Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Robert Bruninga via EV]

To make the math work, I should have said, "the average house with
teenagers leaving all the lights on for 5 hours a day".  [50 lights times
60W saved times 5 hours a day = 40 miles daily EV charging]

I stand by my numbers when corrected to a house that leaves most of their
lights on all evening and assuming averqaeg 75 Watt incandescent bulbs
originally..

The average house with compulsive behaviors who turn off every unused
light will be 10% of this as Matt noted...  But he equally exaggerated
errors.
.
On Jul 25, 2018, at 1:08 PM, Matt Awesome via EV 
wrote:

>> Remember this factoid.
>> Swapping out the average American home from Incandescent bulbs to
>> LEDs saves the same amount of power needed to charge an EV the
>> American 40 mile average per day forever.
>
> Plainly, no, it won't.
>
>> 50 bulbs saving an average 60 watts each for 5 hours a day is 15 kWh.
> Who the hell leaves 50 lightbulbs on in their house for 5 hours a day?
> I don't even think I have 50 lightbulbs in my house, let alone leave
> them all on 5 hours a day.
>
> LEDs aren't free, so, there's not 60watts savings from a 60w bulb.

I assumed an average 75W equivalent bulb (saving 60W) when going to a 9W
LED.
And around here, 60W equivalents are about $1 each (probably subsidized by
the utility).

> How many Kwh does an average US household consume in a day?:  ...
> That's 27kwh/day.
>
> What percentage of an electrical bill is comprised of lighting?: ...
> Source 3: - 9%.
> Source 4:  - 6%.
>
> The split [might depend] on whether heat is made through gas or
electricity.
> So, we could say 27kwh/day of which lighting is 6% or 15kwh/day of
> which lighting is 9% to at least be in the right ballpark (to arrive at
this:)
> - 27kwh*6% = 1.62kwh/day.
> - 15kwh*9% = 1.35kwh/day.
>
> You're claiming 10x that amount in *savings* from switching to LED, ...

Yes, I should have said in some homes who leave every light on all
evening...

>> Charging an EV at 1.5kw for 10 hours a day is 15 kWh.
>
> Since it's not the 1970s, the average household has at least 2
> vehicles, more when there's teenagers/college kids.

I said for one EV.  I didn't say for every car a household could own.

> Add in that LEDs aren't free, you're off by a factor of 25x.

I included their 9W when subtracted from an incandescent 75W to arrive at
60W savings per bulb.
And around here they only cost $1 each for a 60W LED.

> It would be more accurate to say that by switching from incandescents
> to LEDs, you could expect to save enough energy to cover 4% of your
> electric vehicle use. A pretty banal, unsensational, non-headlight
> grabbing rhetoric for sure, but at least an accurate one.

I stand by my numbers when corrected to a house that leaves most of their
lights on all evening.

Bob, WB4APR
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Lee Hart via EV]

Robert Bruninga via EV wrote:

I stand by my numbers when corrected to a house that leaves most of their
lights on all evening and assuming averqaeg 75 Watt incandescent bulbs
originally..

The average house with compulsive behaviors who turn off every unused
light will be 10% of this as Matt noted...  But he equally exaggerated
errors.


Indeed, we all have this problem of over-generalization. We unconsiously 
apply our own special-case personal situation and knowledge as if it 
applies to everyone. When we say "everybody knows...", we really mean 
those in our own circle of friends and family. I catch myself doing it 
all the time!


"EVs can't work because there is no EV charging infrastructure".

"What do you mean? There are AC outlets in every parking lot here in 
Minnesota!"


Most arguments are really just blind men with different views of the 
same "elephant". :-)


--
Problems that go away by themselves will be back with friends.

Lee Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, www.sunrise-ev.com
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Bobby Keeland via EV]

I don't know about his interior lights, but my neighbor has several lights
in his carport that are on 24 hours per day.

