As for this article, I'll have to read it again and think about it. I like what I see though..

"Re-tune smart grid business cases to reflect greater utility benefit and less consumer interaction."

I hate to admit it but this is good advice for utility companies because they are fighting for money for smart grid projects and must somehow justify it. It stands out because it is also very sad for consumers. Greater consumer interactions were supposed to be a crucial facet of many smart grid ideas. It just goes to show how politicized the current utility regulatory system is and the current funding of smart grid projects are in the US.

The involvement of consumer interactions in smart grid projects will undoubtedly develop painfully slowly in the coming years. It could take decades before we see some technologies used by millions everywhere. This will be frustrating for those consumers who WANT to participate but are not even offered the choice by their local distribution utility company. It will be especially tough to swallow when most of us consumers today are accustomed to getting access to new hi-tech products within weeks of them being introduced on the open retail markets.

Here we have the prospect to consumers moving a hefty portion of their energy payments away from gasoline and to electricity (for their electric vehicles) and the utility people complain about 'problems'. I can think of another phrase for that. Perhaps 'opportunity of the century'? With these higher usage rates, utilities can actually get the residential consumer to pay their weight in interconnection costs. I'd think that would be a GOOD thing.

It makes me want to get off of the grid - just so I don't have to hear any more of this whining and bellyaching from the electric utilities. :) Yes, the world is changing - deal with it - everyone else does.....

I cannot understand how a neighborhood full of Level 1 (110v, 16a) EV charging stations would be a problem. That's the same as a modern hair dryer (1750w).

On the other hand, a neighborhood full of Level 2 (240v, 80a) EV fast charge charging stations could be an issue for distribution transformers during the summer.

How much would that 20 kW solar array cost installed? More or less than the EV?

Ed

I'm guessing an EV charger should allow 4-8 hours to charge a car. For a Volt, that would be about (very roughly) 1.5 kW-hr. So yes, about the same as a hair dryer. (But it's a hair dryer you are running for 4-8 hours). The battery costs limit a vehicle to no more than 15-20 kw-hr of capacity, which would be fully charged by a level 2 (from your post) station in only an hour. I don't think battery packs at this point could even accept a charge that fast.

20 kW solar would be about $40K. So about the same.

I think you could just put brown-out shut-offs on the chargers (maybe lower charge so the cars will get something) and be done with it.

I agree with your EV charger comments, but our utility companies are much more concerned that we first realize. Aside from distribution transformer overloading risks, on average, adding an EV charger in a home is equivalent to adding the equivalent of a central AC load on that house. (Level 2 chargers are much more than a typical AC load but a Level 1 is more like half an AC load). Many distribution utility companies are against this given residential AC's have been their primary focus for residential demand management schemes, and continue to be today. So adding EV chargers all over the place will compound their demand management problems in spite of the extra revenue they're going to get from the much higher customer bills.

There are additional EV problems looming for utilities too, like how will they reconcile who pays to charge your EV at other sites away from home. Gasoline is certainly not doled out for free away from home to anyone, so why would anyone expect electrical charging of EV’s to be available freely away from home. Of course there are easy ways to deal with this using ID and metering technology in the EV’s and charging stations, but it will mean much more involvement of the utility companies. Sooner or later they will have to wake up to this and get more involved in the technology.

Happy New Year guys, it promises to be an exciting future for EV's. Last I heard just about every car manufacturer is planning to roll out new EV models, and soon.

Given that the current situation is sending money overseas to people that don't like us and fly planes into our skyscrapers, I'd say that a few bumps and bruises in getting EV charging working is worthwhile.

One thing I've noticed (perhaps other could comment) is how extremely conservative utility people tend to be. Perhaps the systems are so carefully balanced that what seems like small deviations to a lay-person (like me) is a highly disruptive change. That could be the case. All I can say is that they need to change or someone else will do their job. For many decades "Big Iron" was the way that computing was performed (mainframe computers). IBM is still fortunately still alive, but not until they tried to give away their business TWICE, once to EDS in the 60's and again to Microsoft in the 80's.

