have been established here wrt: convoy and self-commuting. Yes, there remain two use cases until technology obviates a redundancy. I agree that the two are convergent.

FSD has never made self-commuting type of claim. So commuting with it isn’t a problem for which FSD has solved and convoy is pushing it beyond “full” into the realm. Convoy is an all new extension of “self-driving through networking”. Convoy explores the complication of introducing a time device relative to velocity for a traffic gain.

Time to introduce SAT, Godview and the benefit of outside inference to the solution. Tesla may have leverage to utilize bandwidth at some future point in the development of self-driving, self-commuting and self-convoy solution domain. Tesla have Opticaster, Autobidder and VPP abstractions in other domains that it capitalizes upon solutions for greater good.

SAT network(s) could be utilized for known, isolated and geo-fenced or geo-tagged mobile situations to control traffic, manage convoys and used to project the energy-debt EV’s create. A new layer abstracted above just the convoy solution to forecast charge demand over baseload. So the solution may be resolved in reverse engineered order from the grid backwards to a set of manageable solutions for multiple actors over multiple domains.

With that Tesla could meld self-commuting into FSD, FSD cars into convoy-mode, Semi tractor-trailer convoys into something greater than FSD and integrate Tesla EV’s into an energy-demand calculation RT. That all has a decadal ring that’s over the ICE horizon Tesla is focused upon at present.

You can actually try this yourself on the highway in congestion, and I have been practicing the technique for some 12 years now. The best way I have found is simply 2x/3x the following distance and decreasing the rate at which I brake or accelerate. Preferably by not braking at all. My experience is that just lighting up your braking lights by touching the brakes, even without braking, creates an overreaction in the driver behind you that leads to more compression. The trick therefore is to "decompress" the traffic behind you. It doesn't necessarily benefit you to smooth out traffic behind you, but it does make the drive smoother and more efficient overall. Any driver who does this really becomes the front of the "road snake" compression wave, and it can result in quite considerable benefits in traffic behind, and also improves the efficiency of those behind you to boot. That realization often is enough motivation to do it often, like a traffic decompression game, and you just end up doing it by second nature.

The other positive effect of convoy driving on traffic is that traffic density is vehicles per time per distance. So if you can maintain more traffic to flow in a ore compact space in a shorter amount of time ie high speed, then you increase the capacity of the road itself so that it is able to handle more traffic.

Once again the silly ToU/Peak issue rears it's head here, where traffic is not synchronized enough to respond to real time demand, and so by synchronizing traffic you get rid of peak compression.

This is all on top of increasing range of the EV convoy.

As you point out scheduling is a essential constraint for real time modulation and control. There are a bunch of technologies and systems that could leverage against peak. If you break down the primary components, you end up with energy source, storage and use. Each one of those needs to monitor and inform each other component in the chain, and then use that information to predict production and consumption of energy, in order to process how best to distribute that energy either via EV and V2G minus the range required, or via the grid.

This is sort of where mesh networking IoT over SDR would come into play, and would allow redundant, resilient, self building and healing, and legacy interactive networks for realtime control. With that monitoring and control it just needs a computational layer to regulate the various systems. It might seem complicated at first, but I think with enough movable storage in EV's it's possible to seriously integrated the transportable nature of energy in EV's.

 

[Dids]

You can actually try this yourself on the highway in congestion, and I have been practicing the technique for some 12 years now. The best way I have found is simply 2x/3x the following distance and decreasing the rate at which I brake or accelerate. Preferably by not braking at all. My experience is that just lighting up your braking lights by touching the brakes, even without braking, creates an overreaction in the driver behind you that leads to more compression. The trick therefore is to "decompress" the traffic behind you. It doesn't necessarily benefit you to smooth out traffic behind you, but it does make the drive smoother and more efficient overall. Any driver who does this really becomes the front of the "road snake" compression wave, and it can result in quite considerable benefits in traffic behind, and also improves the efficiency of those behind you to boot. That realization often is enough motivation to do it often, like a traffic decompression game, and you just end up doing it by second nature.

The other positive effect of convoy driving on traffic is that traffic density is vehicles per time per distance. So if you can maintain more traffic to flow in a ore compact space in a shorter amount of time ie high speed, then you increase the capacity of the road itself so that it is able to handle more traffic.

