9 July 2024

When 500,000 homes in Victoria lost power, these Canberra EVs got to work

| James Coleman
Join the conversation
87
Electric vehicle charging V2G

The Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) bi-directional charger plugged into a Nissan Leaf. Photo: James Coleman.

On 13 February this year, Victoria was lashed by a catastrophic thunderstorm that took out 12,000 km of powerlines and poles across the state’s electricity network, plunging more than 500,000 homes and businesses into darkness.

Around 600 km away in the ACT, however, 16 electric vehicles were doing their bit to help.

The ACT Government has previously experimented with what’s called ‘Vehicle 2 Grid’ (V2G) technology, facilitated by a special type of charger that allows for power to go into and out of an EV’s battery.

“V2G technology works using a bi-directional charger, meaning the energy from an EV battery can be quickly enabled to start sending electricity back into the grid, just like rooftop solar,” Minister for Water, Energy and Emissions Reduction Shane Rattenbury explained.

READ ALSO Look at what the ACT passed over for a prime city site. Now it’s vying for a world architecture prize

A 2020-2023 research study, co-funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and led by ActewAGL, involved a fleet of 51 Nissan Leaf vehicles and a number of ‘Wallbox Quasar 1’ V2G charging boxes from Australian distributor Jetcharge.

At the conclusion of the trial in March 2023, the ACT Government said it had been “vital in uncovering the barriers and potential solutions for the use of this technology within Australia”.

Electric vehicle charging V2G

The 2020 Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) trial was run with help from Nissan and JetCharge. Photo: James Coleman.

But on 13 February, V2G got real.

At the time of the storm, at around 1 pm, 16 of the Nissans from the earlier trial were plugged into bidirectional chargers at locations across the ACT, with four of them actively charging and the remaining 12 sitting idle.

“These 16 EVs received a signal from the grid and started supplying power back into the grid within seconds, exactly as they were programmed to do,” Mr Rattenbury said.

“The emergency response lasted only a few minutes before the grid stabilised and the cars began charging again as normal. There was minimal disruption to the availability of the vehicles themselves.”

Electric vehicle charging V2G

The Wallbox Quasar 1 V2G charger retails for about $10,000. Photo: James Coleman.

The EVs discharged a combined total of 170 kW into the grid over 10 minutes. To put those figures in perspective, the ACT and NSW would need 150,000 cars charging in this way to make up for a similar shortfall in power.

A spokesperson for ActewAGL told Region this is in keeping with the electricity market rules for ‘Frequency Control Ancillary Services’ (FCAS), and less than 2 per cent of each car’s total battery capacity was discharged.

The Australian National University (ANU), which led a study into what happened in February, said it’s the first time in the world this type of V2G response to an emergency has been demonstrated.

“It shows electric vehicles can provide the backup we need in an emergency like this,” Senior Research Fellow Dr Bjorn Sturmberg said.

He said V2G will have an important role to play in the future, when “the grid won’t be able to cope with everyone charging at the same time when they get home in the evening”.

Dr Sturmberg argued there would be “little cost or inconveniences in delaying charging for an hour or two” and longer than 10 minutes in future emergency situations.

“It may call for an industry adjustment, for instance, to require EV manufacturers to program their vehicles to stop charging during a grid emergency, with an option for drivers to override for urgent charging.

“Stopping just 6000 EVs charging would have kept the power on for those 90,000 customers whose power was cut on February 13.”

man standing next to wall charger

Senior Research Fellow Dr Bjorn Sturmberg, ANU. Photo: ANU.

However, there are still a number of barriers before V2G becomes the go-to option.

So far, South Australia is the only jurisdiction in Australia to approve it, and in May, the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV was added to a list of only two cars capable of V2G charging.

The Wallbox Quasar 1 remains the only V2G bidirectional charger approved for use in Australia and retails for around $10,000.

ActewAGL said there are still “multiple pieces of the puzzle that need to come together to facilitate V2G”, and it is a few years away from being available in residential developments.

“ActewAGL will develop value propositions for EV owners when V2G/V2H is more broadly available.”

Join the conversation

87
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Capital Retro7:21 am 20 Jul 24

I don’t recall the term “grid stabilisation” being used before renewables were invented.

What other latent problems with the renewables fantasy are there that will require more massive amounts of taxpayer funding to address them?