This makes me think that the most non-resilient aspect of our electric grid is not the infrastructure, but the mindsets of the people that run it.

I agree with your thoughts about the mindsets of the people that run our electric grid, and add one more thing.

My observations have been utility people are terrified of committing themselves to any changes unless they can be sure they will recover all their costs involved, and that includes the cost of keeping the reliability of service very high. This by extension means applying to regulators to approve rate increases to pay for any changes. Getting that approval is usually a daunting task, it is never a sure thing. The lack of commitment in turn makes them appear to not want anything to change, and they often don’t accept changes unless regulators or governments force them into it.

I expect our governments to force them much more often in future, by using large handouts of tax dollars to fund them being preferred over allowing draconian rate increases. And as you allude to, if they don’t make the necessary changes, and don’t make them in a timely manner, more consumers will gradually opt to get off the grid entirely i.e. by making their own power.

If the numbers I used above are correct, a L1 charger is approximately equivalent to a 2RT AC or HP. However, the L2 charger is the equivalent of 20-25RT of capacity. That is a daunting residential load; approximately 40% of a 200 amp service.

I would guess that 80 amp circuit (not main) breakers for residential panels are not that common.

Ed

You are correct, 80-amp circuit breakers are very uncommon in homes built to electrical codes, most of a home's circuits are wired to handle only 15 amps safely. Electric stoves, clothes dryers, furnaces, water heaters, or central ACs are the only loads that are often wired to draw more than 15, like 20 or 30. A home’s main breaker is typically 200 amps up here in Ontario on newer homes but only 100 in older homes.

Anyone getting an L2 charger will probably need a special circuit installed in their house with heavy gauge wiring to handle 80 amps. This is why I'm sure the EV manufacturer's are offering L1 chargers or other slower-charging types because they will more conveniently "plug-in" to a standard 120VAC 15-amp or 220VAC 15-amp outlet circuit, and thus avoid the expense of installing a high-current circuit in their house.

My predictions:

The price of electric vehicles is not likely to generate much consumer demand as the hybrids are much more cost effective. In any case, looks to me like the likelihood of electric vehicles screwing up the distribution grid in 2011 is vanishingly small.

Smart meters are primarily a means to charge consumers more money and no amount of utility PR and hand waving can change that. With much more conservative state legislatures having been voted in, cold water is going to be thrown on the "smart meter" band wagon.

Cheap natural gas in the US will remain throughout 2011 because of the huge price differential between natural gas and oil. That means drilling will continue to recover liquid hydrocarbons from "wet" shale, with the natural gas being more or less a byproduct.

Water used for fracturing natural gas shale formations will be re-cycled, and already is in some locations. While adding somewhat to the cost, the extraction of the natural gas/oil from shale formations will continue to accelerate throughout 2011.

Utility planning for new nuclear and coal power plants will more or less dry up because of the low cost of natural gas fuel and the low capital cost of new combined-cycle power plants, particularly when considering the paucity of coherent strategic thinking in most utilities.

Renewable energy "portfolio" standards will be reversed in an increasing number of states owing to more conservative legislatures and low cost natural gas. Good riddance to truly ill-conceived and dopey state of laws promulgated by corrupt, self-serving politicians and special interest groups.

As anyregular reader here will know nuclear plants are my preferred choice for the long term but utility CEO's must look to the bottom line and gas is going to win out for new plant unless nuclear plant suppliers can get their costs under control.

I totally agree with Mike Keller that gas fired plants will trump everything else if there is some assurance of stable pricing in coming years.

Of course there is fuel supply risk here since current pipelines have only so much capacity - but my money is on natural gas plants - in the North American market - so suggest loading up on shares of gas supply companies. The knock-on effect is that if North American demand for natural gas on world markets decreses due to home grown supply the price of the liquefied product from Algeria and elsewhere will also decline making gas plants viable elsewhere too.

A very realistic article Mark.

Malcolm