Once again the silly ToU/Peak issue rears it's head here, where traffic is not synchronized enough to respond to real time demand, and so by synchronizing traffic you get rid of peak compression.

This is all on top of increasing range of the EV convoy.

As you point out scheduling is a essential constraint for real time modulation and control. There are a bunch of technologies and systems that could leverage against peak. If you break down the primary components, you end up with energy source, storage and use. Each one of those needs to monitor and inform each other component in the chain, and then use that information to predict production and consumption of energy, in order to process how best to distribute that energy either via EV and V2G minus the range required, or via the grid.

This is sort of where mesh networking IoT over SDR would come into play, and would allow redundant, resilient, self building and healing, and legacy interactive networks for realtime control. With that monitoring and control it just needs a computational layer to regulate the various systems. It might seem complicated at first, but I think with enough movable storage in EV's it's possible to seriously integrated the transportable nature of energy in EV's.

There is another benefit to enhancing the drive for people behind you. Monkey see, Monkey do is really powerful and has exponential impact.
When I first moved to Boston 25 years ago no one used their blinkah, I did and it has spread, now at least 5 people do.

 

[rr6013]

You can actually try this yourself on the highway in congestion, and I have been practicing the technique for some 12 years now. The best way I have found is simply 2x/3x the following distance and decreasing the rate at which I brake or accelerate. Preferably by not braking at all. My experience is that just lighting up your braking lights by touching the brakes, even without braking, creates an overreaction in the driver behind you that leads to more compression. The trick therefore is to "decompress" the traffic behind you. It doesn't necessarily benefit you to smooth out traffic behind you, but it does make the drive smoother and more efficient overall. Any driver who does this really becomes the front of the "road snake" compression wave, and it can result in quite considerable benefits in traffic behind, and also improves the efficiency of those behind you to boot. That realization often is enough motivation to do it often, like a traffic decompression game, and you just end up doing it by second nature.

Driving tractor-trailer with clutch and only a handful of fwd gears taught the value of constant .v. stop&go. The straggle strategy to keep rolling rather than braking a loaded t-t unit emerges the smooth flow over in the far right lane(US) that often passes the Fastlane(far left) demonstrating plodding constant flow over speed-up and brake.
Far right slow lane also enjoys the deaccelerating exiting vehicles that take an off ramp but also absorbs the merging vehicles from freeway on ramps. So some of the positive flow observed is non-attributable to a constant slower velocity but due to traffic exiting.
Like “road-snake” animalism. All snake have a length. Head of snake cute for AI to always assume head until otherwise verified ”in a train”. A road-snake straggles-on despite the loss of head.
Slow lane(farRH) still in US maxxes out at 64mph(100kph). Your simpler vision-based tech totally handles slow lane use case.
Fastlane, velocity is a valued high-priority in US. For purposes of self-commuting a Fastlane algorithm would disrupt, that straggled to maximize smooth-flow over velocity relative to traffic it passes. Teasing an AI into velocity for velocity sake is an interesting gambit against its smooth-flow directive. To wit: CHUCK’s L.H. turn progress “incusion zone” innovation that afforded creep and zone of acceleration to shoot a gap in traffic. So where there’s a will…the AI way can get uncomfortably aggressive for humans.

My takeaway is that the Fastlane isn’t the same specie road-snake that commands the slow lane. In the U.S. the head of snake gamification breaks down at 80mph cut-in. L.A. drivers have no problem accelerating thru lanes 5-4-3-2 at maximum velocity to insert lane#1==Fastlane with deliberate authority. The L.A Madmax strategy capitalizies upon the state of the freeway at entry, apparent gaps and leveraging those gaps before they change or close. It’s a variant of the straggle strategy on steroids where Mad flow is valued highest to reach Max velocity without loss of acceleration. SO there is a tension at the insertion point for stragglers .vs. Madmax.

 

[rr6013]

The other positive effect of convoy driving on traffic is that traffic density is vehicles per time per distance. So if you can maintain more traffic to flow in a ore compact space in a shorter amount of time ie high speed, then you increase the capacity of the road itself so that it is able to handle more traffic.

