V2Green: A Start-up Company Making Electric Car and Grid Software
A Seattle startup called V2Green has been recently profiled. The company is headed by David Kaplan who wrote SQL for Microsoft.
The product they are developing is a software system which will allow electric cars (when they arrive) and the utility companies to communicate with one another through the power grid. The system will have to reside both in the vehicles and at the utility companies.
We have previously discussed the idea of vehicle to grid (V2G) as a way for electric cars to act as power reservoirs contributing as well as taking from the grid depending on each others needs (see previous post).
This relationship is clearly a complex one, becoming especially so as the number of electric cars becomes large (60,000 Volts first year, right!). Kaplan estimates up to 1.5 million of plug-ins by 2015.
V2Green aims to tame this complex relationship by allowing two-way feedback between the cars and the grid. He describes a scenario where a car is plugged in overnight, say for 14 hours. Since the Volt, for example, only needs 6.5 hours to charge, depending on the grids needs, the rate of charge can be varied minute by minute to be stretched over that time.
The company is looking for startup capital, if you’re interested, but they really only have vaporware until our beloved Volt arrives.
Website (V2Green)
Source (The Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Popularity: 1%
(No Ratings Yet) 
Loading ...
23 Responses to “V2Green: A Start-up Company Making Electric Car and Grid Software”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- GM CEO’s Best Guess: Volt Will be Priced in “Mid to High 30’s”
- The Dawn of the Next Vintage of Chevy Volt Developmental Vehicles
- GM May Reveal the Production Chevy Volt on it Centennial Webcast, September 16th
- GM Has More Than Two New E-Flex Vehicles Already at Scale-Model Stage of Development
- The Volt’s #1 Fanboy and Our Wait List Story is the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World”
- GM’s Future Volt and E-Flex Plans
- GM’s Advanced Battery Director Denise Gray is “Keeping Her Eyes on the Future”
- Interview with Chevy Volt Chief Designer About the Production Car: Plus Leaked Pictures and Video
- BREAKING: GM Releases New Production Volt Photos
- Chevy Volt Update from Chief Engineer: “There’s Nothing Standing in Our Way”
October 6th, 2007 at 2:11 am
If PHEVs become widespread and everybody charges at night, won’t that cause “off-peak” numbers to not be so cheap, and eliminate the incentive for individual customers to sign onto V2G?
October 6th, 2007 at 6:30 am
I think this is a classic case of solving a problem that doesn’t exist. The U.S. department of energy has already evaluated this and found the capability of our current grid more than adequate for night time charging of PHEVs.
The only thing really needed in this area is a simple timer that delays the start of charging until some set time (e.g. 11:00 pm). It would nice if GM implemented something like this in the Volt. It would also be nice for the Volt to have a radio controlled clock so that the car would always know what time it is, especially after time changes and servicing. Radio controlled clocks are really cheap these days. Probably add less than $5 to GM’s cost.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Honestly, with the advent of solar thermal by Ausra in particular, and potentialy Enviromission, and the 32 new nuclear plants, all due to arrive in force at about the same time as the VOLT, the rather cockamamie V2G scheme is doomed,as are the
imminently obsolete power generating technologies of wind and photovoltaic and non-dispatchable wave that the V2G scheme attempts to make usable. Here we have a
proposed solution to a problem that won’t even exist at the time it is scheduled
for deployment. And with batteries lifespan counted in terms of charge cycles, the idea that anyone would allow the electric company to start debilitating my expensive battery pack is totally absurd. And if the utilities want to pay for the privilege, then obviously they are in position to buy the batteries themselves, thus have total control over their use and don’t need all the electronic nonsense of a V2G system
at all. A moot point, in my estimation,
since non-dispatchable power generators
are dinasaurs anyway.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:49 am
This system sounds like a good way to tax electric vehicles… Like it or not.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Scott says, “This system sounds like a good way to tax electric vehicles… Like it or not.”
