onenerdykidThe other points you've brought up are very sound and interesting- always good to hear from people who work in the actual field. But I have to call you out on your misuse of the word "theory". Things become scientific theories because there is evidence behind it, with repeated experiments done with such evidence that support the original hypothesis. Theories are scientific fact, and as such they are true. But they are not absolutely true because facts can change, evidence can change. They are true insofar as there is supporting evidence.
Evolution is a scientific theory in the same way that gravity is a theory, or relativity, or cell theory, or germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, etc. These are all theories yet we hardly look to discount them given their scientific status.
Yep, you're right. I got carried away with my definition of proof.
milk_manSo glad we've got you here to tell us what's what! I don't know if you read much of the earlier thread, but what do you have to say about what we talked about with rebuilding the grid? Specifically rebuilding it to be able to handle the extra demand of say, heating out houses and powering our cars without oil.
Some details, skip to the TL;DR if you want...
95% of the time changes on the system are driven by the forecasted "peak" load. This really means building a system that is reliable for a snapshot in time of each year (4pm on a hot and humid weekday that was proceeded by 3 really muggy ass days). These changes typically are transmission lines (or transformers) that can't handle the amount of power that needs to get from point A to point B. This is why not consuming so much at "peak" conditions can have a huge impact.
If the system needs new infrastructure, it can usually get built in the "shoulder months," or times of the year that don't have high load (think fall or spring). You nearly always have to take facilities out-of-service when you are working on or near them. Taking system outages to perform maintenance usually means the system has to operate in a more expensive way. The way to go about it is no mystery, it just means additional costs to rate payers.
You mention the ability to handle the load of EV batteries. This is a really interesting problem that has a potential for a lot of really creative solutions. As long as you don't charge during the "peak", the system shouldn't have to change much for this load. The cool part with EV batteries is they might be able to provide grid flexibility for other issues. i.e. maybe they can all be coordinated to consume or supply power during strategic times while still adhering to the constraints of their owner.
TL;DR - Upgrading the infrastructure and creating a modern, flexible grid is very doable. It just means consumers (people with electric bills) will likely have to get use to paying more money. Sure increased rates might slow the economy, but what's societies accepted cost for reducing our GHG emissions? Whatever it is, we should start paying it now.
