Synopsis: The required growth of the grid is nothing new.
The classic statement is: “if all cars became electric tomorrow, then the grid could not cope!”
There is some truth to the reality that such a sudden change as the over 1.4 billion cars in the world switching to being EVs in one night would be unmanageable, but then, so would disposing of all the old cars. Truth is, it is impossible for all cars to become EVs in just one day. Even the dealer networks cannot handle delivering a new car to every driver in the country within 24 hours. Nor could the factories produce that number.
The problem is, just how would all cars become electric overnight? Santa Claus? The real question is. could the grid adjust if cars were replaced with EVs at the maximum possible replacement rate. Short of some scheme to force existing cars off the road, the fastest possible replacement rate would be if 100% of new cars purchased became EVs. Since around 5% of cars are replaced each year with new cars, the fastest possible rate is around 5% of cars become EVs each year. This is the level new car sales and distribution can support.
Using data from the USA, charging an EV to allow driving the average annual distance will increase a person’s power consumption by around 30%. So, 5% of people per year increase their power by 30% translates to 1.5% more power required per year. The same increase in required power as required by a population increase of 1.5% per year. In the 1960s, population growth reached 2%, but in the 2020s it is at 0.5%, so all that is required is a continuation of historical rates of growth of the grid.
Will adding EVs require more growth of the grid than the historical average?
In 1950, the grid in the USA produced 335 billion kWh which had risen to 4.1 trillion kWh in 2020, according to data from the US government Energy Information Administration, which represents 3.65% growth per year.
The real question becomes, “will the fastest possible switch to EVs will increase electricity needs by more 3.65%”?
Data will vary from country to country, but as the USA has some of the highest rates of vehicle ownership, and some of the longest distances driven per person, if the grid in the USA can cope, then most other countries should also cope. Given the distances driven and typical power usage, in the USA a person adding charging an EV to their power bill will increase power by approximately 30% if all charge for the EV is provided by home charging. Road trips will reduce charging at home, but that will be replaced by charging at public chargers, so the total power will remain the same.
Answers from Experts.
Electricity provider: SWEPCO.
Devils Advocate: Does the power company video nail it?
Fact checking.
That SWEPCO video may silence most doubters, and provide assurance to many who had doubts, but it is still open to question.
The big thing is does not answer, is why an electricity provider is promoting EVs, which I think is as important as the rest of the topic. EVs give energy providers a way to increase revenue, other than just increasing prices. More on that later.
The video covers 3 points:
- How much energy EVs require.
- Overall production of power in the US.
- What is the rate of EV adoption.
The first two are well covered, but the with the third one, I think it opens the door to doubters by raising the wrong question.
I think instead of the question “what is the adoption rate of EVs”, which leaves open the reply of “but the push is for faster adoption!”, the better question is “what would the fastest possible adoption rate of EVs?”, plus the answer an option rate has several errors, which a critical viewer could spot. Most of these relate to seeming to confuse percentage of new cars sold with number of vehicles sold, and missing the fact that given that the US had 275,924,442 registered vehicles as of 2020, and the highest ever recorded number of new vehicle sales was 17.6 million, it would still take at least 15 years to replace all existing vehicles, even if 100% those new vehicles sales was an EV replacing a fossil fuelled vehicle.
That math alone would probably fix the video as far as that goes, but then there is an error with the overall production of power data, as growth is erroneously stated as 5x growth or 4% annually from 1960 to 2020. However, 4% growth over 60 years is over 10x growth, not just over 5x growth as stated in the video. It turns out the error results from a misquote of the timespan as stated in the Engineering Explained video below, the error raises the question as to why not look at grid capacity from 1960 to 2020? Or from 2000 to 2020 when the powers supplied barely grew at all? What is the relevance of any specific period?
Electricity Produced vs Grid Capacity.
While power supplied obviously cannot exceed grid capacity, there may have been capacity to supply more power, if there was demand for more power. In practice, the amount of power supplied is normally constrained by the demand for power. Grid capacity only becomes the constraint when there are blackouts, or rationing on the use of electrical power, as happens on the occasions when demand exceeds supply.
This means the statistics and the graph are mostly about demand, not capacity.
Once it is made clear the graph is about demand, then cherry picking a long period when demand grew, in order to show that when demand grew the grid could keep up, can arguably be justified. When demand it not grow, it is even possible capacity still grew, we just cannot say. On this basis, selecting the period from 1960 to 2000 is justified, as that period illustrates that when demand did increase at 4% per year, and over long time period, capacity was able to meet that demand.
In reality, from around 2008 demand for power stopped growing due to led bulbs and all the other focus on power efficiency. Without any increase in demand, it is not possible to be sure whether the grid would have been able to continue increasing at 4%, but there is no evidence the grid would not have been able to continue increasing, had the demand still been rising.