I agree. We really need to get off the grid. The problem is, all of the alternatives are expensive. I had no idea, as Kent says, that we are building 32 nuclear power plants. Is that true? I hope not. I don’t think they are clean energy because no one really knows what to do with the waste afterwards.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
This is a really big deal, and I disagree fully with every single one you have posted so far on this subject. V2G is a very big deal because it will enable us to use those non-dispatchable renewable resources. The dinosaur technology is the one that uses power supplied from resources gouged out of the ground often hundreds of miles away from the generator. Wind power is not possible in large scale with massive storage. Grid batteries are expensive and have one purpose. All businesses are adverse to purchasing new capital, except for when they are using other people’s money. That’s how venture capital works. And on the issue of nighttime capacity being available, without V2G or at least smart-charge G2V tachnology, many of the benefits of EV’s will quickly dissipate. Intermediate-load resources will have to come on at night to supply the power needs. That means coal power! Wind blows at night, by the way, but intermittently, and that’s the idea of V2G and wind used in combo. And if the grid has all demand level out, then the cheap nighttime power available in many places will go away. Here in my part of Texas we pay only two rates, and the second rate is after a certain level of use, and is not time/availability oriented. And for us, if EV’s become popular without V2G, then that means that all rates go up. Non-dispactchable energy resources are good ones because they are clean, and used in a fully-funcitoning advanced energy grid, then they are a very good asset. Nuclear power is also a good step forward. Nuclear power does produce radioactive waste, but that waste is stored and will be sequestered where it is no threat to anyone. Coal also produces radioactive waste, in case you were unaware, and that is pumped into the environment, along with heavy metals such as lead and, more importantly, mercury. Nuclear power is good, and if not good, then at least it is much better coal power. Wind power and solar power are unequivocally good, but they will never be fully available as a power source unless cost-effective energy storage resources become available, like electric car batteries. V2G is liable to tax our batteries only a very limited amount because the grid will avoid deep discharges and lithium ion batteries do not have memory effect. Also, the grid operators will pay V2G suppliers when we provide our services. Also, V2G and G2V smart-charging will enable large scale daytime charging because it will, by using software that is under development by the company mentioned in the posting, optimize resources, both electricity and power storage. This is a win-win-win-win situation for customers, for us, for the grid operators, and for our environment. It is a very exciting near-future prospeot, so don’t dismiss it with uninformed skepticism. This is real, this is good, and this is OUR FUTURE! To learn more, the most authoritative current site for research is this: http://www.udel.edu/V2G/
October 6th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Vehicle to grid? My power going from my Volt to the grid?
No thanks.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I think in ten years time when I may have put a new and better battery in my car and the first one is at 60% of its useful life they can use my old one! For now lets just get the Volts rolling !!
October 6th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Interesting posts…
Vehicle to grid means different things to different people. However a well designed system can address all needs.
1) Me, possibility of using vehicle for a standby generator (incase of grid failure). Maybe not technically V2G but all same technology.
2) Utility, able to charge vehicles more as cheapest power becomes available. e.g. wind power might be available in excess between 1am and 3am tonight.
3) Maybe able to use vehicle to load smooth. Sure they can buy their own batteries. But that won’t help batteries prices! They would pay a big premium for discharging your battery (or even starting your ICE). If your vehicle already has the equipment (grid tie inverter) for example if have standby generator capability, then they don’t pay for equipment, but they pay you a premium. If you don’t want, just switch off this option.
4) In the most simple option just having the utility set the “preferred” charge start time may be enough. We don’t want all EVs to start charging at 9:01pm!
5) To give you an idea of how important energy storage is to utilities…. in the United Kingdom a utility hollowed out an entire mountain (in Wales) to pump water into (up hill) to store at night, and release on demand to cover peaks.
6) Distributed power / cogeneration.
This eases the load on the grid because it covers peaks, but ALSO because the power it delivered LOCALLY not requiring capacity in the main distribution lines. Ultimately, if taken far enough we could have a highly distributed system that was very robust, rather than a system with a few choke points. Sound good for security?
Oh and nuclear power stations, 32 may be wished for, but it will be 10 years just to get the permitting done. No one wants one in their back yard. Don’t tell me 32 are currently permitted and under construction!
