Solar PV panel and wind power has been the main supply addition to the grid, and that can at least triple before hitting diminishing returns. Critics say "but what about at night or if the wind isn't blowing", while EV drivers are saying that they will be happy to charge any time it is cheaper to do so.
It's a LOT more complicated with that. Solar is seasonal and produces the duck curve, which requires storage. Wind presents a similar challenge, but needs weeks of storage and tends to be least available when demand is the highest; it produces grossly out of phase with demand and has a capacity value that approaches zero in many locations.
Wind and solar are not firm supply additions, but they are marketed as though they are, which is how we end up in these situations where people hold that up as "we are adding capacity" and the reality is, no, you aren't. You are
displacing capacity with complementary sources that can do so, when they are available, and this has an emissions advantage, typically, but the idea that these are capacity additions are a ruse, because they aren't firm or dispatchable and when you shutdown firm and dispatchable sources and install wind and solar, you create unreliability, demand response (load sheddng) and require things like synchronous condensers and batteries to maintain frequency, and these all have a cost, both in terms of money, for all the complexity, and societal tolerance for rate increases and rolling blackouts, and ratepayers are only willing to take so much of that.
EV drivers will charge when its convenient, that's typically a period between when they get home from work and the following morning, the period where solar isn't available. This is preferable because it's convenient (come home, plug-in) and you avoid the hassle and cost of trying to charge publicly. This is one of the main selling points for EV's, charging at home, which is considerably less expensive than gasoline/diesel. You eliminate that advantage, you will tank sales. This is where, if a grid has lots of low cost firm generation available, they can encourage people to use it by keeping overnight rates low.
I doubt that many people are knowingly charging their EVs during a flex alert unless they have an immediate need. There are likely far more that haven't changed their A/C habits, or even turned down the setpoint temperature. A bigger group is using more power without realizing it. I know my wife immediate goes to "it's too hot to do anything outside, so I'll stay inside and cook" and has to be reminded about why that is counter-productive.
But what's wrong with that? We are living in first world nations with high standards of living. The grid was built to provide inexpensive round-the-clock reliable power, and this worked very well all through the major growth periods. Going forward, we will need even more abundant, reliable, inexpensive electricity, and we have the capability to produce that, but development of these sources is hamstrung by regulation and degrowth-obsessed environmental advocacy groups that have the ears of politicians.
I don't set my house temp to 16C during the winter and choose to be uncomfortable because I want to conserve natural gas, that's an unreasonable expectation. If people are willing to pay for these services (and we do) then these operations should be able to provide what is being paid for. The issue is that in places like California, these services are commanding rates that the rest of North America finds appalling, and yet they do not receive what they are paying for.
I'm not willing to accept the premise that the future involves living like a pauper; living like we are in the 3rd world with electricity when its available provided by the "wind and sun", while paying vastly more for everything because it's for the "greater good". And I'm willing to bet that the majority agrees. We didn't move on from sailing ships because they were just too awesome. There has never been a period of time in which society has progressed while pursuing a less dense form of energy.
Rising rates relegated the Ontario Liberal party to non-party status with only 7 seats, giving a huge majority to the party that promised to stop the "green" nonsense. We are now subsidizing electricity bills to the tune of $6 billion dollars a year to keep voters happy, and that's the reality I suspect that will be in store for other locations that pursue similarly flawed policy that fails to deliver on its promises and drives up rates. "Energy Poverty" was a phrase that entered the vernacular of Ontarians and it ultimately resulted in punishing change. It would be foolish for other jurisdictions not to keep that in mind.
