I hadn't thought of doing that. I'm in 2-3 different hotels a week. It always drives me nuts being in a hotel where the A/C doesn't have a constant fan setting. Helps mask outside noise since I usually am sleeping during the day and makes the compressor kicking on less abrupt sounding.
Big Ford EV Announcement Coming Aug 11th
- Thread starter E365
- Start date
True real-time pricing would make electricity unaffordable to certain populations during heat waves, or other significant supply/demand imbalances. Rather than rollling blackouts, the method for distribution of a scarce resource would be just to cut off people who can't pay more.
It's fine discussing in a classroom or other theoretical settings (i.e., message forum), but unworkable for real human beings in real housing. There needs to be some limits. I think we're past acknowledging this as a society.
Thats a hollow argument because we could simply give currently subsidized people their own RTP rate schedule or cap or whatever. How much electricity you want to give away is a simple societal question. Well simple technically at least.
The question is why should the bulk of actual payers be the ones to subsidize infrastructure build out additionally for those 1.4% that want to double their electricity use by using EV's?
Its a simple question?
What about data centers?
I have toured the innards of Microsoft's San Antonio datacenter and they have told me that when ERCOT calls during summertime shortages, they will fire up every single one of their Cat V-16 quad-turbo generators and run off grid for as long as ERCOT requires it. IIRC they had 20 of these on premise, it's a lot of juice with them all running, don't remember how much per generator. They have contracts with local diesel fuel suppliers to keep the trucks rolling in the event that they are required to keep their generators running for a longer period of time than they have fuel for, IIRC they maintain 20,000 gallons of diesel on-site for generator operations, but I wouldn't bet money on that 20K figure, it may be be more. I did physically see the fuel silo and it looks like a huge one that they have at busy airports, but not multiples like they have at depots and refineries.
Microsoft uses enough power for roughly 50,000 homes at this one individual data center, they said.
Thus far in our shared grid lives, which is GenXer for me, individual homeowners have been spared from such mandates other than, my local grid ERCOT sends out alerts "asking" folks to conserve. But even in the "asking" for conservation, our local Nextdoor gets filled with whiny crap posts about this "socialist/communist" crap. It's entirely possible that this doesn't even happen once this calendar year, with all the floods we've had around here this year, the humidity has been much higher which usually keeps temperatures below 100, although, we still have most of August to go and extreme temps aren't unknown in early September as well. Anyway...
I'm personally willing to unplug my EV and turn up my thermostat during these cases where ERCOT needs conservation, which is usually less than 1% of all grid operations for the year. Our household follows the ABC protocol for charging our EVs, that is, Always Be Charging when the cars are at home. I also follow this protocol when I take my truck the office, assuming there is an open charging spot in the garage. Therefore, we should almost always have sufficient power in our vehicles to meet basic needs.
I'm just kind of wondering where the line is here between personal freedom and consideration of shared usage. We, as a society could build out enough generation capacity such that we never had to send these conservation alerts, but does planning for the 1% of use cases really benefit us? Are folks willing to pay more for their power every day in order to plan for such scenarios?
It is picking a point in time; 1.4% will change.
It also assumes EV charging is the only reason to improve the grid. Challenges include aging infrastructure, a shift towards renewables, and overall rising energy demand, particularly from data centers.
See my other post. Entire data centers are mandated to go on generator power when ERCOT is short, I can't speak for your local power grid, maybe you can?
Are folks willing to pay to build out more power generating infrastructure so they don't have to get ERCOT conservation alerts currently? I would argue, no.
I don't accept the argument that one type of usage, in this case EVs, is causing the electricity rates of non-EV users to go up. What about AI datacenters, there are lots of those coming with high power demands. Or simple population growth? Bottom line, more power infrastructure is going to have to be built period regardless of the status of EVs.
Why can't we stay on budget when we build out power infrastructure, be it nuclear or otherwise? Why do the rate payers generally have to pay for it when the energy companies can't effectively manage large scale projects?
What makes power cheap and not cheap beyond construction costs? I would argue efficiency of generation usage is one of those things, powering supply up and down is relatively inefficient.
Last edited:
Your comparing something exigent with something that is convenience. But I can still answer your question
For example as a society have decided we will pay for a poor persons medical care because they can't afford to. I am happy with this - its a matter of life or death, and that person has no other alternative. No different than cutting back on power usage during an ice storm, for example.
Now contrast this to 98.6% should pay so 1.4% can have enough electricity for their EV. There are two simple alternatives to the EV dilemma in this case, the owner can pay for the increase in required electrical infrastructure, or they can buy a gasoline powered car. Easy.
