More on the Tesla electric car

[ERD50]

... Buyers will buy power from (non-renewable) peakers only if there is no solar power available to them (and to a smaller extent, wind and hydro), and only then. That isn't theory, it is what happens today.

If there is solar power available, that will be used up first ...

I agree with all that, but I guess I am also confused on where this is leading?

The point of my earlier post, the one I described as 'controversial', is that EVs are using the 'dirty' part of the grid, and will for quite some time. I'm not sure how these other statements from you fit into that?

Quick recap - Outside of perhaps a few areas in Hawaii, I don't think any grids in the US have an excess of solar. As you say, the grid will use all the solar it can get. Adding EV draw increases the load, so since the solar is already all used, the EV causes a higher demand on the dirty part of the grid. Can it be otherwise? And it will stay that way, until we have an excess of solar, and probably longer (to degrees).

So fast forward to some future where we have excess solar (assuming it is economical enough to encourage over-production). If you can harness that with EVs, OK, that sounds great. But it isn't that simple. Unless they go way overboard, that excess is only going to occur on occasion. If these EVs are in regular use, the owners aren't going to go too many days before they charge again. Will EVs be parked and plugged in at noon to be able to charge? Some will, some won't. Do you plug in at work, hoping to charge and get a 'sorry, no excess today, charge tonight'? And every day there isn't excess, they are back to drawing on the dirty part of the grid.

It seems like an awfully fine line. Enough excess to regularly charge EVs, but not so much excess that the EVs can't suck it all in? It still seems way too variable for that in most areas, due to seasonal differences and weather.

Back to costs for a moment. Take an extreme/simple case to make a point, with just enough solar installed to meet needs w/o any excess. Assume they need to charge $0.X/kWh to be profitable. Now they double their installation, and roughly half the additional power becomes excess they can't sell. They now need to charge a higher rate ( ~ 33% more) to remain profitable, because they aren't able to sell twice as much power. So this absolutely affects the cost of solar power.

Sorry if I came across with a 'tone' - I only meant to say that I'm so used to seeing the EV fans make arguments that just can't be supported, and I was not following you, so it seemed you were being a 'fan'. Not so much a judgement as an observation.

20/20 had a report on the Tesla / prius battery technology. Don't quote me on this but the premise of the story was that these electrics actually consume more in terms of energy than a regular gasoline powered vehicle. It has to do with the amount of "Rare Earth" the batteries require for production. China has the lions share of our planet's Rare Earths so they are the ones winning with these electric cars. The earth is the loser.

It's a consideration. I haven't followed it too closely, it seems data is harder to pick out than the basic energy info (which is hard enough!). There is a lot of very questionable info on this from both sides, with obvious bias. If you can sort it out, please post your findings!

-ERD50

 

[meierlde]

20/20 had a report on the Tesla / prius battery technology. Don't quote me on this but the premise of the story was that these electrics actually consume more in terms of energy than a regular gasoline powered vehicle. It has to do with the amount of "Rare Earth" the batteries require for production. China has the lions share of our planet's Rare Earths so they are the ones winning with these electric cars. The earth is the loser.

Actually rare earths are not that rare China behaved as a classical monopolist and drove the other producers out of the business and tried to profit from their monopoly but this backfired. There are several deposits in the US one that is now working again is at Mountain Pass Ca (just across the state line from Las Vegas) The difficulty is in processing the ore given that the various rare earths in the Lanthanide series are very close in chemistry.

 

[explanade]

There should be more batteries being produced for mobile devices and laptops than EVs.

 

[Totoro]

1 Tesla battery = 50.000 - 85.000 Wh. Don't know about forklifts and golf carts and such.

1 IPhone battery = 5.45 Wh. One car is 10k to 15k IPhones.

1 Laptop battery = roughly 30 - 60Wh. So one car is around 1.500 laptops.


Tesla by itself delivered 70.000 cars in total (including the roadster), don't know about the rest. So we're not there yet. We'll need say roughly 1 million new EV sales per year to match IPhone + Laptop.

Some projections give 1 million EV sales worldwide by 2020, so the picture can change pretty fast. That's in addition to hybrids (incl. plugins), which is expected to go above 3 or even 4 million.

Same projection claims a >$35 billion market by 2020 for automobile batteries alone. To put that in perspective: the total battery market (including throwaways) was only $47.5 billion in 2009.

 

[ERD50]

...

