News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by spchampion2 on Thursday March 15, 2018 @10:36PM (#16598158)
A few years ago I was working with a custom builder on a house plan (that we didn't end up pursuing), but one of the things I suggested was future proofing the garage for electric cars. Given that a Tesla can charge on 80 amps, it seemed reasonable that a two car garage in a custom home should have 160 amp service. It may not useful right away, but it would very probably be useful over the life of a home.

He thought I was crazy, and maybe I was. But articles like this make me wonder.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by schiffern on Thursday March 15, 2018 @11:16PM (#16598320)
>Given that a Tesla can charge on 80 amps

Note that EVs are considered "continuous loads" under the US electrical code, so the circuit actually needs to be sized for 125% of the load (ie to charge at 80 A requires 100 A service, not 80 A service).

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by Filligree on Thursday March 15, 2018 @11:42PM (#16598450)
Reasonably so. Charging it may take hours, so the line will get as hot as it's going to get.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by tgtweak on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:23AM (#16598617)
I believe Tesla has 48A and 72A chargers. An 80A circuit (wired and fused accordingly) can sustain this, since the wiring standards have some overhead in them for this.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by icelancer on Friday March 16, 2018 @05:56AM (#16599625)
80A circuit for 72A continuous load is absolutely in violation of code.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by tgtweak on Sunday March 18, 2018 @08:28PM (#16615354)
This is correct, actually the reason the rating on the charger is 72A is to fit into a 90A circuit with 25% overhead for continuous loads.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by Waterluvian on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:29AM (#16598632)
That sounds like trying to needlessly get away with the minimum.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by kurthr on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:05AM (#16600351)
It seems important to distinguish between wire rating (guage, junction, and length) vs fuse rating. Typically, you would fuse well below the wire rating (at least 25%) so unless you're worried about the breaker box flipping, ruining at 90% of the fuse rating is reasonable (if it is a stable 'non-inductive' load). Besides, Tesla (non-super) chargers are typically limited by the vehicle.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by amluto on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:08PM (#16601553)
Please read the electric code before you touch or specify any wiring. 90% is neither reasonable nor legal, and non-inductive has little to do with it.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by kurthr on Friday March 16, 2018 @03:30PM (#16603367)
I'm not modifying wiring. I am not an elecrrician. I am a homeowner. I have read California/County/City codes, and low fuse rating has little to do with safety. You can put a 10A breaker on a 100A #3 guage circuit less than 50ft long and it won't magically become a hazard at 7.5A, however you shouldn't put larger than a 80A breaker on it for safety. If someone is installing a 100A (or even 80A) breaker on #5 AWG, then they have a problem, and are likely violating code because the breaker won't protect them. That is too high a fuse rating and is unsafe.

How would a normal homeowner even know if they were approaching 75% of their breaker rating, unless the breaker tripped at <75% of its stated limit? If someone has had 100A service installed with 100A breakers and it's not wired for at least 125A with #2, then they have been defrauded by their electrician and contracor.

If you think that inductive power factor doesn't matter for power efficiency, rating, and safety then I also recommend that you continue your education. I can't imagine a licensed electrician saying that.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by amluto on Friday March 16, 2018 @04:31PM (#16603820)
You said:

> unless you're worried about the breaker box flipping, ruining at 90% of the fuse rating is reasonable (if it is a stable 'non-inductive' load).

A continuous load (usually) requires a breaker rated at 125% of the load, as calculated by the electrical load. A 90A continuous load on a normal 100A breaker is not okay, full stop. It doesn’t matter if that load is literally a giant resistor or is some real-world device.

> If someone has had 100A service installed with 100A breakers and it's not wired for at least 125A with #2, then they have been defrauded by their electrician and contracor.