Once again the silly ToU/Peak issue rears it's head here, where traffic is not synchronized enough to respond to real time demand, and so by synchronizing traffic you get rid of peak compression.

This is all on top of increasing range of the EV convoy.

Well stated. Good end goal metrics. Synchronization is a beast…in L.A.

 

[Dids]

You can actually try this yourself on the highway in congestion, and I have been practicing the technique for some 12 years now. The best way I have found is simply 2x/3x the following distance and decreasing the rate at which I brake or accelerate. Preferably by not braking at all. My experience is that just lighting up your braking lights by touching the brakes, even without braking, creates an overreaction in the driver behind you that leads to more compression. The trick therefore is to "decompress" the traffic behind you. It doesn't necessarily benefit you to smooth out traffic behind you, but it does make the drive smoother and more efficient overall. Any driver who does this really becomes the front of the "road snake" compression wave, and it can result in quite considerable benefits in traffic behind, and also improves the efficiency of those behind you to boot. That realization often is enough motivation to do it often, like a traffic decompression game, and you just end up doing it by second nature.

The other positive effect of convoy driving on traffic is that traffic density is vehicles per time per distance. So if you can maintain more traffic to flow in a ore compact space in a shorter amount of time ie high speed, then you increase the capacity of the road itself so that it is able to handle more traffic.

Once again the silly ToU/Peak issue rears it's head here, where traffic is not synchronized enough to respond to real time demand, and so by synchronizing traffic you get rid of peak compression.

This is all on top of increasing range of the EV convoy.

As you point out scheduling is a essential constraint for real time modulation and control. There are a bunch of technologies and systems that could leverage against peak. If you break down the primary components, you end up with energy source, storage and use. Each one of those needs to monitor and inform each other component in the chain, and then use that information to predict production and consumption of energy, in order to process how best to distribute that energy either via EV and V2G minus the range required, or via the grid.

This is sort of where mesh networking IoT over SDR would come into play, and would allow redundant, resilient, self building and healing, and legacy interactive networks for realtime control. With that monitoring and control it just needs a computational layer to regulate the various systems. It might seem complicated at first, but I think with enough movable storage in EV's it's possible to seriously integrated the transportable nature of energy in EV's.

It would be good if maps navigation could display optimal speed in a traffic jam. They know how long the jam is and the average speed... They could just display that and help optimize flow.

 

[rr6013]

but I think with enough movable storage in EV's it's possible to seriously integrated the transportable nature of energy in EV's

Interesting…”movable storage”. The orig. concept was “movable deficit” energy that would more closely approximate the energy demand alluded in a predictive foresight measure gained on total amount of base load EV’s will draw against the grid due to commuting. Measured as a Whr/mi X vehicle count over time the corollary between baseload is Time so it’s 1:1 at worst case.

Worst case all EV’s immediately plug-in to chargers. They don’t. So Utilities can adjust their ToD use factors .v. EV quanta. Geo fencing could transfer grid demand out of SoCal Edison to say SDG&E so movable needs tracked. That could be in-car rather than network load. Then a dom. flag routes the energy deficit read off last known location to utility.

“Movable storage“ V2G benefit could dovetail with commuter recharging at work then arriving at home with energy to spare. Cheapest ToD charge rates are mid-morning to early afternoon. In a V2G storage arbitrage Teslas could dump-for-profit to recharge(i.e.cycle) the batterypack during off-peak charging at a handsome profit while Tesla owner’s sleep. Only to awake to a fully charged Tesla and $$USD the richer to start the day!

 

[JBee]

The best part is no part. But....the most useful part, with the highest ROI, is one that is used more often and all the time.

Having EV battery storage sitting around and not absorbing RE or providing peak load is a dumb waste of resource IMHO, regardless of what EM says. Wating for Tesla to get enough battery capacity for home storage is also dumb and not helping the advent of sustainable energy.

He's cutting himself out of both opportunity and effective change. It's essentially one OTA away from the teardowns we've seen so far, or at most a home charger upgrade for anti-islanding protection.

Even just the amount of energy savings from convoy would impact peak network, and would not cost one battery cycle or electron more.

Sponsored