Without going into the details of an old job of mine too much, let’s say, I could eat lunch on top of a reactor if I wanted. Now given the choice between massive wind power and energy storage, and more nuclear reactors, I like the wind! If that means “loaning” my battery to the utility, no problems.
Don’t forget about costs of nuclear, government (tax payer) pays for disposal. That’s not factored into electricity rates. Just like aircraft carriers are not factored into oil prices.
Interesting idea about taxing vehicles via this system. So let’s not pay any taxes, and not bother maintaining the roads either, then we can drive electric SUVs over dirt tracks. Someone has to pay for roads, electric vehicles will be tax effective until they become the norm, and then likely big brother will tax them.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:02 am
My only question is: who knows or regulates how much is taken back to the grid. What says there’s a power outage at 6am, and then when I go to leave for work at 7 my Volt is dead cuz the power company sucked the battery?
I’m all up for the idea, it might seem dumb to some people at this point in time, but this is just something to prepare us for the future. Take for example, my governor of the state of Pennsylvania is making an aggressive move to wind, solar, and PA grown bio-fuels. (if it goes into law, which I’m hoping, I’m buying solar panels for my house right away, 50% rebates from the state and 20% from the feds, sweet!). What I’m trying to say is that wind power is always shot down cuz of it’s fluctuating power generation, and having a flexible grid could change the way we think about the relationship with our power companies.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:26 am
At this point there are many unknowns when it comes to future energy supply. Only I am also very against Nuclear and of course against coal. My hope and belief is that Wind and Solar will grow and become a major role. The biggest issue is the need for effective energy storage. We are seeing how battery technology is greatly improving. In addition, utility companies do not need light weight battery solutions like vehicles and know there are other battery research that could be a solution to low cost energy storage even though they may not have good energy to weight factors which like I said does not matter for utility storage.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
A smart system would ensure that the range on the vehicle would not be dropped below some user selected value.
Thus if user selects 50 mile range required to be maintained. The vehicle knows how much gas there is in the tank, say 1 gallon - good for maybe 50 miles, in which case the battery could be safely drained if needed by utility.
The system could even set a price on the energy. If the utility is desperate enough to pay the price, it may drain X KWh from the battery. To avoid a brown out utility might pay $1 per KWh for a short period. Especially for KWh in the locality of the peak demand.
That might even be used in combination with maintaining a minimum range.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I think it would be really good for us to be able to set our own prices for services and have the software in the car be able to communicate with the utility in order to manage. Have the utility tell us what “going-rates” are and then we can adjust accordingly. Have it all set up so the individual provider can sell aervices at their own prices, coordinated with the utility, as well as the conditiions at which the power is sold. For example, providing regulation (that’s the term for load-management) it could be sold in form of a discount on the electriity, or even make the electricity free. And for spinning reserves (the term for increasing power supply in order to keep power on the line, but not maintain high upload rates) it could be sold at a price that pays for all wear on the vehicle and a small profit. Peak power can be provided at a significant profit for the vehicle owner (which would be affordable for the utility because it would not be usually needed). And finally, backup power can be provided for an exorbitant profit for the provider, us, so the power supply can be maintained. For instances like that, an individual could sell electricity to their neighbors at a price like $0.50-$1/Kwh, which could be a bargain for people wihtout the resources who need heat or cooling, as well as refrigeration, for a couple of hours with they’re forced off-grid. It would probably cheaper in the long-run than buying a new generator, and all of this would encourage the acceleration of EV adoption.
That’s what I see as a major opportunity with this technology, but I think it will be very, very, very important for the vehicle owners to be able to set the parameters ourselves. Either using a special access window in the car, like with navigation, or with accessibilty through a device that hooks into the MP3 jack. Personally, I see a lot of possiblities with this technology, all of which are good, that will be a major boon for us as vehicle-owners, as well as electricity consumers. Many of you are skeptical, but I once again encourage your skepticism, as long as it’s based on valid data and vision.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:32 am
“Mark Bartosik Says: Thus if user selects 50 mile range required to be maintained. The vehicle knows how much gas there is in the tank, say 1 gallon - good for maybe 50 miles, in which case the battery could be safely drained if needed by utility.”