In the infamous words of Wikipedia, citation needed. In standard US residential usage, a “200A service” is 200A for non-continuous loads and needs to be wired for 200 Amps. Same for 100A, etc. The only common exception I’ve heard of is “class 320” service, which is genuinely rated for 320A continuously, and that’ll have 400A wiring and perhaps a 400A main breaker or a pair of 200A breakers. The latter seems fairly common, since you can buy the hardware at Home Depot.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by kurthr on Friday March 16, 2018 @08:45PM (#16605007)
Great, I'm glad for this new information. So when I go out to look at my breaker box which is billed as 200A (or 400 which they will at least tell me is really 320) service and it has two 100A (or 200A) breakers for a house/garage full of loads, I just hope it doesn't burn down?

As a home owner how will I ever discover this in a non-catastrophic way? Will I put an ammeter clamp on at the breaker box with an alarm on it? Will I know the load of everything that is plugged into that service? The breaker won't blow, but the building will burn down... and it's not the fault of the electrician who installed it and code enforcement says it's fine?

As examples of non-continuous loads that are likely to be continuous for 8 hours or more: a double oven during Thanksgiving, halogen flood lamps at night, or an electric space heater during winter. Oops, you burned your house down for Christmas.

(edit) Discussing this with an electrician, he says that in fact the breaker will flip after extended/continuous load near the breaker limit. It would not be considered a hazard, because the home owner would experience the breaker flip each time before there was a problem. He also said that it's the difference between running at 75 vs 100% of rated current is about 15C of increased temp on the wires and also not a concern for copper.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by amluto on Saturday March 17, 2018 @01:20AM (#16605698)
Yeah, your breaker box that's billed as 200A and has a 200A main breaker and wiring rated at 200A is quite safe. The breaker is designed to trip after a certain amount of time depending on RMS current, and the wiring is supposed to be able to tolerate that with some safety margin.

Your 40A (or whatever) oven isn't a 40A continuous load even on Thanksgiving. It'll draw 40A (maybe) while heating up, but it'll use much less while maintaining temperature.

If you really want, you can probably melt your breaker box, though. You'll need some really nasty nonlinear loads. Off the top of my head, with standard single-phase service, you want lots of even harmonics so that you draw 200A from each phase but put more like 400A on the neutral. Since your breaker doesn't sense neutral current, you won't trip it. (I suspect you'll acutally fry your utility's transformer long before you melt your breaker box, though -- most utilities use a rather different formula for transformer sizing and can't actually supply your rated current for very long.)

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by Filligree on Saturday March 17, 2018 @12:23PM (#16607618)
On an unrelated note...

Given the skin effect, the ampere rating of an AC cable should be the square root of the material used, more or less, but that's per cable.

Obviously you can't get around that by braiding cables, but does anyone ever try to save on material by running multiple independent cables? Or would that end up being more expensive overall?

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by hinkley on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:11PM (#16601576)
For those playing along at home, a 64 amp load requires an 80 amp circuit to meet the 125% rule.

72 amp loads would require 90 amp circuits.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by ajuc on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:16AM (#16600407)
> since the wiring standards have some overhead in them for this.

And there's a good reason they do.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by gwbas1c on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:12AM (#16600387)
You are.

My custom house is almost complete and we only put a single 40 amp circuit in the garage. I've lived with an EV for a few years now. 40 amps is plenty. When we get two EVs, 40 amps will still be plenty. The garage is also close enough to the breaker box that we can run another 40 amp circuit if we need to.

You don't need both of your Teslas to go from 0 range to 300+ miles in two hours everyday. If you did that much driving you'd be running a taxi service.

In our case, the charger will be between both bays. Assuming that both EVs have 300 mile range, we won't need to charge both cars everyday. (Edit) I'm also assuming someone will come out with a 40-amp dual-car charger that will split the load between two cars when both are plugged in.

Anyway, I did ask about 400 amp service because I wanted to use tankless electric water heaters. What he told me is that he'd have to wire in a second panel and second meter.

At that point I decided that 200 amps was plenty.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by joncrane on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:33AM (#16600489)
>I wanted to use tankless electric water heaters

Aren't these prohibitively expensive compared to natural gas?

(I've considered the same but I have gas service)

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by gascan on Friday March 16, 2018 @10:29AM (#16600880)
There's a couple angles to consider.