On Jul 27, 2018 10:58 AM, "Robert Bruninga via EV" 
wrote:

> To make the math work, I should have said, "the average house with
> teenagers leaving all the lights on for 5 hours a day".  [50 lights times
> 60W saved times 5 hours a day = 40 miles daily EV charging]
>
> I stand by my numbers when corrected to a house that leaves most of their
> lights on all evening and assuming averqaeg 75 Watt incandescent bulbs
> originally..
>
> The average house with compulsive behaviors who turn off every unused
> light will be 10% of this as Matt noted...  But he equally exaggerated
> errors.
> .
> On Jul 25, 2018, at 1:08 PM, Matt Awesome via EV 
> wrote:
>
> >> Remember this factoid.
> >> Swapping out the average American home from Incandescent bulbs to
> >> LEDs saves the same amount of power needed to charge an EV the
> >> American 40 mile average per day forever.
> >
> > Plainly, no, it won't.
> >
> >> 50 bulbs saving an average 60 watts each for 5 hours a day is 15 kWh.
> > Who the hell leaves 50 lightbulbs on in their house for 5 hours a day?
> > I don't even think I have 50 lightbulbs in my house, let alone leave
> > them all on 5 hours a day.
> >
> > LEDs aren't free, so, there's not 60watts savings from a 60w bulb.
>
> I assumed an average 75W equivalent bulb (saving 60W) when going to a 9W
> LED.
> And around here, 60W equivalents are about $1 each (probably subsidized by
> the utility).
>
> > How many Kwh does an average US household consume in a day?:  ...
> > That's 27kwh/day.
> >
> > What percentage of an electrical bill is comprised of lighting?: ...
> > Source 3: - 9%.
> > Source 4:  - 6%.
> >
> > The split [might depend] on whether heat is made through gas or
> electricity.
> > So, we could say 27kwh/day of which lighting is 6% or 15kwh/day of
> > which lighting is 9% to at least be in the right ballpark (to arrive at
> this:)
> > - 27kwh*6% = 1.62kwh/day.
> > - 15kwh*9% = 1.35kwh/day.
> >
> > You're claiming 10x that amount in *savings* from switching to LED, ...
>
> Yes, I should have said in some homes who leave every light on all
> evening...
>
> >> Charging an EV at 1.5kw for 10 hours a day is 15 kWh.
> >
> > Since it's not the 1970s, the average household has at least 2
> > vehicles, more when there's teenagers/college kids.
>
> I said for one EV.  I didn't say for every car a household could own.
>
> > Add in that LEDs aren't free, you're off by a factor of 25x.
>
> I included their 9W when subtracted from an incandescent 75W to arrive at
> 60W savings per bulb.
> And around here they only cost $1 each for a 60W LED.
>
> > It would be more accurate to say that by switching from incandescents
> > to LEDs, you could expect to save enough energy to cover 4% of your
> > electric vehicle use. A pretty banal, unsensational, non-headlight
> > grabbing rhetoric for sure, but at least an accurate one.
>
> I stand by my numbers when corrected to a house that leaves most of their
> lights on all evening.
>
> Bob, WB4APR
> ___
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/
> group/NEDRA)
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Matt Awesome via EV]

> I stand by my numbers when corrected to a house that leaves most of their
> lights on all evening and assuming averqaeg 75 Watt incandescent bulbs
> originally..

Which is some extreme outlier family who's electrical usage is
literally 10x the average home.

Ya gotta think, the crossover between people who use 10x the national
average of electricity, as much energy as the rest of their entire
block, and people who drive EVs, would drive EVs, or would even care
about the monetary savings... is probably exactly zero.

So, I'm not sure how much value there is in such an extreme off-case.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261916305360

This has some datasets in Table 3 for hours of lights on in 3 different rooms.

The mean for a living room is 7.15 with a standard deviation of 4.32.
To find someone with not even 3x that (20), you're already looking at
1 household out of 1000. Let alone 10x that.

I can't actually find a calculator that'll give me the odds for 71.5
hours, it's so extraordinarily rare. It's like, one person per state,
maybe.

> But he equally exaggerated errors.

I don't see that you showed that I did.

 - You're claiming the average bulb in a house is 75W, which is even
more ridiculous than 60w. Average bulb wattage for incandescents is
probably 45, maybe 50 watts. I don't think that's an exaggerated claim
to say you're not saving 100%, you're only saving 80%, which is about
what I used in my math.

