I would not mind my EV powering my house during a power failure, but it would take a humongous incentive for me to use my EV battery to power the grid…
V2H alone is a thing if that’s all you want.
V2G is about grid stabilising, charge with excess renewable, use when renewables not generating as much.
The few tests in Australia seem promising ahead of a wider rollout, use an energy broker to get better prices etc.
Apparently it’s less about “powering” as much as it is about stabilizing. When we go from huge coal/nuclear turbines to wind power there’s a need to quickly ramp up/down power to the grid to keep the frequency within a certain range. V2G would be used for that, and would then only increase/decrease battery charge within single percentage digits.
I have a car with V2G support but the infrastructure is not here (Sweden) yet, so my electrical provider does pay me when charging is not done or done to help the grid, but cannot move electricity in the other direction yet.
Interesting! I didn’t know there are cars in the market able to handle V2G in accordance with the standard. What brand is that? For any large organisation with lots of cars, like a community, flexibility services for a hundred cars or so would add up quickly.
I have a VW ID.7, I think all their new cars do.
We need to move to Huddiksvall. There seems to be a city where its possible😁 But come to think of it, it all takes place from “behind the meter”, so with a connection that allows for solar power, the utility should be none-the-wiser.
Why? Your EV has 200-300 miles of range, and on any given day you’ll use 30-40 of that. Why not put the rest to work stabilizing and cleaning the grid and earn yourself a paycheck in the process?
Why? You get paid for it, and there’s supposedly no impact on battery life
deleted by creator
Kempton found that groups of EVs could send power to the grid and receive compensation that would help to offset the costs of owning the vehicle. There would be almost no negative effect on battery life or the vehicle’s readiness for use.
“The economics are really compelling,” he said.
That’s what the researchers said
Depends on your definition of “negligible” and “ready for use”.
A lithium ion battery cell wears out over time. The more you charge and discharge it, the faster the wear. Look at a ten year old phone or laptop battery for example — it still holds a charge, but not as much.
So if V2G is set to stop feeding when ten or twenty percent of the battery is depleted, I can see that being acceptable. But I don’t know that you’d get much money back from that. Maybe $1 at most. Especially with how stingy private power companies are about compensating power generation like rooftop solar.
Charging and discharging a lithium battery when it’s within the 20% to 80% level adds essentially no wear to the battery. Eg discharging from 40% down to 30% and then recharging it back to 40% basically does nothing to your battery
But I don’t know that you’d get much money back from that. Maybe $1 at most. Especially with how stingy private power companies are about compensating power generation like rooftop solar.
That’s the main problem with the concept, that the incentives and infrastructure isn’t available. I doubt many people would have a problem with minor battery degradation if it had provided them an income stream for 5-10 years. Heck, you could replace the battery and leave the old one to continue feeding the grid.
Actually old electric car batteries are being reused for this purpose already. It’s a major reason why we don’t see more electric vehicle battery recycling, it’s because the majority of them haven’t gotten to the Recycled part of the reduce reuse recycle
You need a lot more than just the battery pack to charge/discharge the battery.
Yes… You’re covering points that have already been covered in the article. In fact, that’s what the entire article is about…
You’d have to actually get paid for it, though.
Feed-in tariffs around here assume that you’re using home solar and you’re feeding into the grid during solar hours, when everyone else with solar is also flooding the grid. So it’s hardly anything.
We don’t have higher rates for feeding in to the grid during the evening peak, because that hasn’t been a thing before.
We do have higher usage rates for peak times though, so it makes sense to use your car’s battery to power your house during those times which takes load of the grid. But we really need time of use rates for feeding into the grid too.
Agreed, but that’s what the entire article is about, the lack of systematic support for the possibility.
It will always have some impact on the battery. Every charge cycle will degrade it a bit.
‘Almost’. Yes, there’s an impact, but it could be negligible compared to the benefits.
In order for that to be a viable thing you’d have to make vehicle to grid A mandatory feature
Because the oil industry is literally trying to install fascist dictatorships around the globe to stop oil from being abandoned.