- An electric water heater is the only way to go truly "net zero"

- You can power it with solar panels

- Your gas company might have a high fixed charge (e.g. I pay $20/mo just for the hookup)

- Routing gas lines & exhaust can get expensive and quickly wipe out fuel savings

- Cutting gas service completely eliminates combustion concerns. No worries about combustion air, no carbon monoxide, etc.

- Electric might still be the service of the future; electric appliances are a bet on renewables

Now, a tankless electric can also get expensive if you wind up needing to upgrade your electric service. Which is why I ultimately went from tanked gas to tanked electric.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by dsfyu404ed on Friday March 16, 2018 @11:59AM (#16601506)
>An electric water heater is the only way to go truly "net zero"

Typically electricity are the worst in places where this is a meaningful benefit to consumers because the state usually has policies about sourcing its electricity that take environmental impact into account in such a way that price is driven through the roof.

Paying a premium for green energy is the best thing states can do to discourage conversion from fossil fuels to electric power.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by jdavis703 on Friday March 16, 2018 @11:45AM (#16601412)
$20/month just for a hookup sounds crazy. In California I pay around $20/month total for both gas and electric (and specifically renewables coming from the grid). I'm not sure if there are other utilities available in you area, but it sounds like you're getting ripped off.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by gascan on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:10PM (#16601573)
There's just the one choice for me. The per-therm price is really low so it's fine in the winter, but now that the furnace is the only thing on gas, I wonder if I can suspend service over the summer.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by amluto on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:05PM (#16601531)
Tankless electric is generally an awful choice. Use a heat pump instead. It’s several times more efficient and more polite to the grid.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by gascan on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:14PM (#16601613)
Not that tankless electric is any better in this regard, but the selection of heat pumps has been dwindling precipitously because despite their small cost adder, their economics are still not very compelling. Which seems really unfortunate.

Actually, the whole water heating business seems to be like this. All kinds of way better tech than an old fashioned 82 AFUE open flue tanked, at really minor cost increases, but the cost of water heating in the first place just isn't that terribly high.

In the end the most significant cost savings on my water heater replacement project, turned out to be the space heating savings from closing the old atmospheric vent & combustion air vent.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by amluto on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:21PM (#16601672)
I’m in the process of doing both at once. I’m getting rid of a non-sealed crappy inefficient heater and replacing it with a 95%+-efficient sealed combustion, combined heat-and-hot-water boiler.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by zapita on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:08PM (#16605077)
Do you have online resources to recommend for a beginner looking to learn more about these topics, in order to make educated choices on future house projects?
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by gwbas1c on Tuesday March 20, 2018 @09:52AM (#16628528)
Solar (with US tax incentives) brings the cost of electricity to about the same as natural gas.

I ended up going with an electric heat pump hot water tank.

I do have natural gas service, but I'd rather put my money into assets (solar panels) than consumables (utility services).

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by CydeWeys on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:51AM (#16600605)
Not at all. A negligible increase in total cost compared to the amount it costs to build a house. You can search Home Depot's site for models.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by miketery on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:58AM (#16600661)
I think he was referring to operating costs.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by CydeWeys on Friday March 16, 2018 @01:10PM (#16602129)
Ah, makes sense. Tankless gas is a cheaper ongoing way to go in the US then, though installation costs may be higher since you might need a larger diameter gas line put in.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by joncrane on Friday March 16, 2018 @11:15AM (#16601220)
Correct
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by EdwardMSmith on Thursday March 15, 2018 @10:55PM (#16598238)
When I had upgraded service run to my 1923 house, I ran 200 amps to the detached garage and 200 amps to the house. The extra cost vs a smaller service is marginal.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by toomuchtodo on Thursday March 15, 2018 @10:51PM (#16598221)
I would suggest 200A service as a bare minimum, with 400A being ideal (this will be heavily dependent on your electric utility service entrance). Consider two EVs, HVAC loads, and possibly electric water heaters, clothes dryers, and a stove. Also, NEC 80% derating (100A circuit required for an 80A 100% duty cycle load).