 - I said two vehicles per family. Which is accurate. You said
swapping bulbs provides the same amount of power needed to charge an
EV the American average. Okay, true on a technicality but you're
mixing variables. You're looking at a household average to find the
savings, and then not using a household average of miles (only an
individual average of miles). Okay, fine.

Worst case I'm off by a factor of 2 for counting a second vehicle.
You're off by a factor of 10-15.

You said "Swapping out the average American home from Incandescent
bulbs to LEDs" but want to amend that to "a house that leaves most of
their lights on all evening" which is really "a house with also nearly
double the average bulb wattage" which is off, in terms of
frequency, by a factor of somewhere in the range of millions to tens
of millions relative to the actual "average" household's lighting
requirements.

That's like saying "The average household switching from a lawnmower
to a pair of nail clippers to mow their lawn will save time!", if by
"average household" you mean "Those with only 10 blades of grass or
fewer", which is functionally no one.

...

I know this seems like I'm being pedantic, but, absurd, extreme
arguments presented from an energy conservation side are what people
use to ridicule, mock, and reject making changes in their lives or in
the policies of government. It's literally as silly as telling people
to go cut their lawn with nail clippers because it's faster. No, it's
not, and saying things like that gets genuine problems laughed at.
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Robert Bruninga via EV]

The calculation was for 50 bulbs 5 hours a day.  In my house, I leave 3
basement lights, and one shop light on all the time (hard to get to the
switches). And outdoors, there are 4 lights on dawn-to dusk (say 10
hours).

So, do the math.  The 4 bulbs on 24/7 are the same as 19  bulbs for 5 h
ours.  The 4 lights on for 10 hours a day are equivalent to another 8 bulbs
in my case of 5 hours.  So you see, already there are 28 of the 50 bulbs.
The other 22 bulbs lncludes the 5 in the dining room fixture, 5 in the
kitchen.  2 each in 2 bathrooms (4 total) and 2 in each bedroom (8 total)
and there is the 50, not counting at least 6 more bulbs scattered around
the house that are not on.  So the 50 bulbs I used seems reasonable.

With three teenagers, all the lights are on from dusk to around midnight.
About a third are 100W, about a third are 75 and about a third are 60.  I
stand by the average of 75W and that saves about 60W each when replaced
with a 9W LED.

I stand by my numbers.

Bob

se 8 lights alone are worth   In 24 hours, that is the same as

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Matt Awesome via EV 
wrote:

> > I stand by my numbers when corrected to a house that leaves most of their
> > lights on all evening and assuming averqaeg 75 Watt incandescent bulbs
> > originally..
>
> Which is some extreme outlier family who's electrical usage is
> literally 10x the average home.
>
> Ya gotta think, the crossover between people who use 10x the national
> average of electricity, as much energy as the rest of their entire
> block, and people who drive EVs, would drive EVs, or would even care
> about the monetary savings... is probably exactly zero.
>
> So, I'm not sure how much value there is in such an extreme off-case.
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261916305360
>
> This has some datasets in Table 3 for hours of lights on in 3 different
> rooms.
>
> The mean for a living room is 7.15 with a standard deviation of 4.32.
> To find someone with not even 3x that (20), you're already looking at
> 1 household out of 1000. Let alone 10x that.
>
> I can't actually find a calculator that'll give me the odds for 71.5
> hours, it's so extraordinarily rare. It's like, one person per state,
> maybe.
>
> > But he equally exaggerated errors.
>
> I don't see that you showed that I did.
>
>  - You're claiming the average bulb in a house is 75W, which is even
> more ridiculous than 60w. Average bulb wattage for incandescents is
> probably 45, maybe 50 watts. I don't think that's an exaggerated claim
> to say you're not saving 100%, you're only saving 80%, which is about
> what I used in my math.
>
>  - I said two vehicles per family. Which is accurate. You said
> swapping bulbs provides the same amount of power needed to charge an
> EV the American average. Okay, true on a technicality but you're
> mixing variables. You're looking at a household average to find the
> savings, and then not using a household average of miles (only an
> individual average of miles). Okay, fine.
>
> Worst case I'm off by a factor of 2 for counting a second vehicle.
> You're off by a factor of 10-15.
>
> You said "Swapping out the average American home from Incandescent
> bulbs to LEDs" but want to amend that to "a house that leaves most of
> their lights on all evening" which is really "a house with also nearly
> double the average bulb wattage" which is off, in terms of
> frequency, by a factor of somewhere in the range of millions to tens
> of millions relative to the actual "average" household's lighting
> requirements.
>
> That's like saying "The average household switching from a lawnmower
> to a pair of nail clippers to mow their lawn will save time!", if by
> "average household" you mean "Those with only 10 blades of grass or
> fewer", which is functionally no one.
>
> ...
>
> I know this seems like I'm being pedantic, but, absurd, extreme
> arguments presented from an energy conservation side are what people
> use to ridicule, mock, and reject making changes in their lives or in
> the policies of government. It's literally as silly as telling people
> to go cut their lawn with nail clippers because it's faster. No, it's
> not, and saying things like that gets genuine problems laughed at.
> ___
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/
> group/NEDRA)
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Lee Hart via EV]