Some projections give 1 million EV sales worldwide by 2020, so the picture can change pretty fast. ....

And some projections called for 1 million EVs in the US alone, by.... just about NOW.

U.S. backs off goal of one million electric cars by 2015 | Reuters

We will see about 2020, but with ~ 250 million passenger vehicles in the US alone, 1 Million still isn't something that will have much effect. And to my earlier points, is that effect even positive, or is it negative?

And once you get past the luxury market, or the mini-car/urban market (won't represent many miles, and the alternatives are high mpg vehicles, so very low effect when you weight it), I think the market really shrinks. Again, lots of people who park on the street or a lot w/o power available. Lots of people with long/variable commutes (and that high mileage is a heavier weighting factor overall). Lots of people with garages with only 110V, and 220 might be expensive to route (I'm thinking of the typical garage in Chicago - detached, on an alley, probably no electricity when built, retrofit for maybe one 15A circuit in the 50's?).

So many obstacles for EVs, yet hybrids have none of those obstacles (no range anxiety, no charger outlet needed), and are affordable today. Why the push for EV - especially if my analysis holds and they are MUCH worse than hybrids, environmentally? Even if the most favorable (biased?) analysis, the EVs aren't that much better than hybrids. I just don't get the excitement (environmental-wise) - it seems misplaced, maybe 180 degrees misplaced.

-ERD50

 

[Totoro]

A political goal of a US president is not a projection.

Note that I was only responding to Explanades comment (estimate). The worldwide battery market for IPhone + Laptop will be smaller than automobile batteries very soon. It might even already be the case if you include hybrids and forklifts, golf carts etc ..

Electric Car Demand Growing, Global Market Hits 740,000 Units | CleanTechnica

320.000 new EV units registered worldwide in 2014. Going up to 1 million by 2020 is only a factor 3 increase. Given the growth (>60% p.a.) that is not a strange projection. And that's excluding hybrids, which adds another big chunk of batteries.

[Edit] The Tesla Gigafactory alone will make enough capacity for 500.000 cars by 2020. http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...rs-incs-gigafactory-aspirations-are-giga.aspx

 

[dallas27]

I hope that some generation alive today has the opportunity to try to explain to children how our lights and cars used to be powered by dinosaur grease. And I hope those kids look at them as if they are nuts.

 

[explanade]

EV would be perfect for me. Most of my everyday driving is only a couple of miles from home.

By contrast, hybrids and diesels are bad for short, city (stop and go) driving.

I would never spend the kind of money a Tesla S costs for any car. I might spend to buy something like the i3, price-wise. But that little thing would not get me to San Francisco, which is about 40-50 miles away, and back, even with the range extender.

I saw that there is a Kia Soul EV, which costs about $34k but with the EV tax credit, would be around $26-27k, at least according to their advertising -- probably more with taxes and registration and so on.

They advertise a "class-leading" 93 mile range. Again, not enough for driving up to San Francisco, parking it for a few hours, and then driving back. There would have to be a lot of charging stations all over the place.

Or realistically, at least double the range.

Going to see if Tesla can really deliver on the Model 3 but if they do, you'd probably had to put a down payment on it now to have a realistic chance of getting it in 2017 which is when Musk said it would be out.

 

[ERD50]

A political goal of a US president is not a projection. ...

True, and maybe we will still be posting here 5 years from now, and can compare notes. I think the issues I mentioned are a problem for EV adoption. We might still hit that number, but will it matter, and will it matter in a positive sense (my larger point)?

I hope that some generation alive today has the opportunity to try to explain to children how our lights and cars used to be powered by dinosaur grease. And I hope those kids look at them as if they are nuts.

And the added demand from these EVs are being powered by fossil fuels as well. And it might take more fossil fuel between generation, transmission, charging, driving a motor, and recharging, than simply putting that fossil fuel directly into the tank of a modern hybrid.

Hopefully those kids are smart enough to look at the big picture.

...
By contrast, hybrids and diesels are bad for short, city (stop and go) driving. ...

Was that a typo?

Hybrids excel in stop-go driving. That is where the regenerative braking comes into play, and the stored energy lightens the load on the engine on acceleration. Works pretty well.

It helps in a less direct way on the highway - that smaller engine is more efficient than the larger one that is required w/o the motor/battery boost.

-ERD50

 

[explanade]

No my understanding is that if you don't drive enough, you won't be able to recharge the battery enough, no matter how much regenerative breaking there is.

