Grid and Electric Vehicles

That is your deluded opinion. "Woke" is usually taken to mean people who base their opinions on what is currently fashionable, and lots of people took climate change seriously long before it got fashionable/

The sun is extremely predictable - clouds less so - but you can design your system to cope. You probably couldn't, but you are an idiot.

That's what high voltage transmission lines are designed to cope with. You need to learn about them.

Einstein invented and patented the basic idea. It works but it isn't very efficient.

They don't. The thermodynamics become less favourable, but Stirling engines work down to very low temperatures.

The power for those imagined resistive heaters comes from imaginary gas generators. so Sewage Sweeper is engaged in his usual argument by deluded assertion.

They are shutting fossil plants rapidly in Australia and investing a lot in cheaper renewable generation - solar farms and wind-farms. You do make fatuous assertions.

If the US utilities were controlled by half-wits like you, they might not invest in getting more of their energy from cheaper renewable sources, but this doesn't seem to be true.

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

With annual 776 TWh energy consumption and 8760 hours in a year, the average power is 89 GW, which could be produced with less than 100 additional nuclear reactors. That would be two new nuclear reactors in each US state.

With unreliable renewable sources (such as wind and solar) the installed nominal capacity needs to be 3-10 times i.e. 270 to 900 GW to produce that average power.

With 230 million EVs, the average charging power is only 385 W or less than 4 A from a 120 V mains including some conversion losses. If generated locally with roof mounted solar panels (150 W/m2) in 6 hours a 10 m2 solar panel would be required.Local generation will reduce the distribution network loading.

Large parking lots should have sockets for car charging, so that as much of solar power from home panels could be utilized during a working day.

This 385 W for 24 h would of course be the absolute minimum but in practice the peak for a single car would be 2-4 times that if it needs to be charged in 12 to 3 hours each day. Still quite manageable.

No, you can't have any new power generation, until you've used all the power generation you have, now!

Why do people have to be told over and over again, about the demand curve??? There is somewhere around 1/2 of the total generation capability, available through the 24 hour demand cycle.

They have a term for generating capacity that can be brought online quickly, it's called "Dispatchable". Loads are mostly "Right Now" loads, having to be supplied at the time they are turned on. But... charging EVs is mostly a very flexible load, which can often be scheduled any time over the next two or three days. We don't have a term for such a flexible load, but it's the load equivalent of "Dispatchable" generation, and means we don't need to build a single kW of generation to charge all 230 million EVs, other than the relatively few which need charging en route.

Except that the EV ***IS*** the storage that allows the use of renewable power.

It's not about "less uncertainty". It's about the fact that you pulled the number from your butt.

I have done that. That's why I know your data is pure BS.

Yes, you are right, there are already EVs charged from existing power plants :-) , thus new generating capacity is needed only for future EVs.

I used the nuclear reactors as an example since they have a quite similar power (1-1.6 GW) each, so it easy to think how many reactors will be needed if all cars are electric. Thus it can be calculated how much uranium is needed for the cards or how much coal is needed if coal fired power plants are solely used.

At least in Scandinavia the day/night consumption variation is only about 20 %. Only on very cold winter days the consumption can be twice the summer time consumption. While EV charging can be moved to the night to even out the demand, you can not postpone it several months to a low consumption season :-).

What does 'quickly' mean ? For gas turbines it is seconds, for coal fired and nuclear it is several hours or a day.

If your EV battery capacity is so large and you drive so little that the battery needs charging only once in a week or two you can rely completely on renewables. Long high pressure periods areas and the wind power is out. Long cloudy periods and the solar energy is out. Both can be out simultaneously, thus you may need some other sources to ride through several days.

One distinct advantage with HVDC lines is that they can use underground cables or even under water cables from town to town.

High voltage AC connections suffer from the capacitance from phase to ground and phase to phase so huge ugly overhead lines must be used for long connections. The capacitance would sooner or later convert real power(W) to reactive power (VAr).

With DC power, the capacitance is not a problem, so underground cables can be used with less subjective objections.

Winter can get miserable in the U.S. Nothing like a good blizzard to give the weather people something to discuss. There is an article here talking about a nuke plant that's supposed to replace a coal powered one. It will be delayed two years because Russia invaded Ukraine. The goal now is to have these plant working in 2030. Construction was supposed to have started in 2023.

This is why I typically ignore your posts. You literally can't put together a rational thought.

Coming from you, that's a complement.

I really don't expect Ed Lee to understand any of this. But it's always entertaining to read your posts.

Like I said, I don't expect you to understand the fact that we can power a lot of electric cars without building any new power plants.