A third would be to simply say you can only charge your EV during periods of excess electricity. This of course gets pushback like you see above about "no one should be able to tell me when I can use power / freedom argument." When there is a draught and they say you can't water your lawn, there is always one guy that thinks there lawn is too important. There green lawn sticks out like sore thumb but there too self absorbed to care.
Its simple - where its exigent and urgent and there is no alternative, society should step in. EV's don't solve any exigent or urgent societal issues, therefore whomever wants them should pay for them.
Saying everyone should pay for expansion to the grid to power EV's is like saying that we collectively should pay for everyone to go to Disneyland.
Then your arguing against math.
Google tells me the average household uses 10,791kWh per year - more than me but OK.,
Google also tells me that the average EV get between 3 and 4 miles per kWh and the average american drives between 13K and 15K a year. So if we average that out its about 14,000 / 3.5 = 4000,kWh About an 40% increase in electricity. 2 car household = double it. You don't think adding a 40 to 80% increase to the residential grid isn't going to cost money to improve?
So far the overall numbers have been small enough to absorb, but the extra is gone. So now were trying to figure out who or how to pay.
As for the datacenters - I wouldn't concern yourself over them. They will generate their own, or move to the UAE, for example https://www.reuters.com/business/fi...us-deal-far-finalised-sources-say-2025-06-06/
Lifetime average in my Lightning is 2.1 mi/kwh after 6000 miles. Don't care, it's still way cheaper to operate than my Navigator was. Costs me $47 to drive 1000 miles in the Lightning at .10 per kwh (and it's .09 in the parking garage at work). Gas at 14mpg & $2.40 a gallon is $171 and gas near my house is closer to $2.50, but I thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.
What backs up your supposition that "other users will have to pay to expand the grid for EV users" is that we are unable to create additional power generation at the same cost structure as existing power generation. Energy companies are in the business of supplying energy. They will figure it out, because their profit margins require doing so. Even if that way of figuring it out is building more LNG fired generation facilties. It's still a win for less carbon, because the thermal efficiency of a combined generation LNG turbine is way higher than any vehicle on the road today.
It's ludicrous to say that new data centers won't be built in the US, I read the article you posted and it is decidely non-technical. I come from a background in network engineering. We already know what the speed of light and the laws of physics are, and we know that serving US users from the UAE, or vice versa, will lead to poor network and application performance. You cannot overcome the laws of physics. There's a reason that the largest technology companies have datacenters all over the world. You can agree to find latency acceptable, but I doubt people, especially in the US, have patience for that.
Do you work in the health care field? Insurance companies and for-profit hospitals are really stretching the definitions of life and death these days. Anyway...
I don't know why you would cut back power in an ice storm unless the grid operator asked you to conserve. For the most part its lights on or lights off. A tree will fall on your power lines, or it won't.
I'm good with Option 3. We only charge L2 at night for the most part. Most people should be shooting for this, but in 'Merica, nobody can tell me how to charge my car, as you stated.
Lastly, we already paid to expand the grid for AC in the last 100 years. It's almost ubitquous in the South and has grown greatly in the North. AC is not "exigent", to use your terminology. Humans can. and have up until the last 100-120 years, survived when it's hot outside. Speaking to extreme heat, I'm sure Phoenix was a relatively small city in the 1800s. We built out the grid anyway to support air conditioning everywhere below the Mason-Dixon line., partially so we could be more comfortable, and partially because supply responded to demand.
Which is the same story here pretty much. Gas vehicle users are not going to be subsidizing EV owners. The infrastructure will be built out for more electricity because it is profitable for the energy companies to do so. Supply will respond to demand, regardless of other arguments.
Everyone should take care of themselves first, whatever that entails, because no one else will. None of my comments are directed at any individual.
Lately its double digit electricity price increases to "expand infrastructure". Who else is going to pay for grid expansion?
Capital will flow to wherever its treated best - a universal truth. If electricity is much cheaper and infrastructure better big tech will go there. This from also an engineer that started his career in R&D at Fortune 500.
Also the latency won't matter because AI is not about a google search to cheat on your homework, it will be commercial applications taking minutes hours or days for a single lift. A few milliseconds to deliver the answer won't matter.
To this day AC is only 17% of residential use. I understand being from the South this being hard to comprehend. Offshoring of manufacturing actually created generation space for AC - although the grid was expanded but typically as part of new construction in the South. Anyway everyone wanted it so they paid. If were going to get 1 EV per household per my calculations above that is 2.5X the expansion that was needed for AC. How soon?
Yes, the profit will come from every customer through rate increases - not just EV customers.
You turned off the comprehension algorithm once you thought you had read what you wanted to see. TOU billing works on 3 minute intervals, if the utility cares to implement.
