Slashdot discussion of article in Maine Sunday Telegraph by Jonathan Fahey on the various practical issues involved in supplying electricity if electric cars start to catch on. "Jonathan Fahey writes for AP that as the first mass-market electric cars go on sale next month, the power industry faces a huge growth opportunity, with SoCal Edison expecting to be charging 100,000 cars by 2015 and California setting a goal of 1 million electric vehicles by 2020. But utility executives are worried..."
Hybrid vehicles have been on the market as a mass-produced option for more than a decade. They currently make up about three percent of the vehicles on the road in the United States. Electric companies are worried about the scaled-down introduction of electric vehicles. Often they throw out astoundingly large numbers of EVs and make predictions as if all those vehicles will be hitting the road next year. Statements like these: "Plugged into a socket, an electric car can draw as much power as a small house."[1] and "Not since air conditioning spread across the country in the 1950s and 1960s has the power industry faced such a growth opportunity."[2] serve to scare the same people who believe that flying is statistically more dangerous than driving. [1] First, I rarely see any "small" houses being built anymore. Secondly, wisely charged EVs will draw all their electricity at night when everyone else has a reduced energy draw. This will serve to actually level out the electric company's daily peaks and nightly lows. [2] Unlike EVs, A/Cs are smaller, easier devices that were manufactured much faster and implemented nationally much quicker.
This is a crock of manure. FUD. This effectively claims that the average U.S. home consumes under 2100 kWh/year, for an electric bill of under $230 per year, i.e. less than $20 per month. Maybe our homes did consume that little -- back when the typical home had electric lights, electric refrigerator, and a toaster. That era ended before the widespread adoption of AC.
You are quite right, it was 10,500 kwh for the average household in 2001. Maybe they meant would increase household consumption by 20%? Those numbers would work. The original ap article, that this snippet seems to be based on led with opportunities, but some risks. Utilities have some old and mis-sized transformers, that if substantial charging occurred could knock out a block. If they are proactive they can replace the old and substandard equipment before there is a problem. Also in regards to some regions, smart charging at night will be much more beneficial, especially in places like texas where wind turbines may soon have excess capacity at night.
Since when has the AP bothered to tell the whole story...or even the most relevant part of the story for that matter? I have gotten into the habit of looking immediately at the source whenever one of these sensational articles pops up. Nine times out of ten, if it is blatant propaganda. As for the actual draw on utilities, I will reiterate how nice it would be if the ebb and flow were MUCH more in the general direction of individual supply, or even community coops vs large utility companies. Personally, I could really give a rat's nice person about what hurts the companies that put so much effort into securing their monopolistic powers. If I were more paranoid, I might even suggest that this article is little more than a PR prelude to some sort of governmental assistance campaign on the part of utility lobbies.
The introduction of large format LCD and Plasma displays will have and has been having and will have more of an impact on our usage then electric cars for at least five years. If you add in a requirement for 'smart grid' inter-connectivity for cars in the next five years the power companies will have do it little more for electric cars then they have done for normal growth in power usage as time goes on. It is FUD and also a back handed way of asking for government money long term for the grid.
This has been ongoing. The texas grid modernization is on going and paid for by the federal and state monies. The california list of regulations seem to put it in a constant state of utilities being bankrupted then subsidiesed by the state. They are likely looking for PR. There was some real information in the original ap article, and it did fully spell out the scenario of coming home, turning on the plasma, the AC, the blender, and the car charger. That stuff seemed to be missing from the abbreviated article. An improved grid does allow for ease of adding renewable power. But there is definite politics in the companies providing power versus those with the wires and transformers. That was part of the california politics that caused its black outs. I think this is PR to try to get US taxpayers to pay and subsidize some of these utilities. Austin Energy was one of those in the article and they are strong proponents of BEVs and PHEVs, as they will increase their revenues. So at least one of the companies interviewed is really rubbing their hands hoping for use, but the article did not frame it that way.
The thread is titled poorly. Utilities are worried by mass acceptance and use of EVs, not the first ones. I have an EV which I use daily and a plug in Prius conversion my wife uses to commute with daily. Our electric use including those vehicles is still much less than our neighbors with similar houses. The first EV drivers are/will be early adopters who conserve heavily and or use their own PV or wind power. So no, I doubt any utilities are worried abou the First EVs.
Government intervention in the utility market is nothing new. Residences in large portions of some states today would probably not have power if it weren't for the Rural Electrification Agency & Tennesee Valley Authority. Whether or not EVs are going to put a drain on the infrastructure the utilities are going to continue to lobby for their "fair share" of the Federal budget.