Matt Awesome via EV wrote:

Ya gotta think, the crossover between people who use 10x the national
average of electricity, as much energy as the rest of their entire
block, and people who drive EVs, would drive EVs, or would even care
about the monetary savings... is probably exactly zero.


It's not that simple. There are huge variations, so the "average" 
doesn't necessarily apply to all that many people. There are rich people 
with Teslas that use huge amounts of electricity in their McMansions. 
There are all-electric homes that use a huge amount of electricity 
because they don't have gas.



So, I'm not sure how much value there is in such an extreme off-case.


The statistics are slippery. The extremes don't make the case. But 
neither can you take the national average, and assume that everyone is 
like that, right in the middle.


I think each person's situation is a special case. They have to come up 
with solutions that work for their particuar situation -- not rely on 
what "everybody does", because that can easily be wrong for them.


Take the situation for leaving lights on. It seems to me (from observing 
my friends and family, and driving around the neighborhood) that each 
household has one of two strategies:


1. They don't bother to turn lights off. Every light in the house seems 
to be left on.


2. They obsessively turn lights off. The whole house is dark except for 
one or two rooms.


So I don't see a "normal" distribution. I don't see houses (or 
businesses, for that matter) with half the lights on at night. Each is 
at one extreme or the other.


--
Problems that go away by themselves will be back with friends.

Lee Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, www.sunrise-ev.com
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Matt Awesome via EV]

> It's not that simple. There are huge variations, so the "average" doesn't
> necessarily apply to all that many people

That's exactly what standard deviation is for, to know the probability
(or occurrence) of a given situation. A broadly spread dataset is
different from a tightly grouped dataset, and that's what standard
deviation tells you. Your criticism is already included in the model.
The way I used it is in proper context, so it makes sense.

> The statistics are slippery. The extremes don't make the case. But neither
> can you take the national average, and assume that everyone is like that,
> right in the middle.

You're correct.

But that's not what I did. What I did includes everything you're
thinking about and more.
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Lee Hart via EV]

Matt Awesome via EV wrote:

It's not that simple. There are huge variations, so the "average" doesn't
necessarily apply to all that many people


That's exactly what standard deviation is for, to know the probability
(or occurrence) of a given situation. A broadly spread dataset is
different from a tightly grouped dataset, and that's what standard
deviation tells you. Your criticism is already included in the model.
The way I used it is in proper context, so it makes sense.


The statistics are slippery. The extremes don't make the case. But neither
can you take the national average, and assume that everyone is like that,
right in the middle.


You're correct.

But that's not what I did. What I did includes everything you're
thinking about and more.


My (many decades old) memory of statistics is that a standard deviation 
assumes a Normal distribution. I suspect that the distribution of how 
many light are left on in a building is a long way away from normal.