The electrician's time is the most expensive part; oversize for decisions such as these (load center, EV run to outlet, subpanels, etc).

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by matt_wulfeck on Thursday March 15, 2018 @10:55PM (#16598235)
After putting up panels at my relatively modest house, I’m honestly surprised at the kind of juice I can produce. I’m ready to convert everything I have to electricity
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by toomuchtodo on Thursday March 15, 2018 @11:00PM (#16598255)
If you didn't put a battery in at install time, there's a recent IRS determination suggesting [1] you can still receive the 30% tax credit if the battery is installed at a later date. I would highly recommend pulling the trigger right before the tax credit begins its phase out at the end of 2019, assuming costs come down further between now and then.

The caveat is that your system must charge the battery from your panels, and cannot charge from the utility (trivial inverter setting). With that said, based on net metering laws in most locales, it behooves you to consume as much of your own production as possible. Exceptions abound.

https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/82fchy/irs_letter_o...

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by matt_wulfeck on Friday March 16, 2018 @11:15AM (#16601222)
We have net metering here, so the grid is basically my battery. It would be more worthwhile if I could charge from the grid but I’m way overproducing as is.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by blattimwind on Friday March 16, 2018 @07:46AM (#16599979)
200+ A circuits in a residential home really makes a point for 400 V three phase (where the same load would be ok with a standard 63 A circuit, which is still a lot). [1]

However, when more and more people try to have fast chargers in their homes for EVs, then not only the residential installation poses a problem, but utilities would need to rebuild ~two layers of distribution to accomodate for a 100-200 % increase in residential power consumption.

[1] Not just because high currents are more difficult to handle properly, but also because you need a lot less copper.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by lolwhatitis on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:51AM (#16600594)
If you live in a subdivision built within the past couple decades, your electric runs underground, making it quite expensive to run a second or third primary phase. You also then need a three-phase transformer, which is considerably larger than a typical one-phase. Oh, and your service will be commercial/industrial, which typically comes with demand and energy charges that can be quite steep: https://www.northwesternenergy.com/docs/default-source/docum...
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by blattimwind on Friday March 16, 2018 @11:03AM (#16601132)
That's true, for North America, but entirely misses the point I made (i.e. when you try to push dozens of kW into a house, single phase becomes worse than a below-average idea).
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by hinkley on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:18PM (#16601645)
Which is one of the logical conclusions of products like the PowerWall. I think the current model can only run like 25 amps but an in house fast charger that can pull 10 or 20 amps during off peak hours and dump 60 amps when charging the car could be a cheaper installation.

Hell if the PowerWall 3 could dump 40 amps you could pull 20 from the wall at the same time and hit your 60 amp total.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by jeffwilcox on Friday March 16, 2018 @02:07AM (#16598961)
If your utility lets you do this... in many areas, increasing your service amperage is expensive if you don't use a majority of that additional capacity.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by sandworm101 on Friday March 16, 2018 @08:00AM (#16600037)
Future proofing isn't all about providing a service today for a possible need tomorrow. Plenty of fiber is sitting in walls unused because people thought in-home fiber networks were going to be a thing. Don't provide the cables. Provide the conduit for future cables. Leave the accessible passages and pull-throughs and let future generations decide exactly which cables to install.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by rb808 on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:22AM (#16600435)
I have similar experience - you dont know what will be useful in the future. Someone put in Cat5 cables 20 years ago into my place - nice idea. There is cat5 to the kitchen which is a waste of time now that wifi is here. Meanwhile it isn't fast enough for gig ether to my server so I put a new cable in. Likewise I have analog component video wires in the wall which is useless when I want HDMI.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by wallflower on Friday March 16, 2018 @11:13AM (#16601209)
As mentioned above, my builder friends will put in PVC pipe to run cables between floors and in walls. This allows cables to be replaced relatively easily if their time of usefulness is exceeded.

This seems to be a common best practice, sort of like blowing in expandable foam insulation between the historic (unchangeable) facade and new inner walls to properly insulate a historic home.

