Bewaretheicespiders

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j509uj1 wrote

>Not really. Most EVs charge at night when demand is very low and wind energy is,

The demand is going to be high at night when ev adoption is high

Demand is going to be highest at night in northen latitudes if people abandon fossil fuel for heating the house. See Quebec.

You gain some wind at night (unreliable) but you lose all solar

People will want their car charged in the morning.

Batteries degrade with each charge and discharge cycle.

EV adoption guarantees that peak demand will drift towards the times when people charge their time. Its a self-defeating scheme.

0

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j4wpyt5 wrote

>The peak demand is in the evening 6-9 pm or so.

That varies greatly depending on where you are and the season.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

In Texas for example, the smallest margins between supply and demand happens during hot summer afternoon where you lose wind power and AC runs the hardest. Just before people need their car to go home.

In cold climate where they dont use gas for heating (e.g. Quebec, and assuming we want to get rid of fossil fuel, every cold climate area will eventually use electricity for heating) the smallest margins are in winter just before sunrise, when you dont have solar either. Just before people need their car to go to work.

3

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j4wgtna wrote

Kinda failing to consider that charging the EV is expected to create the peak demand. As far as I could read, they only consider what capacity of battery would be plugged and charged on average. But they dont consider when that coincides or not with peak demand.

Your EV can't stabilize the grid at peak demand if thats when its charging.

edit: It doesnt address the economics of it either. Whats the benefit for the ev owner to see his car battery discharged when plugged? You're going to have to pay to charge it later, and your EV might not have the range you need when you need to use it. You arrive at work, you plug it, AC (and EV charging...) cause peak demand during the hot afternoon, you get out of work and your battery is not fully charged to go back home.

I dont see drivers buying into this. The utility of a fully charged EV is too high.

7

Bewaretheicespiders t1_ixjs2ll wrote

And the US also had a failing, terribly anti-market approach as well. Right until the CRS program that is. And this program, and commercial crew after, showed that not only a competitive, free market approach to space procurement for the government in space was possible, but that it was much, much better.

When no one thought it would work, then everyone was just ignorant. But when you've seen it work and you still decide to give a monopoly to a single entity, then thats something else entirely, now you're just being stupid.

7

Bewaretheicespiders t1_iw13m11 wrote

Im not talking about the value of the tower, thats a whole other thing, but the value of the land underneath it. If you change the zoning from single family house to, say, 10 units on the same area of land, and if there is enough demand, then land value immediately climbs by 10x, because a developper now can make 10 times as much profit on that parcel of land. And that takes away any of the affordability gain you would expect from density.

1

Bewaretheicespiders t1_ivz7sej wrote

As Ive explained, sprawling helps because it keeps both construction cost and land value low, while density makes construction cost and land value high.

Toronto doesnt sprawl nearly enough for Canada's insane population growth. They locked it inside the green belt. Which I understand why they would do that, but you can't do that AND add millions of new people, not without housing being a nightmare.

−3

Bewaretheicespiders t1_ivz13ke wrote

There are only two things that ever worked, and only one of them is sustainable. First, sprawling, until you run out of space. Nothing as cheap to build as a bungalow, and low density keeps land value low.

The other and only sustainable way is zero population growth.

−6