pretty OT: boats

to be a problem. The power grid has dealt with people building more houses, and putting in electric powered devices - most recently air conditioners - for it's whole existence. They will be able to cope.

t a useful rate takes as much CONTINUOUS power as the heat coils in my furn ace which only runs sporadically on the coldest winter nights. That's the p oint. One night the four homes on a common transformer may not charge at al l. Another night they may all four be charging eight cars. This may not hap pen often, but the system has to be able to supply those extra kW compared to the loads they used to supply. In some neighborhoods this will require u pgrades of the local distribution. Otherwise no other part of the grid will be remotely stressed.

the supply would be able to the worst case. But provided that the cars are charged by some reasonable time in the morning they don't need to all charg e at the full rate.

can be done in a perfect future, but it is a long road with many hurdles t o get something agreed on that is effective and takes into account all part y's interest. This is exactly what I would propose rather than have the el ectric companies go to the oversight boards and impose a universal fee for expanding the local distribution and I have talked about this here. I just don't think it will happen without lots of vocal users. The power compani es have a vested interest in adding all manner of capital if it can be done at other's expense.

nuclear generators in Virginia and got the legislature to allow them to bil l the consumers for the half billion it cost. They may or may not ever bui ld the plants. So why did "we" get the bill?

st effective when at operating temperature. EV owners charge their cars so they finish and are still warm when they are ready to leave on cold mornin gs. This is at odds with minimizing overlap of charging and heating.

ome agreement on protocols can be centrally controlled.

customer to use the capability and have very little inconvenience.

ses is not so much of my total bill. There's also the fact that the billin g is set for the generating peaks which is not the same as the residential distribution peaks.

and do more in other countries. Our local company PG&E just adds a small c ontroller into the heating controller in return for a lower rate.

nd off independently so are already scattered across time. The only thing they can do that would be effective is to cut back on your overall heating energy usage during the cold spells which means your home is not warm. The y tried that in Maryland and then gave it up. I'm sure the consumers paid the bill for that too, just not up front. They have a special "fee" in Mar yland for those sorts of programs. I got freebies a couple of times from t hem.

s not so simple as putting boards in the cars. There are numerous safety i ssues involved in addition to various regulatory issues. Try connecting a solar generation capability that isn't 100% hard wired. It won't be appnot roved for you to throw the switch. not

ace they will never consider burning them up with this sort of plan.

One idea _I have not seen discussed is putting some solar cells on the car roofs. That could either extend the range of the car or reduce the amount of batteries needed.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

Obviously. But this is something that would help the grid, and they'd pay the car owner for the service.

Until they realise how much the grid is likely to pay for the use of the battery in this way.

formatting link

It goes back to 1987. Dutch teams have won it quite frequently so we heard about it from time to time when we lived in the Netherlands. It's a totally impractical form of transport, but an exceptionally good educational opportunity.

Airplane wings offer more surface area.

formatting link

There seem to have been a lot of discussions that went on when Dan wasn't paying attention.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

I forgot that every thing has to be spelled out for Bill. I assume the rest of the readers of this newsgroup were able to understand what I was suggesting.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

ote:

o replace they will never consider burning them up with this sort of plan.

to use the batteries in parked electric cars for grid storage, the batteri es will become much cheaper to replace - the car manufacturers may want to price them as single-sourced spare parts, but they won't be able to get awa y with it.

and the EV manufacturers will revoke your 100,000-mile warranty.

all sort of thing that the electric vehicle manufacturers might try to do to rip off their customers, but if society as a whole sees the sense in usi ng the batteries in parked electric cars for grid storage - once most cars are electric the parked cars could deliver something like four or five tim es the peak output from the grid for some hours - the electric vehicle manu facturers aren't going to have that option.

er telling us that this doesn't make sense to you. Few things do.

Hey SL0W MAN,

There you go AGAIN - repeating the insult "stupid" (at least you spelled it right this time!), a sure sign of a TROLL.