Electrical Metallic Tubing (EMT) conduits are similar but more stringent (fire protection).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conduit

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by swalsh on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:03AM (#16600344)
As a woodworker, I'd appreciate that kind of amperage in my garage.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by poulsbohemian on Friday March 16, 2018 @11:53AM (#16601462)
Yes! This is exactly what I was thinking in regard to the above commentary. By the time you get an electric car, a table saw, a band saw, a dust collector... and that's before the mention of an electric tankless water heater. Throw in there some grow lights for your greenhouse or whatever other high-electric hobbies you might have and the numbers above start to look really reasonable.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by RegBarclay on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:15AM (#16600400)
I haven't added power to my detached garage yet, but when I do, it's getting 200 amp service. I don't have an electric car (yet) and I may not before I move out of the house, but somebody is eventually going to live in that house and have an electric car.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by stefan_ on Thursday March 15, 2018 @10:55PM (#16598234)
160 amps alone is more than standard house connect. In any case you will likely be charging overnight, and then given the time available pumping 80 amps into your precious depreciating battery is a great way to make it lose lots of value, quick.

What people need in their garage is 20 amps for the trickle charge to replenish the 30 miles lost from their commute and some grocery shopping overnight.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by newnewpdro on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:18AM (#16598592)
It's likely a 100% EV home would want the option to charge as quickly as possible, even if they trickle charge most of the time for the sake of battery life.

It's also likely that future EVs won't have this battery limitation, just put in the heavier gauge wires and breakers while you're in there if the house is going to be around for the next century.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by manmal on Friday March 16, 2018 @03:27AM (#16599165)
You are right, but you forget about emergencies. Hospital is 10km away, and batteries are empty. Do you want to wait 2m for enough juice, or 10m?

Or less gloomy: In between appointments, you drive home to charge. Do you want to come 15m late just because your pipe is too weak?

Big pipe = freedom.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by CydeWeys on Friday March 16, 2018 @09:57AM (#16600640)
This scenario seems contrived to me. You'd have to have an emergency immediately upon the termination of a trip during which you'd completely exhausted your battery.

You can run out of gas in an ICE car too, and then it's even worse because you need to go track down a gas can instead of plugging in. The simple solution, of course, is to never fly that close to the Sun.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by manmal on Friday March 16, 2018 @12:56PM (#16601995)
With a gasoline car, you can in most cases drive to the next gas station, and get enough fuel to get to the hospital within 1-2m. With an EV, you have to wait. Did I overlook something?

The scenario of an empty EV battery is not that unlikely. Eg you forgot to charge when you returned.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by gambiting on Friday March 16, 2018 @04:59AM (#16599430)
In an emergency, you surely call an ambulance, not drive yourself.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by TomMarius on Friday March 16, 2018 @05:13AM (#16599467)
Not really. Where I am that'd take at least double the time. Depends on what kind of emergency it is, of course, I'd not move someone with spinal injury, but if my girlfriend is feeling terribly sick, I'd rather drive her (that's an actual real life example that happened to me).
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by zentiggr on Friday March 16, 2018 @10:41AM (#16600969)
Depending on your insurance, ambulance and emergency charges can be either rather high copay or only % covered, and are NEVER cheap on their face.

My wife drove me to the emergency room on a 3am Sunday morning when I felt like someone was pushing a golf ball out through my ribs and I had my gall bladder out that week. $750 copay for ambulance service.

Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by gambiting on Friday March 16, 2018 @11:16AM (#16601224)
I am aware that the ambulance is not free in the US, but it's quite hard to comprehend I guess. Especially in an emergency, I wouldn't think of anything other than calling one, driving to hospital myself wouldn't even cross my mind.
Re:US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save... by jandrese on Friday March 16, 2018 @02:58PM (#16603113)
Yes, but you're talking about a maybe once in a lifetime event here (need to rush to the hospital, but you just got home with your EV on 1% battery). Just eat the ambulance bill and curse your bad luck.