Tesla was a plan to stifle EV adoption by wasting the vast majority of EV subisidies on creating luxury cars that weren’t accessible to the masses.
This is a pretty revisionist & cynical take. From what I remember, before Tesla EVs used to be seen as glorified golf carts, only meant for inner-city driving that only hard-core environmentalists would even want.
Tesla flipped that on its head and showed the world that EVs could be cool. As a new car company, it also makes sense to start with the high-margins, low-volumes of luxury cars.
What’s sad is that the rest of the car industry, who already had low-margins high-volumes manufacturing up & running, didn’t pick up the pace and only chased the “luxury” segment. Also, Tesla majorly dropped the ball with the Cybertruck. Model 3 is a good mid-range sedan but they should’ve continued their efforts towards a good entry-level option.
Is it revisionism if I always thought giving the vast majority of EV subsidies to a single company ran by a con man for them to not offer affordable EVs was a bad idea?
It’s not even a conspiracy theory that Big Oil fights EV and clean energy progress in any way they can, because they have been caught doing it for at least the last 70 years!
Also EVs were popularized in the 1970s in the US, but oil conglomerates coordinated to fuck with those too.
Tesla getting the majority of subsidies is a sad state of affairs, that’s true. But I think it’s more due to the rest of the market being exceedingly slow to react than anything Tesla specifically did. Elon back then was overly optimistic in his timelines, but I don’t think it rose to the level of being a con man (now with Twitter / X and DOGE it’s a different story, I won’t argue with you on that!)
I wasn’t born in the 1970s so I don’t remember what the public opinion on EVs were at that time.
I won’t argue that Big Oil has always been up to nefarious things, but “creating Tesla” isn’t one of them.
Before he started radicalizing himself he was making 1 on 1 deals with Obama to guarentee subsidies for Tesla and SpaceX, Elon got tens of billions from the government and tens of billions from private investors through personal deals.
That’s why he got most of them
But i agree that American car manufacturers had been coasting for a long time before Tesla ate their lunch.
Man fuck Elon but batteries only just got affordable enough to make EVs cost competitive.
Back then you basically had to sell a luxury/sports car to have enough wiggle room to justify the price.
Batteries are the entire story of EVs
The idea of the government subsidizing car manufacturing is for the companies to artificially make the price low so the cars can be distributed.
Tesla didn’t do that.
They charged prices that they would make a profit, pretending they weren’t being given over $100billion for free, then Elon got the shareholders to pay out the extra to him in a bonus.
It was a direct transfer of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into stock buybacks for the richest man in the world.
The Legacy car industry just straight up didn’t want to retool for electric cars. That’s why it’s mostly new companies to the seriously pursuing it
I’m not buying it.
Here’s a documentary about oil and auto companies sabotaging another electric car in the 90s
The first part is reasonable the second part is not. Elon Musk sucks but his company turns electric cars from golf carts that you only bought for environmental reasons Into sports cars that people actively desired
Considering the company hasn’t ever been profitable, no, Teslas aren’t actively desired.
Might want to take another look at reality
Even from the headline, your article states they were profitable in 2020. Yes, back then a lot of it was due carbon credits. So they priced things according to the market they were in?
Are you complaining that GM for example was only profitable because of those credits? They (and other legacy manufacturers) decided it was more profitable for them to buy carbon credits from Tesla than to develop their own EVs. You could argue they were only profitable because they could buy pollution rights from Tesla.
But of course that’s old news. Profits ebb and flow but Tesla has more recently been profitable even not counting those credits.
Regardless the market has changed and those pollution credits no longer exist. It’s a different world for both EV manufacturers and legacy manufacturers, so we’ll see what happens. Pollution is free again, although of course the picture is complicated by trade wars, fascism and musk s reputation, as well as the meteoric rise of competitors in China
HEY GUYS THE CAR COMPANY THAT DOESN’T MAKE PROFIT FROM THEIR CARS IS ACTUALLY REALLY POPULAR.
Get that billionaire cock out of your mouth bro