“I don’t recall”

Correct.

So 16 Nissan’s powered 500,000 homes? And they put the power into the grid over 10 minutes – sounds impressive, until you ask what happened after the initial 10 minutes? Flat batteries, nothing else to give? It doesn’t sound like much of a back-up plan…

Any evidence you had read the article might be quite impressive.

Grid stabilisation services were provided for a critical few minutes.

Research contributes to planning.

Lefty Boomer8:32 am 13 Jul 24

There is not much left to do if you are afraid of the progress being made in the renewables field. Sit at home and hope to bait someone on a news commentary site perhaps?

If destroying pristine rain forest is your thing, if covering hectares and hectares of land with solar panels is your thing. Net Zero trumps the environment if that’s progress. From a non lefty boomer

We have pristine rain forest here?

Governments worldwide have spent over $5 trillion in the past two decades to subsidize wind, solar, and other so-called renewables. However, even with that astronomical financial support, the world still depends on hydrocarbons for 84% of its energy needs—down only 2% since governments started binge spending on renewables 20 years ago. So-called renewables—more accurately, unreliables—have been a giant flop. They are not viable for baseload power—even with $5 trillion in subsidies and two decades of trying. Today, using wind and solar for mass power generation is an artificial political solution that would not have been chosen on a genuinely free market for energy. Wind and solar power might be useful in specific situations. Still, it’s ridiculous to think they can provide reliable baseload power for an advanced industrial economy. It’s like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Unreliables will not replace hydrocarbons anytime soon and will certainly not bring about energy security… despite what many “serious” people believe. When it comes to reliable baseload power, most of humanity has only three choices: 1) hydrocarbons—coal, oil, and gas 2) nuclear power 3) abandon modern civilization for a pre-industrial standard of living.

4)stop cut and pasting the same incorrect information repeatedly.

4) avoid misinformation from Mark R and his ilk.

About 30% of electricity production in 2023 was from modern sources (“renewables”).
Nuclear, gas, oil and coal proportions have all been declining for the last 10-20 years. Before long they will be overtaken entirely.

Mark R avoids mentioning subsidies to fossil (including nuclear) fuels over the same period of 20 years, even assuming his claim is correct.

The notion that we must rely on old polluting technologies looks sillier with every day that more modern, cleaner, ones advance.

Byline – everyone’s opinion is misinformation except mine

Futureproof, if that were so then how would you determine reliable knowledge, except by measures of evidence?

Your personal belief doesn’t cut it; your comment included.

“how would you determine reliable knowledge, except by measures of evidence?” — plenty of ways to make mincemeat of that statement in a Philosophy of Science tutorial. Feyerabend would be one choice, a riff on the Overton window another, traditional “frames of reference” another, postmodernist “cultural construction of knowledge” another, Kuhn another, etc etc. Haughty appeals to authority by asserting “the Science is settled” is for chumps and scoundrels.

Thank you for taking at least a moment to reply, Rustygear. In my past experience people do not want to consider how they consider these questions, or their own epistemology.

However, there is an older term of which I would remind your supposed HPS class: sophistry.

Feyerabend’s comment that observation requires a contextual theory for veridicality was somewhat anticipated by Charles Darwin in the prior century, in a comment I may have mentioned before:
“All observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of service.”
However, even Feyerabend does not appear to want your brain to fall out — you cannot believe anything you wish because the world is a constraint. You may cling (tenaciously) to alternative theories about momentum of busses yet if you step in front of one then classically accepted predictions have a very high probability of proving effective. Feyerabend’ does not deny significance of observation in theoretical development. You might want to check back on his own words on crank vs thinker.

Kuhn’s set of values regarding consensus for theory choice, or Thagard’s practical definition for action, allow one to consider what is or is not instrumentally valuable without needing to be tied to instrumentalism itself.

So, tell us Rustygear, how would you determine (or define, or declare) reliable knowledge? The other presumptions in your reply are pointless.

So just like being forced to take the vaccine. You will eventually be forced to charge your EV and submit you’re car to hostile power drains as the renewables based grid takes a dive.
While its stable now, it will progressively get worse unless we go nuclear.

The government is already eyeing off your solar battery you have there incase the grid goes down. Problem is they will drain it first before the grid is offline.