Again, you think you read something you wanted to see then quit thinking. I have never claimed electricity was ever "free", day or night.
The above is why NYC will shortly be a Communist Enclave; a total lack of understanding of economics.
I pay exactly as much for construction of "the grid" (don't you feel so smart and enlightened using that term!) for a kWh to power my EV as I do to power my laptop.
So what if added demand comes along? The existing users are not a protected class entitled to their Government Granted Share of Power Production. Someone wants that power more than they do and will pay more for it, then they get it. If you still want power you can pay the higher price (what? the current price does not pay for the current infrastructure?) or do without. Just as you pay $5/gallon in California or $2.50 in free states. Somehow oil companies still manage to do well in the $2.50 states.
Is your government's mismanagement of utility companies and the environment which is burning your forests and cities. Simple clearing of brush under power line right of ways is a well established means of maintaining safety. Heck, Enbridge, the pipeline company running through here clearcuts above their pipelines twice per year. And not due to burn hazard.
Time of Use rates are updated quarterly at best. There not even remotely close to RTP.
Your the one ranting about me wanting central government control on when you run your water heater, which is laughable, so maybe check your own comprehension.
Government (which has never demonstrated competence at anything other than killing during war time) has it in it's head that ICE vehicles have gas stations therefore EVs must be given gas stations, and that this is a Wonderful Thing For Government To Do! Clearly you don't buy an EV because you don't see "gas stations" on every street corner so you have "range anxiety".
The only time EV owners need or want a "gas station" is during travel away from home. The rest of the time stopping for 20 minutes someplace to charge at 4x the cost of a charge at home while one sleeps makes no sense.
DCFC tried a meager 50kW charge rate with Nissan's CHAdeMO failure. The very very first Tesla Superchargers were only 90 kW but within a year upped to 120 kW. Most are 250 kW now. Playing the specmanship game competitors are claiming much higher rates.
The same people proclaiming "The Grid" is in poor health, EVs are the problem! at the same time believe government must provide "EV infrastructure" in the form of DCFC charging stations (The Gas Station Fallacy, that EVs need gas stations). Nothing is more harmful to "The Grid" than a DCFC charger suddenly throwing a 250 kW load on the grid. Conversely a Tesla Wall Connector on 240V 60A circuit draws 48A, a mild 11.5 kW over hours of easy to stabilize The Grid load.
Not sure what you mean by "your government". Much of CA forests are on federal land. I am not one to protect serious problems like our electric infrastructure, but it sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.
Specifically, 57% of the state's forestland is federally owned, with the US Forest Service being the primary manager. The state government manages a much smaller percentage, around 3%, while the remaining 40% is under private ownership.
Your government forbids PG&E from clear cutting under power lines on power line right of way no matter Federal forest land, state, or private. Some misguided notion "it ain't natural".
Is hit on two sides, one is the claim clear cutting brush harms the environment. The other forces PG&E to pay for such maintenance out of profit and not before-profit operating expenses.
I own land where an Enbridge pipeline crosses. They clearcut twice per year.
Please. California law does not forbid PG&E from clearcutting under and around their power lines. Stop watching that garbage news.
I just went on Google Maps and Apple Maps. Satellite imagery shows massive clear cutting under CA power lines. Especially visible in northern CA where there’s actual forests. Southern CA is generally all desert, cities or farms. That’s so easily disproved…
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The only way new infrastructure gets built and the price isn't painful for the end user is if consumption goes up. Assets with a fixed capital cost but potentially variable output where recouping that capital cost is tied to the # of kWh generated means that the more of those kWh that can be churned out and consumed, the cheaper those kWh can be sold at.
This gets complex when talking about sources that produce out of phase with demand like wind, but if we are trying to flatten demand with EV charging, that aligns well with traditional large baseload generators like nuclear, hydro and CCGT's.
In the last 100 years, power plants, of all kinds, were much cheaper to build. The West has lost its way on being able to execute large civil projects like nukes or hydro dams on time and for reasonable cost.
Palo Verde, which was the largest nuke in the US until Vogtle 3/4 came online, was build near Phoenix, I assume to deal with the demand growth there. That was how things were done up until the recession of the late 80's, at which point a ton of power generation projects were cancelled and things stalled. Now we have government trying to force a supply mix with mandates, REC's, NEM's and other schemes, padding the bottle lines of private companies and passing those costs on to the ratepayers.
From a tech standpoint, having a vehicle's charge schedule follow demand periods isn't difficult to implement. If we can flatten the demand curve, this makes the case for more baseload generation, I don't think that's a bad thing, and it's a lot cheaper for ratepayers than adding peakers.
Similar threads
