I have seen discussions in the past looking at problems of locally overloading part of the distribution network. The load on a cable is usually monitored and controlled at the traditional source point, 800A fuses in the substation for example. A significant V2G source on that cable segment could allow an overload. A depot for EVs could be capable of sourcing a couple of hundred amps.

The principle you are suggesting, using V2G in a local part of the network to reduce the need for expansion of the wider grid seems to increase that chance of this without significant local monitoring.

Thank you for your reply Stuart.

We disagree, that fine.

Unfortunately netzero is ideological and is important to associate that with the mandated transition to renewable.

In the uk we have the highest cost energy in the world due to the net zero transition to renewable. This will only increase as turbines and panels increase.. 

Bare in mind that we need to spend trillions of pounds on infrastructure to accommodate the grid expansion. 

The countries economy is a complete mess so where's all the cash coming from?

Another reality check for you is that Only 13 % of the uks cars are ev so not much chance of backing up the grid when the sun doesn't shine and wind won't blow.

As I said. It's pie in the sky.

Stuart Thorp said:

I see solar PV and wind turbines as excellent engineering solutions for renewable energy generation witnessed by the global adoption of these technologies (with costs significantly below fossil fuelled alternatives - https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Sep/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2023).

Can you show me some numbers from a non biased source supporting the costs in this statement?

As noted here:

(1) Wind versus Nuclear - Engineering Discussions - IET EngX - IET EngX

The real costs of wind power, without systems to support the intermittency are already coming close to the cost of Nuclear. Fossil fuels are far cheaper which is why they are being used without subsidies today. Big tech, who need consistent energy supplies are moving rapidly towards Nuclear.

Roger B said:

Can you show me some numbers from a non biased source supporting the costs in this statement?

Hi Roger - I think this MIT article provides a fairly balanced view, which also emphasises the need / cost of storage to support wind & solar.

That's the reason why I think V2G could be a significant technology, as the storage being deployed in EVs could become part of the solution. 
The MIT article also mentions that the cost of fossil fuelled solutions don’t count the cost of the environmental damage caused by the fossil fuels.

The article also mentions: "when most Americans have a big battery in their cars or a backup battery in their homes, that storage capacity could help balance the grid as a whole."

I understand why nuclear is gaining interest - but my personal view is that planning / implementation timelines will need to be accelerated to make a meaningful contribution towards meeting Paris Agreement goals; maybe modular nuclear can help here?
I summarised some thoughts on Nuclear vs Wind a while ago in this post: 

Couple of other issues.

Most people can't afford any of the new tech.

EV sales are plummeting, cost of living is exploding, CO2 levels are rising, fossil fuel use is expanding. Do you really think plugging a car into the grid is going to save the planet.

Not that it needs saving.

Nature always wins and hopefully common sense.

I wouldn't take an MIT article as factual. 

Jon Steward said:

In the uk we have the highest cost energy in the world due to the net zero transition to renewable. This will only increase as turbines and panels increase.. 

Bare in mind that we need to spend trillions of pounds on infrastructure to accommodate the grid expansion. 

The countries economy is a complete mess so where's all the cash coming from?

Hi Jon

if cost is your main concern, please don't ignore the cost of the effects of climate change - particularly significant for the UK.

I agree the proportion of EVs in the UK is currently low (and probably only a small proportion of these are V2G capable). 
This is the reason for my original post - to increase the future proportion of EVs that are V2G enabled, so that EV's can help reduce the future cost of the grid infrastructure by providing storage distributed throughout the network. 

Stuart

Your barking up the wrong tree with Climate Alarmism.

I've read enough science facts to educate myself off the nipple of doom.

You should try it it's quite enlightening 

Another point is that the CO 2 footprint of an EV is massive. Maybe 50K miles before it goes positive.

Plus the CO2 footprints claimed  never includes the upstream costs like transportation, manufacturing with Chinese coal fired power stations and mining of minerals by Conganese children and pregnant women. 