What an absolutely irrational and sensationalist mouth-fest! Five sentences with absolutely nothing correct in each.

* No-one was forced to take the vaccine.
* No-one will be forced to open up their EV to top-up the grid unless they opt to, and a limit will be set on how much can be drawn (the current Tesla Virtual Powerplant system will leave a minimum 20% in your Powerwall home battery, for example).
* On what basis do you state that the renewables-based power grid will progressively get unstable? (and I’m not going to touch on your misguided belief that nuclear is the only solution)
* What’s wrong with energy providers considering all possible options potentially available to maintain energy flow in emergency situations?

Daniel O'CONNELL8:11 pm 10 Jul 24

Pity the poor subsidizing the better off who have EVs under new rego costs now in place.

GrumpyGrandpa4:07 pm 10 Jul 24

Drawing power back from EV batteries to top up the grid is an interesting concept.

I just can’t help feeling that there is probably little in it for the car owner other than a warm and fuzzy feeling. I certainly wouldn’t want to prematurely degrade my battery for the sake of a warm and fuzzy.

To even conduct a trial on the capacity of EVs to top up the grid has me concerned for the grids capacity to cover an every increasing demand, particularly as governments phase out gas and coal.

Feedin tariff at those kind of times spikes up to $20 or more a kWh, so it’s more than warm and fuzzy feelings

There’s no need to faff around with little batteries, the country will soon commit to nuclear power.
https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2024/06/19/australias-energy-future

LNPs plan isn’t likely or soon

The “Policy” that every specialist in the field who isn’t paid by involved parties say is impractical and the costings and timeframes are laughable?

Jeez, the comments.

It’s was part of a trial. And what it shows is how a smarter future grid can be made more reliable and efficient through integration of new technologies.

Of course if this was to be rolled out commercially the owners of the vehicles or batteries would be compensated, either directly or through cheaper overall power deals to be connected and allowing their assets to be used in such a way.

Some people just hear the words EV or battery and instantly lose their minds. Actually, that last bit might be too generous.

Yes, because power companies are renowned for their paying fair feed in rates, and always have your best interests at heart. 🤣

Would you be interested in purchasing a bridge I have for sale?

Hmmmm,

Heavily regulated industry vs
Inept consumers blaming their supplier for their own inability to assess the best market options available.

Tough one.

You can probably add in those who don’t understand how the electricity grid operates and think any feed-in they have is needed and valuable at any particular point in time.

Seeing as this type of battery supply would only be ever available as an opt-in technology, you aren’t forced to sign up if you don’t believe you’re getting fair market value for the service provided.

Are you seriously of the belief that a for profit private company is unlikely to attempt to profit from this idea? And will do it out of the goodness of their hearts?

That bridge is going for an absolute steal. Get on it. 🤣

The concept is a good one, but seeing a power company take advantage of it for profit would be entirely unsurprising. Almost expected, really.

On what basis should energy companies work, Ken M? Given pricing is already regulated, do you favour full nationalisation next? I expect ASX-listed companies to at least attempt to make a profit. Don’t you?

Management of rent-seeking by those with the opportunity is a related issue, but that takes more than irritated muttering.

“Are you seriously of the belief that a for profit private company is unlikely to attempt to profit from this idea? And will do it out of the goodness of their hearts?”

Are you seriously unable to read what’s actually written?

The industry is heavily regulated, so companies can’t just arbitrarily and excessively increase profits. But yes, companies involved in providing offerings in this space will try to make a profit within the bounds they are allowed to operate.

Do you think they should provide services for free?

And as above, individuals would be free to investigate the market offerings and choose to sign up or not. No one would be forcing you and if you didn’t like a specific offering, you don’t have to take it. It’s not compulsory.

But if you want to, we can all get really angry about some hypothetical power company that doesn’t exist yet, but is surely frothing at the mouth waiting to rip off dumb consumers who can’t do their own sums.

Perhaps the company even likes selling bridges?

The only person getting angry here is you, champ. I’m having a laugh suggesting power companies will find a way to double dip with this, and you’re throwing a tanty at the suggestion a for profit business will seek to maximise profit at consumers expense.

Have a lie down. LOL

LOL
Imagine getting this mad at somebody having a laugh that power companies are probably going to find a way to double dip with this.