Who the hell is going to "pay" for it? You socialists just don't understand that the only one who can pay is the CONSUMER, one way or another. The bot tom line is that battery storage of energy is VERY EXPENSIVE - nat gas is M UCH CHEAPER.

Reply to
Flyguy

ut it's not so simple as putting boards in the cars.

gulatory issues. Try connecting a solar generation capability that isn't 10

0% hard wired. It won't be approved for you to throw the switch. not

ay the car owner for the service.

o replace they will never consider burning them up with this sort of plan.

e battery in this way.

e car roofs. That could either extend the range of the car or reduce the am ount of batteries needed.

ard about it from time to time when we lived in the Netherlands. It's a tot ally impractical form of transport, but an exceptionally good educational o pportunity.

't paying attention.

est of the readers of this newsgroup were able to understand what I was sug gesting.

Forget about SL0W MAN understanding anything - he already has the solution looking for a problem.

Adding solar panels to a car's roof MIGHT produce 0.8 KWh per day (not much if you park in a parking garage or if buildings block the sunlight). That will get you about 2.3 mi for Tesla Model 3 at a cost of around $2,000 to $

3,000 because you would have to use flexible modules. And most of the time you would not need it because you can recharge at night.
Reply to
Flyguy

:

e:

e:

but it's not so simple as putting boards in the cars.

regulatory issues. Try connecting a solar generation capability that isn't

100% hard wired. It won't be approved for you to throw the switch. not

pay the car owner for the service.

to replace they will never consider burning them up with this sort of plan .

the battery in this way.

the car roofs. That could either extend the range of the car or reduce the amount of batteries needed.

heard about it from time to time when we lived in the Netherlands. It's a t otally impractical form of transport, but an exceptionally good educational opportunity.

sn't paying attention.

rest of the readers of this newsgroup were able to understand what I was s uggesting.

n looking for a problem.

ch if you park in a parking garage or if buildings block the sunlight). Tha t will get you about 2.3 mi for Tesla Model 3 at a cost of around $2,000 to $3,000 because you would have to use flexible modules. And most of the tim e you would not need it because you can recharge at night.

Hmm. I was thinking a lot more power. Say 2 kw peak power and parked at work fo r 8.5 hours. So maybe 8 kwh. or 10 times your estimate. So maybe a $600 a year Not really worth while at this time. Maybe reasonable ten years fr om now.

Why do you say it would have to be flexible panels?

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

On Saturday, 26 September 2020 at 13:15:41 UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@krl.org wrote: ...

2kW peak might need ~140 sq feet of panels. That's much more than the available space on a car. Add in the loss due to unfavourable aspect most of the time or shading due to clouds etc and you will need even more area.

The weight of the panels and the compromises to aerodynamics may reduce efficiency to the point that they are a net loss.

Most cars are not comprised of flat surfaces.

kw

Reply to
keith

Sure. Dan was suggesting that he doesn't have much grasp of reality. Nothing new there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

:

e:

e:

but it's not so simple as putting boards in the cars.

regulatory issues. Try connecting a solar generation capability that isn't

100% hard wired. It won't be approved for you to throw the switch. not

pay the car owner for the service.

to replace they will never consider burning them up with this sort of plan .

the battery in this way.

the car roofs. That could either extend the range of the car or reduce the amount of batteries needed.

heard about it from time to time when we lived in the Netherlands. It's a t otally impractical form of transport, but an exceptionally good educational opportunity.

sn't paying attention.

rest of the readers of this newsgroup were able to understand what I was su ggesting.

ch if you park in a parking garage or if buildings block the sunlight). Tha t will get you about 2.3 mi for Tesla Model 3 at a cost of around $2,000 to $3,000 because you would have to use flexible modules. And most of the tim e you would not need it because you can recharge at night.

Even Flyguy can spell it out for Dan. And is stupid enough to waste the tim e to do it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.