Built by slaves, maybe a 20% CO2 saving over 100K miles. Might need a new battery after 10 years, worthless second hand value. Why on earth would I want to own an EV. Definitely not to prop up a failing energy system.

Anything that say 'could' rings my BS bell.

And this from your link says all I need to know!

There is a slight risk that V2G could be used as an excuse not to invest in updating the grid 'properly', in terms of replacement transformers, thicker cables and so on. We have about a century of grid design experience design around centralized generation, and voltage drops that slope downwards towards the load, we have a similar length of time that has led to reliable design rules, like 1.5 -2 kW per house when sizing substations, and an arteries and branches approach to cables that means that the street main has an apparently oversized cross-section, when looking at those average loads, so that any one house can draw 100A for as long as it needs to. But no more than perhaps half a dozen houses in the street can do that at once, or the substation fuses pop ! And historically that never happens, and the design rules work OK,

A transition to electric heat pumps for heating and electric cars that need charging, at least if you expect cars to be charged at home, and not at dedicated charging hubs with their own substations, renders all those DNO design rules and assumptions obsolete, and replaces it with 'here be dragons'.

The ability to borrow a few tens of amps from the neighbour and save roasting the substation may initially look attractive, and allows some demand leveling, but then so does the far simpler measure of staggering the charging times that share a phase on a substation. At the moment, conventional  EVs are still a fairly niche thing - there are none in my street  for example but there are a few in total on the whole housing estate, so maybe less than ten per substation at the moment.

Equally I don't live in a street of detached houses where folk buy cars new from a main dealer - those that do will have a different perspective on 'normal' ;-)

I see that there is a lot of network reinforcement to be done before say every third house that currently has a car, can have an EV - V2G may be a way to shirk that.

Mike

https://youtu.be/K8Nz-4eEBTw

Mark P Mills gave this speech on the Economics and Future of Electric Vehicles on November 12.

Well.worth an hour of anyone's time to listen to him.

https://youtu.be/K8Nz-4eEBTw

Mark P Mills gave this speech on the Economics and Future of Electric Vehicles on November 12.

Well.worth an hour of anyone's time to listen to him.

Jon Steward said:

https://youtu.be/K8Nz-4eEBTw

Mark P Mills gave this speech on the Economics and Future of Electric Vehicles on November 12.

Well.worth an hour of anyone's time to listen to him.

Thanks for the link, I did listen to Mark P Mills speech…

I'll start with the positive points:

He highlighted 2 key challenge areas: the production of the EV battery and the need to upgrade the network to support the additional load.

Relating these challenges back to the message of my original post - both can be eased with a "bi-directional charging" (V2G) approach as this could:
(i) reduce the demand for house batteries
(ii) maximally leverage the investment in the EV's battery (for energy storage as well as transport)
(iii) ease the peak load on the network as a consequence of the energy storage (and hence reduce / defer the network investment need).

However, his views on EV battery end of life are simply wrong: "when the battery is exhausted it's garbage because its electrochemistry is just exhausted".
I know from personal experience (15 years ago as General Manager of a metals recycling venture) that Lithium Ion batteries can be recycled with high (>95%) recovery rates to produce high quality materials ready to manufacture new batteries.
Just taking a "common sense" view of this, why would anyone "throw away" a concentrated source of strategic materials when these have a high value?

I was also very concerned about his view of CO2 emissions: "if you burn oil you make carbon dioxide that's the point of burning it … it's not a pollutant it's an objective of the activity".
Despite claiming to understand climate science, he doesn’t seem to understand that there is a need to reduce CO2 emissions.

In summary, nothing he said detracts from the potential role V2G could play in support of EV rollout - but I won’t be wasting any more of my time following his thoughts.

Stuart

Hello Jon:

I watched the speech by Mark Mills yesterday and while it had some excellent points it does failed to mention the current economic situation in the US - high personal debt loads, overpriced new car prices, high insurance (both property and auto) costs, and high interest loan rates..

Peter Brooks