This is actually what a lot of us want to avoid. It’s HIGHLY doubtful that the utility co would buy back the energy even at the same rate you paid for it. So if your battery charged, then discharged to feed the grid, leaving you to burn gas for your next day’s commute, like in your example - about a gallon… in my case, that would be near $3 worth of gas, compared to about $1.25 worth of electricity.
Sounds like a loser to me.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:45 am
[quote] in my case, that would be near $3 worth of gas, compared to about $1.25 worth of electricity.
Sounds like a loser to me. [/quote]
Yes you would lose about 2 dollars if that happens. But on the days it doesn’t happen… the other 364 days of that year you might make .5 a day! So in order to keep from losing the 2 dollars you would be foregoing well over 100!
I wouldn’t want to do the vehicle to grid because of the wear and tear on the battery.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:25 am
I have to plug-in twice a day. Once at night and once during the day. 50 mile commute each way. I have no desire whatsoever to give electricity back to the grid. None. I honestly hope there will be a way for me to control it so that I can turn it off.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I think it’s a given, in reality not in fear-based “I don’t want it”, that the car owner will have control The idea behind V2G is that automotive fleets constitute a massive resource that usually is just literally “sitting there.” Cars are parked nearly all of the time. The average commuter (Z of zero) drives 29 miles per day. Even assuming that the average driver moves at an average of 30mph (and I hope not, because that commute would suck!) then that driver leaves his or her car parked for 23 hours per day. If it takes 6 hours to charge the car when the battery is depleted, that leaves the resource unused for 17 hours. Since in this case where talking about EDV’s, that leaves massive amounts of battery storage available for the grid to use. Effective usage of that resource, carried out on a free-market basis, would mean hugely increased effeciency for the grid, cost savings for the consumer, an economic opportunity for the vehicle owner, and a transition away from an expensive grid system based on the dependence on dirty dispatchable power resources, especially coal and natural gas, and the move towards wind and solar power. Personally, under realistic future conditions, where the vehicle owner is allowed to set his or her own rates and conditions of use, and it will ultimately make the vehicle owner money, I don’t see the reason for any concern about wear and tear on the vehicle since it’s replacement will be paid for. My only concern is that lack of vision on the part of the utilties, or a lack of willingness to pay on their part, will result in electric car owners unable to participate in this market opportunity, and that the benefits of using EDV’s for V2G services will be just thrown out the window. In summary, I’m more concerned that this technology is will not be used, more than I’m concerned that it will.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I think I have to agree with Rashiid. I tried to explain the advantages of this to my wife, and I only succeeded in convincing myself that I just don’t get it.
If I charge the car overnight, drive 24 miles to work, and then do some work related (or not!) errands during the day, I will not be able to get home without 1) running the engine, or 2) recharging at daytime rates.
How does that create a resource for the grid? I sure don’t want to charge the car overnight and then have to drive home on the engine because I “sold” the remaining power to the grid.