Engineering Explained.
Clearly, this was the inspiration for the SWEPCO video above. The 4% growth figure does correlate with the period between 1960 and 2000, rather than the 1960 to 2020 misquoted by SWEPCO, largely because power demand ceased rising from around 2008.
There is also an ambiguity in the data used for this video. The 13,500 miles per year is interpreted to be per driver, as opposed to per vehicle, and the source does say per driver, but it is hard to clarify if it is truly per driver or per vehicle. However, giver it does seem to be true that there are more drivers than active vehicles, if there is an error, it would result in an overestimate of the electricity required.
The main question the video leaves unanswered, is what is the fastest rate the EVs could be replacing internal combustion vehicles? While low current rate of EV adoption at the time of the video is quoted, the video leaves future adoption as an unanswered question, and could even leave the impression that all cars could become EVs by as soon as 2030, as it seems to suggest bans that actually apply to new vehicles sales, could force all vehicles to be replaced by EVs at their effective date, which is simply not even possible.
Increased Electricity Consumption by household.
The grid may be OK, but what about at a more local level.
The articles quoted and all data supports that impact of the electrical grid is quite low, and in reality, EVs will have far less impact than the move to sustainability and renewable energy. In fact, EVs could even help with that transition.
But what about the impact at the level of individual households?
Household Power consumption, and power for an individual EV.
The average home in Australia consumer 18kWh per day, meaning average power consumption per home is below 1kW, in the USA the number is 29.3kWh, making average consumption just over 1.2 kW.
As consumption is much lower overnight, it follows that consumption is much higher in the day, and at peak times is likely 3x higher than average, so an average household power of around 3kW during peak times would be expected.
The average US motorist travels 13,500 miles or 22,000km which, divided by 365 gives an average of 37 miles or 60 km per day.
The figure is 13,300 km per year or 36 km per day in Australia, and 10,880km (6,800 miles) per year or 30km per day in the UK.
In reality, those miles by average US motorist will normally include some long mileage road trip days, where there will need to be charging away from home, and the average distance travelled when at home will be a little lower. This makes the 60km (37 miles) an overestimate, and for those outside the US where annual distance driven are normally lower, a significant overestimate.
At typical urban cycle efficiency of 150Wh/km, this translates to 9kWh per day for US drivers and 5.4kWh for drivers in Australia, which represents an average increase in electricity of 30% in both the US and Australia.
Of course, may households have multiple cars, with the US at 1.8 cars per household, which again, is the same average number in Australia.
Which means 54% increase in power per household if all vehicles are electric, and all power is to be supplied at home. This is of course higher than the around 30% in total additional electricity required at the national level, because not all electricity nationally, is consumed by households.
EV adoption rate, or “how soon could all cars be EVs”?
Full transition: not before 2045.
Updates to the grid must keep pace with the adoption of EVs, so the faster the possible uptake of EVs, the faster the upgrade of power required.
Analysis on the fastest possible adoption rate is not present in the Engineering explained video, nor in the SWEPCO video that was at least in part based on the Engineering explained video.
This full analysis of the transition to EVs shows that, globally, the transition to EVs will not replace current cars with EVs until at least 2045, without an increase in the global vehicle production and distribution network, and supporting industries such as mining, that would itself significantly harm the environment. However, the transition need not be evenly spread, so dividing total new EVs by the number of years overall may not reflect the peak adoption rate.
Peak Adoption: The peak of EVs, still requires below 1/6th the long-term average grid increase.
Staying with USA based data, Statista shows that the record year for new light vehicle sales in the USA was 2016 with 17.6 million sales, and as the trend is flat or perhaps having peaked, it appear safe to assume new vehicle sales in the USA are highly unlikely to exceed 20 million. If at some point, there are 20 million new vehicle sales where all are EVs, and 20 million are replacing ICEVs, that gives a maximum possible load on the grid of 20 million vehicles in one year.
Using the calculations from Engineering Explained, the increase for a worst case year would be:
13,500miles x 20 million vehicles ÷ 100 MPGe = Gallon equivalents used = 2,700 million gallons
Gallon equivalents x 33.7 = 90,990 million kWh added in the worse possible year.
The current rate of electricity consumption 14.1 trillion kWh, and although this should be rising throughout the transition to EVs, assume for the moment that this greatest increase in EVs possible, somehow immediately, rather than years later when consumption as already risen, making the percentage increase the maximum possible.
The result for this worst possible case year would be a 2.22% increase year on year, or just over 1/2 of the average percentage increase between 1960 and 2008.
So the simple answer is the worst possible year would still require far below the long term average increase in grid supply.