We have this same debate every time someone mentions that the "average" 
person drives 35 miles per day; so an EV with a 50-mile range is fine. 
But everyone jumps in to say they don't know *anyone* who drives 35 
miles/day -- they all drive 100+miles/day, or virtually no miles most 
days. (Me; I just happen to be that lone data point that really *does* 
drive about 35 miles/day. That's why plain old lead-acid EVs have always 
worked for me).


--
Problems that go away by themselves will be back with friends.

Lee Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, www.sunrise-ev.com
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Matt Awesome via EV]

> My (many decades old) memory of statistics is that a standard deviation
> assumes a Normal distribution. I suspect that the distribution of how many
> light are left on in a building is a long way away from normal.

Well you're wrong.

The graph is smooth and continuous.

If you want to get ultra-technical, I use the term "normally
distributed" to be simpler and enough people are going to misconstrue
that, but since it's not symetrical it's actually a Weibull
Distribution 
(http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/New_Home_Page/StatFile/statdistns.htm
, about half way down) since it's skewed left. It's skewed left since
you can't use less than zero electricity (insignificant amounts of the
population are net generators), but otherwise follows pretty much
perfectly smooth and expected logarithmic curvatures, especially to
the right on the high end.

Here's a PDF: 
http://www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/sites/all/files/publications_file_attachments/statistical_analysis_of_driving_factors_of_residential_energy_demand_-_final.pdf

Look at basically any of the graphs starting at page 9. They've broken
it down 10 different ways, they all follow the same shape.

If you hate PDFs, here is a direct link to the relevant graph:
https://i.imgur.com/Uk5bfxo.png

The point is that it's smooth and tapers, and how exceptionally rare
it is for someone to be at 10x the rate of anyone else. The average on
this graph is around 15kwh/day, look how far to the right 150wh/day
is. Even for this massive sample size (3300 households) it's an
immeasurably small amount of the population.

Even the amount to the right of 4x the average (60kwh/day) is less than 1%.

> We have this same debate every time someone mentions that the "average"
> person drives 35 miles per day; so an EV with a 50-mile range is fine. But
> everyone jumps in to say they don't know *anyone* who drives 35 miles/day --
> they all drive 100+miles/day, or virtually no miles most days.

Again, that is exactly the purpose of not just looking at a blind
average but to also look at the standard deviation (or lambda, or
whatever is relevant for the distribution math). The thing you're
confused about is already included in what I was saying.

Look at the graph I linked above. That is the raw data itself, not
just average it's the actual data. If what you're saying is true there
would be a double-peak, one low one high. We do not see that. We see
nice, smooth, distribution as we head to the right.

I think that's pretty conclusive.
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Cor van de Water via EV]

Excuse me, i think Bob said 50 lights, 5h, 75w so that is in the order of
20kWh, not 150.
So it is maybe twice as much as avg, not 10x.
With the 15+ kWh Bob can save with LEDs, he can drive approx 50-60 miles a
day.

BTW, Lee, you are not alone. My daily commute is 35 mi round trip.
Cor.

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 8:53 PM Matt Awesome via EV  wrote:

