Tuesday, February 25, 2014

The ‘Green’ Agenda Looks Set To Crash The Grid

Chris Carrington
Activist Post

Americans bought 96,000 electric cars last year, up 84% from 2012. Sales are set to increase year on year as the government and the green lobby push us to find cleaner alternatives for everything we do in life.

The International Energy Agency estimates there will be 20 million electric cars on the worlds roads by 2020, but there’s no mention what those cars will do to ailing power grids across the planet.

The United States power grid is barely fit for purpose as it is. It struggles to cope in times of excessive demand, such as when millions of air conditioning units are running in the summer, or there is excessively cold weather in winter. Adding a few million electric cars into the mix could well provide the straw that breaks this particular camel's back.

Energy companies, who are not slow in hiking prices at the best of times, will see usage peaks as people arrive home from work and need to charge their vehicles; and where there are usage peaks there are higher prices. Those prices will not be for the individuals that own the electric cars, they will be for everyone who uses electricity during the peak period.

Level one charging, where you simply plug your car into a wall socket in your garage, takes much longer to charge the car than having a level two charging station installed. There’s a good explanation of the differences here. Plugging in at home will take 22 hours to charge an average electric car from empty to full. You get around 4.5 miles range per hour of charge.

General Motors estimates that the Chevy Volt will use 2,520 kilowatt hours (kWh) a year for average driving distances in average conditions. Remember, I am not talking about running costs here, I am talking about the amount of electricity taken out of the grid to charge electric cars.

The US Energy Information Administration estimates the average US home uses around 900kWh of electricity per month. So by comparison, the electric car seems pretty good, 2520 kWh per year and the average home comes in at 10,800 kWh per year, but, as usual, there’s a but.

Based on the General Motors figures, four electric cars will equal one house in terms of electricity demand. The 96,000 electric cars purchased last year are drawing the equivalent of 24,000 homes from the already overstretched grid. Should the rise in electric vehicle usage continue at the same pace, 178,560 new electric vehicles will be purchased this year. Those vehicles will use as much electricity as 44,640 homes, and don’t forget the vehicles brought last year, and the year before, and the year before that are not included in that figure.

As an example, this is almost four times the number of homes than there are in Westport, Connecticut, ten times the number of residential homes in Placerville, California and half the number of residences in Boise, Idaho.

Electric cars are drawing the equivalent of a decent sized town, or half a city’s worth of electricity a year from the grid.

Remember, this is only based on new sales, not including all the electric cars currently on the roads of the United States.

As we are constantly pushed to move away from gasoline and other fossil fuels the number of electric cars on our roads will continue to increase. Incentives to offset the cost of installing charging stations in domestic properties makes the cheap-to-run electric vehicles an even better proposition. They are cheaper to run based on the current cost of gas against the current cost of electricity, but their very nature says they will become useless rust buckets should the grid fail, and unless something is done to improve this critical infrastructure, fail it will.
The ‘green’ lobby and the government are pushing a technology that will ultimately result in millions of deaths due to grid failure. The grid as it stands cannot meet the demands of supplying an extra city’s worth of electricity each year.

Economically those who are driving electric cars may be saving money over using the combustion engine, but their personal savings come at a price and a high price at that.

Crashing the power grid because of increasing numbers of electric cars seems rather like cutting your nose off to spite your face. My purely personal opinion is that this is very short-sighted as it leaves us facing the possibility of rolling outages and all the difficulties that entails, just to fulfill the green agenda and the tax revenue it raises.

The green agenda is at best dangerously flawed and at worse a possible kill shot for millions of American citizens. Life as we know it is changing, and there is every possibility that those changes will speed up as the government and their corporate partners continue to push their dangerous policies down the throats of the American people.

Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared. Wake the flock up!

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

Chris, sorry but you are a misguided nimrod of a writer. You seem to thrive on scaring people away from smarter choices. I for one want cleaner air for my kids. States are not stupid. They constantly monitor energy usage and plan for future usage. You’re either really stupid or you think your readers are.

Anonymous said...

Do the math again. 900 + 2520 = 3420kwh not your 10,000 or so. Your numbers all fall apart.

dale said...

Electric cars can be charged through the night hours when there is very little energy demand. They will save on gas and oil, bringing prices down for those resources; they will not pollute the environment, which kills millions a year.

It takes very little electricity to charge an electric car. For instance, the Chevy Volt will do the average commute of 40 miles on 8 kwh. The average cost in the US is 10 cents a kw, so you can do roundtrip for about 80 cents. That is less than half the cost of a sixy watt light bulb running for 5 hrs or 90% less than a clothes dryer used 4 hrs a week.

The electrical charge, on average, with charging during nonpeak hours (9pm-10am), for a week's commute of 200 miles would cost the same as latte or small salad.

The assertion that electric cars will tax our electricity system is absurd in face of the facts.

And since fossil fuels sicken tens of millions each year. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, clean air is essential to life and good health. What is the cost of fossil fuels on our health and environment?

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated illness due to fossil fuel pollution costs the United States healthcare system $120 Billion per year. If you divide that by 320 million Americans, it comes to about $1500 a yr for a family of 4.

By contrast, if you drive 40 miles a day in a Volt, your electricity costs, on average, will be under $300, and you will be reducing pollution.

Doesn't this minimal electricity still cause pollution at the source? Yes, but far far less than the pollution from gas engines. The cheapest way to trap pollutants is at the source instead of on 100 million cars each day.

