# Electrify America to be 100% Solar-powered by 2023



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

EA, for non-USA folks, is a public charging network that was deployed as part of the settlement for the VW "dieselgate" emissions scandal:









Electrify America will be 100 percent solar-powered by 2023


As of April, its electricity is already 100 percent renewable.




arstechnica.com


----------



## CodyH18 (8 mo ago)

Maybe I didn't understand the article's message but I see it as very ambitious to be 100% solar powered next year, I mean I'm all for it I wish we would be on that point already for a few years now but yeah. I hope we get there soon


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

"As of April, its electricity is already 100% renewable"

*Already*

Glad you're all for it.

They're already there *now* as far as renewables go. This is them now going further with being 100% solar.

The solar takes up *current* renewables like hydro power.

Solar is a zero cost feedstock. That means 100% profit on the electrons delivered, minus capex, maintenance, and overhead. 

No oil refinery can touch that.


----------



## CodyH18 (8 mo ago)

Awesome! I'll read more of it. Thanks!


----------



## mickmuller69 (6 mo ago)

So, does that mean that they can only supply charge during daylight hours? There is not a lot of solar power at night time, or in the depths of winter.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

You didn't read the article, obviously


----------



## mickmuller69 (6 mo ago)

On the contrary, I did read the article. Heres the quote
"The Electrify America Solar Glow 1 project will break ground later this year, and when it's fully operational in 2023, it should have an annual energy production of 225,000 MWh. That’s more than enough to account for the annual energy use of the EA charging network.
In fact, EA says that as of April, its electricity is already 100 percent renewable thanks to purchases from various suppliers, but with the commissioning of Solar Glow 1, the charging company should have complete confidence that it’s putting more solar energy into the grid than it uses to charge our cars."
So what they are saying is that they will generate enough solar electricity to cover all the chargers use.
But that is not the same as being wholly charged by solar. 
Either the Electrify Solar Glow Project is going to have a massive battery array (which the article does not state), or when the sun is not shining, other sources of power will be required.
Or you simply cannot use the network during the night or periods when there is little sun.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

The very same power sources that are therefore NOT used when the array is running and during peak use times to boot. Get it? Net zero. At peak grid capacity times.

EV's will eventually be grid batteries once we deploy enough of them.

Until then, you have to keep your pants on and stop digging for ammo you simply don't have.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

"Net zero" is not zero. Making a commercial arrangements doesn't change reality, and reality is that electricity comes from where ever the current mix of sources to the grid is: if you charge at an Electrify America station beside a coal-fired power plant that's running, you're charging with coal-sourced energy. If another consumer uses electricity for any purpose, and under any contract, beside a solar power installation during the day, they're using solar electricity. There is no network of electron traffic cops directing sparkly clean solar-sourced electricity to selected consumers while directing nasty fossil-fuel-sourced to less worthy consumers.

This is particularly important in a world where the only significant energy storage in the electrical generation system is in varying water levels of hydroelectric reservoirs, piles of coal, tanks of oil, and underground storage caverns of natural gas.

It's nice that companies such as Electrify America make commercial arrangements which support and encourage solar electricity producers, even if they are doing it only for public relations rather than any altruistic goal, but that doesn't make them solar-powered.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

There are "electron cops" called regulators, who audit grid-provider books to ensure that customers who sign up for renewable power are getting renewable power capacity.

Coming from an oil-state, Canada, and from a province that gets its energy from environmentally disastrous tar sands, I can understand your cynical perspective and you taking the alternate perspective as a cultural pasttime (what else is there to do when you're snowed in? 😂).

The reality is if consumers sign up for 100GW of 100% renewables, there has to be that much renewable generating capacity installed. That's the point you are missing here. It's not about a charging station next to a coal plant, it's about shutting that coal plant down with alternate capacity...with some utilities, directed by the consumer as to its source. Get enough consumers to demand their "source" as renewable, it has to be installed....those consumers paid for more than just electrons.

EA signing up to buy a venture's solar farm power supports the farm's business case and eases investors into backing more of such ventures.

Where's the problem the fossil-shill came in to FUD about?


----------