Sorry to sound so simple minded, but it is going to take a lot of selling to get the public to buy into this.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Good points, but there are responses to your concerns. First, it could be possible that for EDVs like the Volt, the utility could set up a smart-charge system where you only pay the rate you want to. So, if daytime rates are higher than nighttime where you are, (there the same for my utility as long as consumption is under 600 kwh per month) then you could smartcharge your Volt to only get the amount of electricity you need. That would enable you to optimize your use and keep you from burning expensive gasoline. And for your commute of 24 miles, that would would leave you with 16 miles EV range remaining. And if you didn’t need to make any sidetrips in a single day, then you would only need another 8 miles range, or so. So you could plug in your car and not max out the available capacity. And if available you could trickle charge it during your work day since it would take less time to restore the charge to where you want it. If your car is being used to provide regulation (that’s the term for stabilizing the charge on the line) then the electricity could come at a discount. And if you know what time you’ll need your car to drive home, the remaining time could be used to provide sevices to the grid. This is detailed and nuanced, but ultimately the complexity will lay with the grid operators. For us, all we need to know is that when our Volts are parked they could be in an active standby mode when we don’t need them. We’ll be able to set the parameters (such as when we need a full charge, or how much of a charge we’ll need at what time) and that the utilities will be able to use the batteries for the remaining time. They’ll pay us more than it will cost us to let them, and we’ll all come out as winners. Using the batteries for grid services will enable, eventually, large-scale energy storage at an economical cost and the utilties will expand use of nondispatchable renewable energy resources. Before that time, V2G will be able to be used by the grid for regulation, and for spinning reserves. Regulation will improve the quality of our electricity, and spinning reserves will prevent blackouts. Expanding to use for peak power will mean less money will be spent by the utilties for new power plants. Trust me, the University of Delaware studies provide most of the information you’ll need to understand this, and if you choose not to read it, then just trust that this is a good prospect for the future. It will open up the use of cars to becoming capital investments instead of simple consumer items.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
The only potential benefit I could see to this software was if it allowed you to plug into someone elses outlet and have them not be charged for the juice but remote bill it to your account (SMART meters). At first it may be novel & employers might be supportive but as the percentage of electric cars goes up someone is going to want to start making the drivers pay for their juice at work etc.. I see no benefit to dragging out the charge time that is completely lame. Most people will want this to charge as fast as possible not take 11 hours then turn itself off. I see no advantage in slowing down the charge cycle or this software otherwise.
October 9th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Steven B:
Well thanks for trying to help me understand this. If the complexity lies with the grid operators, and if I can have my Volt charged up and ready to go at quitting time, and if there is some net financial advantage, and if the batteries are not degraded, why not?
When you speak of non-dispatchable renewable sources, does that mean, for instance, that they can they use wind and/or solar power if and/or when it is available in excess of their other needs to charge a bunch of Volts that might otherwise get charged at night using fossil fuel generated electricity?
I understand that, if there are a very large number of units, a small gain from each one can add up to a huge total number
October 10th, 2007 at 9:45 am
That’s exactly right. V2G technology optimizes the power from the grid. In the future, if we don’t use it, then the evening when the common person gets home from his or her workday, then the peak hours for electricity will continue into the evening, which will mean that expensive natural gas and dirty coal power will be used to power our Volts. Using the wide range of benefits of smart-charging, including full demand leveling, will mean that cheap and/or clean power sources can be used. That means nuclear power in a number of places, but do to the power storage capabilities of a vehicle fleet with V2G technology, an increasing amount of wind, solar, wave, and tidal power will be used. If you ever have the time, and if you’re capable of reading highly technical research, then go to the University of Delaware’s V2G page. It will tell you all you need to know.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
The key to V2G is payment for your returned kWh, storage capability of the batteries, and consumer acceptance.
If the utilities do not pay you more for the returned electricity, why would you do it. I think it is unreasonable to think that the utilities will not do this. Also it will be cheaper for them than generating the peak demand. For example if it is .02 to generate off peak power and .05 to generate peak power, then the company could easily pay you .02 over what you paid, so their cost for the off-peak power is you are returning is .02 (off-peak) + .02 (paid to you) = .04. The company now has a cost of .04 for peak power vs. .05. They lose the revenue from your charge, but that will be factored in to ensure they still make money.
The battery capabilities: I agree with a 40 mile range (VOLT estimated range) equal to the average commute range of 40 miles, the amount of returned electricity is minimal. But for true PEVs like the Tesla Roadster, ZAP-X, and others projected to have 200+ range using new batteries or capaciters, you get the feasibility to fill up at night and return power without using the more expensive gas.
Someone else pointed out that longevity of the battery will be an issue as well. This is correct with the current technology limiting the amounts of recharges, but alot of these numbers are based on completely/nearly depleting your batery, which is more taxing on a battery.
Finally consumer acceptance, will be based on the above two items. Without either of the above, there is no or limited benefit to the consumer, so why should they want to do it. There would be some people that would do it because it is for the greater good of society/the planet, but most of us are selfish and are looking for number one.