> > My (many decades old) memory of statistics is that a standard deviation
> > assumes a Normal distribution. I suspect that the distribution of how
> many
> > light are left on in a building is a long way away from normal.
>
> Well you're wrong.
>
> The graph is smooth and continuous.
>
> If you want to get ultra-technical, I use the term "normally
> distributed" to be simpler and enough people are going to misconstrue
> that, but since it's not symetrical it's actually a Weibull
> Distribution (
> http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/New_Home_Page/StatFile/statdistns.htm
> , about half way down) since it's skewed left. It's skewed left since
> you can't use less than zero electricity (insignificant amounts of the
> population are net generators), but otherwise follows pretty much
> perfectly smooth and expected logarithmic curvatures, especially to
> the right on the high end.
>
> Here's a PDF:
> http://www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/sites/all/files/publications_file_attachments/statistical_analysis_of_driving_factors_of_residential_energy_demand_-_final.pdf
>
> Look at basically any of the graphs starting at page 9. They've broken
> it down 10 different ways, they all follow the same shape.
>
> If you hate PDFs, here is a direct link to the relevant graph:
> https://i.imgur.com/Uk5bfxo.png
>
> The point is that it's smooth and tapers, and how exceptionally rare
> it is for someone to be at 10x the rate of anyone else. The average on
> this graph is around 15kwh/day, look how far to the right 150wh/day
> is. Even for this massive sample size (3300 households) it's an
> immeasurably small amount of the population.
>
> Even the amount to the right of 4x the average (60kwh/day) is less than 1%.
>
> > We have this same debate every time someone mentions that the "average"
> > person drives 35 miles per day; so an EV with a 50-mile range is fine.
> But
> > everyone jumps in to say they don't know *anyone* who drives 35
> miles/day --
> > they all drive 100+miles/day, or virtually no miles most days.
>
> Again, that is exactly the purpose of not just looking at a blind
> average but to also look at the standard deviation (or lambda, or
> whatever is relevant for the distribution math). The thing you're
> confused about is already included in what I was saying.
>
> Look at the graph I linked above. That is the raw data itself, not
> just average it's the actual data. If what you're saying is true there
> would be a double-peak, one low one high. We do not see that. We see
> nice, smooth, distribution as we head to the right.
>
> I think that's pretty conclusive.
> ___
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Lee Hart via EV]

Lee Hart wrote:
>> My (many decades old) memory of statistics is that a standard
>> deviation assumes a Normal distribution. I suspect that the
>> distribution of how many light are left on in a building is a
>> long way away from normal.

Awesome via EV wrote:
>> Well you're wrong.
>> The graph is smooth and continuous.
>> Here's a PDF:
>> 
http://www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/sites/all/files/publications_file_attachments/statistical_analysis_of_driving_factors_of_residential_energy_demand_-_final.pdf

>> I think that's pretty conclusive.

I'm sorry; but I'm still skeptical. That study was for 9000 homes in 
Sidney Australia. They're just measuring the total power used in the 
home; lighting is not separated. The report even says that gathering 
decent data is very difficult and error-prone.


So it says *nothing* about how many light are on in buildings.
--
Problems that go away by themselves will be back with friends.

Lee Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, www.sunrise-ev.com
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Matt Awesome via EV]

> They're just measuring the total power used in the home; lighting
> is not separated.

I acknowledged that twice already.

> So it says *nothing* about how many light are on in buildings.

Correct.

What it says is that 10 different things they did break out, and the
total power used, follows a nice, smooth predictable Weibull
logarithmic distribution with a smooth flowing tail approaching zero
unlike your suspicion earlier.

I think it's reasonable to extrapolate on that dataset and conclude
"Lighting probably follows a similar shape, it's not random dots, it's
not linear, it doesn't have double or triple peaks, etc"

If you want data on lighting itself, one of the earlier papers I
linked broke out not just into lighting, but 3 categories of lighting
(I think Living room lights, bedroom lights, and some other room set).
They counted not just the amount of bulbs, but the wattage of bulbs
and the amount of time the bulbs were on. They calculated not just the
median amounts, but separately broken out standard deviations for each
set of rooms in the entire dataset. I though it was extraordinarily
thorough and conclusive on the topic of lighting specifically. You
disagreed with it though. That's fine.

The only thing that study didn't show was the actual dataset, and
whether it was actually reasonable to call it "normal" and to actually
use the standard deviation. Hence the study you're talking about now.
So I dug up that one just to show that yep... sure seems like every
single type of electricity follows that shape.

What I think would be interesting is if anyone can dig up a source
that shows some kind of surprise distribution that is unique for
lighting specifically and shows how it doesn't mirror the other 10
tracked types of electrical usage from the previous study. That would
make me pause and reflect on the validity of these other studies. But
that's kinda what you'd have to hinge your argument on because between
the other 5 papers I found, looks like a pretty solidly figured issue
that it's not the case. So, go nuts and find some data if that's what
you think. I couldn't find anything that says that, so, it's good
brainstorming but seems like there's not much reason to doubt any of
these sources.
___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)

Re: [EVDL] Charging load on the grid (corrected)

[Peter Eckhoff via EV]

I drive a Bolt now.  I average about 4.6 miles per kwh and I've traveled
about 4,200 miles since the end of December or 600 miles per month or 20
miles per day.  I'm retired. This means I have to save about 4.3 kwh using
LED bulbs over incandescent bulbs on a daily basis.  Each bulb, if it
replaced a 100 watt bulb, would have to burn for about 12 hours to generate
about a kwhr of savings.

