Comments on: V2Green: A Start-up Company Making Electric Car and Grid Software

By: Todd Olson

Todd Olson — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:48:14 +0000

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.

By: Steven B

Steven B — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:45:46 +0000

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.

By: noel park

noel park — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:42:40 +0000

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

By: Neutron Flux

Neutron Flux — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:44:23 +0000

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.

By: Steven B

Steven B — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 04:47:25 +0000

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.

By: noel park

noel park — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:27:14 +0000

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.

By: Steven B

Steven B — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:09:26 +0000

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.

By: Rashiid Amul

Rashiid Amul — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:25:43 +0000

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.

By: Mike G.

Mike G. — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:45:00 +0000

[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.

By: Matt986

Matt986 — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:32:43 +0000

“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.