Bloomberg has an article today that explains why California will likely face higher power costs as a result of a boom in plug-in electric cars. Although this is kind of obvious if you think about it for more than 15 seconds, it's still worth noting, because some people might find it initially counterintuitive. Even though electric cars will certainly lower gasoline costs, they will increase electric costs. The point extends well beyond just California as plug-ins become more broadly popular.
Here' the gist of Bloomberg's argument:
California's push to lead U.S. sales of electric cars may result in higher power rates for consumers in the state, as a growing number of rechargeable vehicles forces utilities to pay for grid upgrades.
And a Moringstar analyst, Travis Miller, chimes in:
"If you look at the kind of money that will be needed for a full smart grid and support for electric vehicles, then you are talking about a substantial amount," Miller said in a phone interview. The spending may total "multiple billions" of dollars over a decade or more, he said.
Plug-in cars will obviously continue to use energy. But instead of gasoline, they will rely mostly on electric batteries. As demand for electricity increases, so will its price. As more charging stations are needed, that will also increase electric bills when power companies need to build more of these facilities.
Of course, the kind of amusing twist is that California is actually requiring auto companies to sell more plug-in vehicles, so it's bringing this additional cost increase on itself. That's why Bloomberg's article is so focused on the state. But the reality is that plug-in vehicles are likely to gain widespread popularity across the U.S. as they become more affordable. As a result, across the country, as more people drive plug-in vehicles, electricity prices will increase.
The question, then, is whether overall energy costs will increase. It's certainly possible that they could at first, given the vast infrastructure that needs to be created to recharge these vehicles. Once you've got the charging stations built up, however, prices will decrease. At that point, it's just a matter of how efficient the electric cars are at using energy versus gasoline-powered vehicles, and the relative prices of the two forms of power.
Whenever I read something like this I am reminded that 100 years ago horse manure in the streets was a terrible problem in America's large cities.
Next you're going to tell me we're going to have to mine more coal to power these vehicles too.
It's simply a reminder that coping with oil scarcity and battling global warming is going to be a war on all fronts. There's no single solution. Energy conservation has to be part of the plan. And, aside from bio-engineering things like reforestation to bring CO2 under control the other part of the big picture is moving away from non-renewable to renewable energy.
So what does that actually involve? It's a switch from fossil fuels, which can often be carried with you in the form of gas in a tank or in a previous age coal in a tender, to renewable energy which is all electric and therefore tends to require non-portable infrastructure to generate it. So it's natural that we're going to be turning to the power grid for help. What's important is getting that power grid turned over to renewable sources of energy, so that we aren't mining more coal to power vehicles. Besides, the energy efficiency of generating electricity for plugin vehicles from fossil fuels is already substantially better than using gasoline for conventionally powered vehicles, so we're already ahead of the game even before wholesale switch to renewable.
And that's nothing compared to where it will be with renewable energy largely powering the grid.
You know what else is raising electricity cost in California? The white collar unions are slowly unionizing PG&E... and the first thing they negotiate is a contract with a 9% recurring annual raise. I'm guessing that's going to have a much bigger effect than a few more plug-ins on the road.
This is why we need photvoltaics on every rooftop, windmills on every hilltop, etc, etc.
Electric vehicles triggering grid upgrades seems to presume that most/all of the charging will be happening during peak hours. Is that really the case? I was under the impression that most/all of the charging would be happening during off-peak hours. So, while it may mean more generation and a rise in rates on that basis, it isn't completely clear how much grid upgrade is actually required.
As for rooftop photovoltaic, that could help with the generation, but only during peak hours, and if indeed there is insufficient grid for peak-hours charging to get those electrons from our houses to our places of work well.. Alas at present rooftop solar only makes economic sense for those who are already profligate electricity users. Those of us in California who live in a
@rick jones: you're right about off-peak usage. While the summary here implies that "X% more power demand = X% more power plants", the original article talks more about increased maintenance costs. Apparently there are many components in an electrical grid whose lifetime is determined by the cumulative amount of electricity that flows through them. A greater total flow of electricity (say from an increased amount of off-peak usage) thus means a shorter lifespan, and more frequent maintenance and replacement.
The thing about the 'future' is that prognosticators very rarely get it right. The writer's guesses are wrong in the first graph, leaving the rest of the article to flail in the speculative wind. PG&E is already heavily invested in alternative technology, and has been upgrading the grid for decades. Yeah, costs may go up in the short term, but as a regulated utility they will most certainly come down over the long.
Costs most certainly will go up -- for all California residents, not just for the few who have the means to purchase electric vehicles. And those electric vehicles have limited range with few recharging stations to extend commuting to reasonable distances for many people. So we have guilt free vehicles for affluents buying their groceries at the local market supplementing their petrolemum powered vehicles for substantial measurements of real transportation needs and wants.
How about a post about the pending economic collapse electric vehicles will inflict on gas stations? Oh the horror!
Why must the "grid" be expanded? If I were able/allowed to keep a gasoline storage tank under my garage, I would not need a gas station except when traveling more than half my vehicle's range.
If I remember correctly, the average range of an all electric vehicle is under 100 miles per charge, so it only would be suitable around town or for round-trips under 100 miles (I know, I know, the range is considerably less when one factors in radio, lights, instrumentation, air conditioning, etc.). The range of an all electric is limited and I would be [B]recharging the batteries in my garage[/B], so the chances of my needing an "electric station" would be small.
Although Tesla claims that their vehicle's range is 200 miles per charge, I do not see myself transporting a full trunk-load home after going shopping or to Lowe's or Home Depot for sheet goods.
So, why must the "grid" be expanded?
This makes no sense to me. Most people will be plugging in at night, when regular usage is at its nadir. The fact that more power will be used at night doesn't put any extra strain on the grid--it's not as if power generation is shut off at night just because no one is using electricity.