It's in the ball park.  The other thing is in living down south, I use a
lot of AC and that is about 4 kwh of heat that does not have to be removed
from my home, a double savings.  In winter, it is the other way around and
the resistant heat from the bulbs adds heat to the house.

One of the more interesting ways to represent my average miles per kwhr it
to say I go 46 miles on a "gallon of gasoline (10 kwhrs)" where that
"gallon" costs me a $1.00.  You should see the lights come on and the chins
drop.



On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:07 AM, Cor van de Water via EV  wrote:

> Excuse me, i think Bob said 50 lights, 5h, 75w so that is in the order of
> 20kWh, not 150.
> So it is maybe twice as much as avg, not 10x.
> With the 15+ kWh Bob can save with LEDs, he can drive approx 50-60 miles a
> day.
>
> BTW, Lee, you are not alone. My daily commute is 35 mi round trip.
> Cor.
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 8:53 PM Matt Awesome via EV 
> wrote:
>
> > > My (many decades old) memory of statistics is that a standard deviation
> > > assumes a Normal distribution. I suspect that the distribution of how
> > many
> > > light are left on in a building is a long way away from normal.
> >
> > Well you're wrong.
> >
> > The graph is smooth and continuous.
> >
> > If you want to get ultra-technical, I use the term "normally
> > distributed" to be simpler and enough people are going to misconstrue
> > that, but since it's not symetrical it's actually a Weibull
> > Distribution (
> > http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/New_Home_Page/
> StatFile/statdistns.htm
> > , about half way down) since it's skewed left. It's skewed left since
> > you can't use less than zero electricity (insignificant amounts of the
> > population are net generators), but otherwise follows pretty much
> > perfectly smooth and expected logarithmic curvatures, especially to
> > the right on the high end.
> >
> > Here's a PDF:
> > http://www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/sites/all/files/
> publications_file_attachments/statistical_analysis_of_driving_factors_of_
> residential_energy_demand_-_final.pdf
> >
> > Look at basically any of the graphs starting at page 9. They've broken
> > it down 10 different ways, they all follow the same shape.
> >
> > If you hate PDFs, here is a direct link to the relevant graph:
> > https://i.imgur.com/Uk5bfxo.png
> >
> > The point is that it's smooth and tapers, and how exceptionally rare
> > it is for someone to be at 10x the rate of anyone else. The average on
> > this graph is around 15kwh/day, look how far to the right 150wh/day
> > is. Even for this massive sample size (3300 households) it's an
> > immeasurably small amount of the population.
> >
> > Even the amount to the right of 4x the average (60kwh/day) is less than
> 1%.
> >
> > > We have this same debate every time someone mentions that the "average"
> > > person drives 35 miles per day; so an EV with a 50-mile range is fine.
> > But
> > > everyone jumps in to say they don't know *anyone* who drives 35
> > miles/day --
> > > they all drive 100+miles/day, or virtually no miles most days.
> >
> > Again, that is exactly the purpose of not just looking at a blind
> > average but to also look at the standard deviation (or lambda, or
> > whatever is relevant for the distribution math). The thing you're
> > confused about is already included in what I was saying.
> >
> > Look at the graph I linked above. That is the raw data itself, not
> > just average it's the actual data. If what you're saying is true there
> > would be a double-peak, one low one high. We do not see that. We see
> > nice, smooth, distribution as we head to the right.
> >
> > I think that's pretty conclusive.
> > ___
> > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> > Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
> >
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  attachments/20180728/3e10d357/attachment.html>
> ___
> UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
> http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
> Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/
> group/NEDRA)
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.or