Better late to the conversation than never.

The biggest problem with nuclear power (other than disposing of the spent fuel) is getting them built. They talk about "planning" for 7 years construction, but how long was it from someone saying, "We are going to build a nuclear plant", to having the license in hand to start construction? In general, US nuclear takes around twenty years from concept to fuel loading. That's simply too long to work into a plan to power this country. In 20 years, all the cars on the road will be EVs!

Why? He is not arguing against you for this issue.

Are you REALLY this DUMB, Bozo? REALLY??? Tell me, HOW are you going to schedule CLOUD COVER such that it doesn't coincide with power demands???? Cloud cover can persist for WEEKS, you IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

LOL! You were the idiot that claimed we could just INCREASE the voltage on these lines to increase power transmission!! You are FUCKING CLUELESS what the issues are involving the planning, funding, design, regulation and construction of HV power transmission lines.

The FUCK THEY DON'T! "Less favorable" means that resistive heating is more energy efficient, or in other words they DON'T FUCKING WORK!

Sorry, Bozo, but heat pumps AREN'T stirling engines.

No, Bozo, the power comes from REAL gas generators - it DOESN'T come from imaginary renewables.

Which is EXACTLY what I am saying - "cheaper" renewables AREN'T cheaper when you include the cost of backing them up with fossil-powered plants.

Well, the US utilities AREN'T controlled by BRAIN-DEAD IDIOTS such as yourself, so they will NOT put all of their eggs into the renewable basket. Hawaii might be the exception, however.

Bozo's Sewage Sweeper

This does not need to be the case if they transition from one-of-a-kind custom designs to smaller modular reactors.

That may be true, but it will be a decade or two before they have enough experience with them to reach that point. By then, we will have so much renewable energy, with storage, providing power much cheaper than nuclear, that the "new" nuclear industry will be stillborn.

The big problem with such technologies, is that they have enormous momentum and take too long to adapt to the present, ever changing landscape.

It's not your father's energy sector anymore.

In specific areas, You don't put solar farms there.

Some times you can, with taller towers and longer insulators. The problems of getting approval for new high voltage power lines shown up regularly in our newspapers. It takes time to sort them out - and intervention from higher levels of government in some cases - but it does happen and it has been happening for as long as I can remember

"Less favourable" doesn't extend to making resistive heaters more energy efficient. The resistive loses in the motors driving the pumps becomes part of the heat that the customer is buying, but only part of it.

Stirling engines are heat pumps, and are routinely used to liquifiy gases like hydrogen and helium. You may have studied thermodynamics as part of you undergraduate course (as I did) but it doesn't seem to have stayed with you.

There's nothing imaginary about renewables, They are producing a significant amount of utility power, and the proportion is rising rapidly.

You don't backed them up with fossil-powered plants but rather with grid-scale storage. And they are still cheaper even after you figure that in.

What makes you think that - beyond your usual irrational faith in your demented delusions?

Renewables = Unreliable

This is a truth that will NEVER change. It is OK to have it as PART of the energy mix, but not the ONLY supply. Modular nuclear generators can be placed near the load, eliminating the costly and lengthy process of installing transmission lines (and, NO Bozo, you can't just jack up the voltage on existing lines!). The smart play by ALL involved is to embrace this truth because you are not going to win converts with rolling blackouts. Even nat gas generators are preferable to this.

That they aren't controlled by BRAIN-DEAD IDIOTS such as yourself? Simple: because I follow what they are planning.

Bozo's Sewage Sweeper

Argument by implausible assertion.

It's not true, and never was, like all of your misleading over-simplifications.

If you back it up with adequate energy storage and reasonable amount of averaging over large areas, renewables will be able to work fine. Your brain has been stuff full of climate change denial propaganda, designed to keep the fossil carbon extraction industry profitable for as long as possible, so you couldn't possibly see this.

Except that sometimes you can. Modular nuclear reactors aren't items of commerce yet, and probably never will be - the power they produce seems to be just as expensive as that produced by regular nuclear reactors, and nowhere near as cheap as that produced by renewable sources (even if you can't bring yourself to accept this).

What "rolling blackouts"? This is argument by asserting the existence of imaginary disasters, while ignoring the real disasters that climate change is inflecting on us.

Sewage Sweeper is consistently demented. Embracing a truth that doesn't happen to be true isn't any kind of "smart play". It's actually just being persistently deluded.

Yet more argument by implausible assertion. If you could follow what they were planning you'd be able to post a link to their commercial in-confidence forward planning - which they'd be mad to expose to a loose-lipped half-wit like you, who could be relied on to misunderstand the data as supporting his deluded expectation.