Absolutely deranged. 🤣

Imagine making up weird hypotheticals in your head to get angry at imaginary future situations because you’re scared of new technologies and have no idea of what you’re talking about.

Particularly when the original comment you replied to was about the ignorance shown in the comments in the first place.

“Absolutely deranged. 🤣”

Probably too mild a description for where you’ve gone to but hey.

More unhinged imaginary scenarios.

Again, the only person getting angry here is you. I’m simply laughing about power companies probably finding a way to rip off the EV owners. It’s not that deep.

Ken M imputes anger to others where it is not apparent in the words. Presumably that is meant to cover being found out for pointless statements, which are then called humour by someone who has yet to display any wit here.

Oh look out, the sidekick is piping up. 🤣

I presume the owners were compensated for this? If not, why not? Is the future, you as an EV owner, paying big power companies to keep the lights on?

Capital Retro12:50 pm 10 Jul 24

It seems no one wants to talk about the money aspect.

Either that, or the resident renewables apologists are awaiting instructions.

More people without a clue about research, proof of concept, pilot or commercial proposal.

chewy14’s comment about people instantly losing their minds may contain an difficult assumption.

Capital Retro11:26 am 10 Jul 24

Why didn’t they use the “Beard Big Battery”?

I think the only worry here would be getting ripped off by the power company. Probably charge you to export the power from your EV, pay you a cut price feed in, and then charge you full price to replace what they took. 🤣

Oh dear. More one-dimensional thinking in the comments so far. The article is clearly documenting a trial in the early days of the technology. There are only a few EV models and chargers capable of bi-directional charging, and ActewAGL are quoted as saying that “it is a few years away from being available in residential developments”. But how useful could it be? That’s the point of the trial.

I’m constantly amazed by the negative comments from people when EVs and home/car batteries are discussed. The reality is that EV batteries could be a solution for home energy storage to suppliment, or replace, a home battery at peak requirment times, or to feed back into the grid at times of emergency. Surely that can only be good, but we need to trial and then scale up to deploy it (both government and individuals).

Meanwhile, EV and charging technology continues to develop and prices are already coming down as a result. In a few more years this option should be real, and trials like this will ready us for that.

Capital Retro11:27 am 10 Jul 24

So, who made money and who lost money, StuartM?

You absolutely missed the point of my post and just want to repeat your irrelevant question. It’s a trial of technology.

Capital Retro1:21 pm 10 Jul 24

The whole renewable industry is a trial of unproven technology which is costing us trillions of dollars so the costs are totally relevant because we are paying for it.

All technology is unproven until there are trials like this. The value can then be assessed based on the results.

Which specific technology do you consider “unproven” Capital Retro? Energy from wind? Sun? Water? Transmission of electricity? Switching? Forms of energy storage? Be clear and precise in your exposition of which technolgy has never been done before, or just explain how technologies cannot ever be combined, nothing novel or different has ever happened.

Unproven technology? What rubbish. Are you living in a parallel universe to mine?

Capital Retro8:14 am 10 Jul 24

I’m interested to know how much money was earned by selling power at what would have been a peak price.

Who was the financial beneficiary? I am assuming they were ACT Government EVs.

Capital Retro,
As above, it was part of a trial so financials aren’t really relevant.

But let’s look at it theoretically, the market cap for generation was hit during the event for over an hour in Victoria, $16600/MWhr.

The batteries discharged 170kWhr into the grid, about $2800 worth of electricity if they were receiving the full wholesale amount.

Potential to actually be a good money earner for individuals if it could be commercialised, with lower costs in the future.

Capital Retro9:42 pm 10 Jul 24

I accept that chewy, thanks.

The other side of it is that with smart meters becoming mandatory and electricity being the only domestic energy available (gas and wood heating are to be banned) we will have the equivalent of “social energy”, all controlled centrally.

As that what you want?

Capital Retro,
It already is controlled centrally, just in a very dumb manner and to which consumers have no visibility.

The fact that consumers can’t see those controls doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

A smarter grid allows consumers far more visibility and control over their own power and makes the grid far more efficient. So yes, it’s a good and desirable thing.

‘Ordinary’ home chargers retail for around $1,000. The charger needed to enable this cost $10,000. Of course the ACT government has them. Reflect on that when you’re paying your Rates.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.