Can the grid still increase, now the focus is ‘green’?
Overview: The grid needs EVs!
Does increasing the number of electric vehicles (EVs) on the grid actually result in lower utility costs for all customers?
Do Electric Vehicles Actually Cut Utility Costs?
‘Can the grid cope without EVs could be a better question’ could be the real question.
Grid supply has stagnated and not increased since around 2008, not because of supply constraints, but because with all the efforts to reduce ‘environmental footprints’, and more efficient appliances and lighting, the demand for electricity has been stagnant.
Yes, despite the ‘green’ movement killed off growth for the power companies, they have still been asked to invest in the transition to renewables. This is despite that the low cost of solar and wind means they face pressure to reduce prices as a result of adding solar and wind!
Increasing demand for electricity as a result of increased EVs provides a solution. Transferring a significant portion of the revenue motorists were paying the oil industry, over to the electricity industry, gives power companies some much needed revenue to fund trying to transition to renewables.
There is an argument the EVs will not significantly reduce emissions, because most power grids mostly burn fossil fuels, but the point that is lost, is that EVs bring new revenues to fund grid expansion, which could enable most countries to improve their grids. As it can be argued the power for EVs will come from the additional grid capacity added as the grid expands, not the original grid, and the expansion to the grid, should be able to be greener than the original grid.
A return to growth for electricity providers.
Demand on the power grid in many states and countries has been decreasing.
Berlin’s energy consumption per year in its built space has almost halved in the last 20 years, reducing from 150kWh to 80kWh per square metre in 2020.
10 Things You Didn’t Know About Berlin
Adding EVs to the grid can solves the stagnant demand, and return the grid to closer to previous rates of growth. Stagnant demand is a problem for power companies, as it means the only way they can grow revenues is to increase prices.
As EVs arrive, motorists switch from spending at the gas pump, to spending at their electricity provider, which is why electricity providers like SWEPCO bother to promote EVs and make videos.
EVs can provide a return to revenue growth other than through raising prices. Of course this doesn’t mean providers wont raise prices, but it does give them less reason to need to raise prices.
Predominantly off peak demand, the best for the grid.
For providers, the ideal is to provide as close to the same level of power as possible 24/7. The grid, staff, and many generators, are fixed cost assets that cost the same even when demand falls. so keeping demand constant bring efficiencies.
Data reveals EVs are charged at home over 95% of the time. Given most people spend a lot of time at home, that allows most charging to take place when rates are lowest, and since of peak rates don’t pass on all the savings to the providers, that also means best profits to providers.
In summary, EVs don’t ensure all the challenges of providing green power are solved, but EVs do provide energy providers the alternative for revenue growth during the transition to green energy other than just more price prices.
EV Batteries could play a key role in the future grid.
There is pressure to move to renewables, and solar and wind alone are not a substitute for fossil fuels. To work with renewables, storage is needed for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun not shining. What is often underestimated, is just how much storage could be provided by EVs. If vehicle to home as provided by the Ford F150 lighting becomes common, every EV would be helping provide a lower cost, more reliable grid. There are a few twists and turns on the road to EVs and renewables, and the role of vehicle to the home power could be very significant.
Solar could party spoil the energy providers party.
Solar EVs are just starting to arrive on the market, and at this stage they are fringe. Although EVs themselves have proved how things can move from fringe to become the future, it is hard to imagine solar EVs reaching more than 10% at most during the initial transition to EVs.
The main threat to solar poses to energy providers is home solar. The two main renewables so far are solar and wind, and wind still needs the grid, whilst if home solar becomes big enough, not only could a significant number of EVs ed up powered by home solar, the EVs could also provide the batteries to enable home solar homes to significantly reduce reliance on the grid.
Home solar, connected with EV batteries, has the potential to in many countries full offset that maximum of 2% annual increase to demand on the grid that EVs could introduce, and put energy providers back to square one.
It is not guaranteed the grid will ever see anywhere near that maximum 2% per annum, or even ever see close to 1%.
Summary and Conclusion.
Adding EVs to the grid, only requires a maximum possible of 2% annual increase, which just over half the rate of 4% growth that was the normal for energy providers from years 1960 to 2000, which was the last time demand for electricity was growing.
Not only is 2% growth manageable, this growth can provide the energy companies revenue, and enable them to be better placed to provide lower cost, reliable grid while shifting to increased renewables.
People can switch their spending from gasoline/petrol over to electricity, and keep the savings for themselves. Instead of giving all their gasoline/petrol money to the oil companies, the reduced amount they still spend can provide force the power companies with an alternative to find another way to get the money then need from consumers.
Links:
Updates.
- 2022 Aug 15: Added notes on solar.