Here is the clincher: in the West now, solar energy, even without subsidies, is on a par with conventional dirty energy, in many cases cheaper,and the cost is dropping rapidly (90% in the past decade). So if you install solar panels (which in most areas you can do for zero down and about $80 a month, you can charge your car from a pollution free source. YOu will not be a drain, however small, on the electrical grid.

This is the future: free energy (once the system is built) without pollution to run your home and your car. The more people who install solar, the cheaper it becomes, and Calfornia, Utah, and Arizona now have large remote solar plants, using molten salt which allows nightime energy release, for hundreds of thousands of homes, the energy already sold under contract, at parity or cheaper than the dirty fuels, which have the hidden costs of 120 billion a year for health damage and probably the same for environmental damage.

And of course, fossil fuels exacerate global warming, which is estimated to cost, according to a Climate Science study, about 350 billion a year worldwide, and it is only going to get worse.

Electric cars are not only healthy but quiet; they last longer; and they are part of the solution. The sooner people adopt electric cars, solar energy,etc, the cheaper it will be and the healthier we and our environment will be.

There were electric vehicles over 120 yrs ago, electric trollies in LA, etc but the fossil fuel cartels sabotaged them because they are so much cheaper; there is much more profit in fossil fuels, and have you noticed that as solar as decreased by 90
% in the past decade, gas has more than doubled? More electric cars will actually depress the price of gas, as demand lessens. So if you have a hybrid, and can go 40 miles on 80 cents, then you can go further on gas at a reduced rate, if you need to drive further before recharging.

The only losers are the filthy rich oil companies; the rest of us, and our grandhildren, will be the winners.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, when the grid goes down, how you going to charge those cheaply made slow cars! Get a gas guzzler made before computer chips! My fav is a el camino!

dale said...

"Seriously, when the grid goes down, the gas pumps don't work, but if you have solar, you can charge during the daylight hours, while the gas cars are out of luck.

Molten salt solar plants, for hundreds of thousand of homes, in California, Arizona, and elsewhere can generate electricity from 6 hrs after dark to 24/7. So those on the molten salt grid will have energy when the normal grids may be down.

Solar wins on all counts.

dale said...

Home solar systems have batteries to store energy for night use, charging your electric car, etc.
When the conventional grid goes down and the gas pumps don't work , you are good to go with solar. You don;t need no stinkin grid!

dale said...

The Tesla goes 130 mph, the Volt goes 100. Both have fast acceleration, do not pollute, can be charged for under a dollar, and are very quiet and electric motors last much longer.

Many, ignorant of the facts, dismiss them, but in
California, the Prius is the top selling car.

Hide Behind said...

Tesla and Sony ( there are other possible investors in Japan) are negotiating a deal to build a 200 million USD Lithium battery plant that will employ some 200+ and looks like near a California rail and port access site.
One question to you solar vamps, no make that actually three no four??????
How much energy does it take to produce a panel, haul its waste by products to toxic dumps; and what is life cycle of a panel and when does its energy production fall off( its half life)?
Agenda 21 planners severely limit the amount of pov usage.
In Portland oregon the granting of lanes to its Bart system and the lack of new parking for pov's at its new apartment and townhouse complex's has caused around 7% drop in vehicle traffic and ownership.
Whole urban blocks now have only service vehicle access and rest are walkways and bike paths to nearest mass transit site.
You can park at transit sites for a fee not inexpensive and will only become more expensive yet.
Large fully automated basement parking garages in core areas are for bicycle only and quite a few in the works.
Portland Oregon is an interesting place as to new age living, you can actually bid on apartments no one wants that cost government subsidized firms far more than now cost.
The rent an auto is growing fast lon both coast so that owning a pov is way more expensive.
Will soon need to prove parking space owned or leased before permitted to register in many municipalitys.
It makes no different to oil firms because they PRODUCE ENERGY NOT OIL.
They will still provide the resources needed for carbon fibers and plastic and farmaceuticls along with agricultural needs.
Military and Civil policing are largest users of carbon fuels and the amounts of usage increase yearly.
It is in architecture you will see the greatest boom, where you will indeed see energy devices beyond what most people cannot dream of..Buildi gs that act as bridges over waterways using waterflow as generators and built 20 stories high.
Look for them first in Asia as Euros and US are too interested in rip it quick instant investment returns.

dale said...

It takes a lot less energy water, etc to make solar panels, which last 20-25 yrs, than to frack, or blow up mountains or tar sands, drill in deep water, etc and then transport it thousands of miles.

One they are built, they are all but maintenance free, labor free, and the energy is all but free.

Think of the energy to drill a 1 mile deep gulf well, or to frack, with huge amounts of water, methane releases, and environmental damage.

" how many years of operation does it take for a solar panel to generate as much energy as was used in its manufacture? They found that depending on the technolgoy used, it takes one to four years for solar panels to earn out on their energy debt. Consider that most panels are projected to last 20 to 25 years with proper maintenance and normal use, and you can see that there's a net energy gain here that's rather significant.

For consumers, once they've moved through the initial payback phase, their panels are generating energy without using energy, putting lie to the claim that solar panels use up more energy than they can possibly make."

Here is the original study:


Fossil fuels kill millions worldwide; what is the price of millions of lives and hundreds of millions of illnesses?

Post a Comment