My commute used to be under a mile. Then stores are a mile away or less.

If my commute was more like 5 miles through stop and go, then it would have made sense.

 

[ERD50]

No my understanding is that if you don't drive enough, you won't be able to recharge the battery enough, no matter how much regenerative breaking there is.

My commute used to be under a mile. Then stores are a mile away or less.

If my commute was more like 5 miles through stop and go, then it would have made sense.

OK, I had not heard that. But at under a mile, why not walk? Seriously.

Cars don't get a chance to warm up in 1 mile, it's really hard on them (OK, EV has an advantage there). But an EV for a less than 1 mile commute would be pretty crazy $$-wise. Sounds like a 'light' plug-in hybrid would be right for you. You could drive the 1 mile under battery power, and just let the engine kick in for the occasional drive to San Francisco.

The Volt does ~ 40 miles on battery, but I think some of the other 'light' plug-ins go something like 5-10 miles. Enough for that use, and with the smaller battery pack, more affordable.

-ERD50

 

[explanade]

Walking is great, wish I'd done more of it.

But rather than 5 minutes, it takes 15-20 minutes at a brisk pace and I used to arrive a bit sweaty.

I heard some communities just use golf carts, during the warmer months, but I don't know if that's on regular streets or just within some development.

I may get a bike but drivers here are crazy, I would not want to be at the mercy of some crazed and reckless person in a hurry or someone who's altered.

 

[ERD50]

I hope that some generation alive today has the opportunity to try to explain to children how our lights and cars used to be powered by dinosaur grease. And I hope those kids look at them as if they are nuts.

I made one reply in post #559 (EVs are still running on fossil fuel), but while doing some yard work, this kept bouncing around my brain.

Seriously, why would a future generation think a past generation was 'nuts' for using what was available to them?

Was an earlier generation 'nuts' to use horses instead of tractors? Stone axes instead of iron? As we advance we move onto the next thing. It would have been nuts to not use fossil fuel.

So I take it you are totally self sufficient? You use solar/wind, and those devices were made in factories powered by solar and wind? How about the internet connection between us - are you 'nuts' to be using it?

I really don't get your point.

-ERD50

 

[eroscott]

You made the initial claim that EVs are probably running on coal generated electricity.

I'm asking if there is incrementally greater coal burning to run EVs.

General idea of sales. General idea of where electricity is produced. Some state have harder and harder restrictions on coal pollutants and emissions upgrades (sometimes they even they can't continue -- cost to fix). IL has closed some in recent years, as example.


Drive by Numbers - Tesla in all 50 states (likely proportionally where they have continued to sell)

Fact #753: November 12, 2012 Sources of Electricity by State | Department of Energy

 

[ERD50]

General idea of sales. General idea of where electricity is produced. Some state have harder and harder restrictions on coal pollutants and emissions upgrades (sometimes they even they can't continue -- cost to fix). IL has closed some in recent years, as example.

...

It's true that IL has closed some coal plants in the past few years (not sure what affect that had on the total mix is though).

But I don't think (and I'm looking for feedback here) that changes anything with regards to EVs. To my point, there is a limited amount of renewable energy on the IL grid. If we add to the draw with EVs, the additional (marginal) draw, must come from non-renewables, right? So the EVs are running (mainly) on non-renewables, right?

I'm having trouble finding any flaw in that logic. Am I missing something? Where?

-ERD50

 

[eroscott]

It's true that IL has closed some coal plants in the past few years (not sure what affect that had on the total mix is though).

But I don't think (and I'm looking for feedback here) that changes anything with regards to EVs. To my point, there is a limited amount of renewable energy on the IL grid. If we add to the draw with EVs, the additional (marginal) draw, must come from non-renewables, right? So the EVs are running (mainly) on non-renewables, right?

I'm having trouble finding any flaw in that logic. Am I missing something? Where?

-ERD50

I don't know about renewables in IL. I was showing some of the most popular places for Tesla Model S's are not primarily using coal. Did you see the maps?

Aside: In parts of IL, ComEd has a hourly rate program (RRTP) so you can charge your EV in the middle of the night so there is limited/no impact on the grid.

 

[ERD50]

I don't know about renewables in IL. ...

But you were the one who said (about coal plants): IL has closed some in recent years, as example.

So that is why my response was IL specific (and I live in IL). So what were you trying to say about power in IL?

I was showing some of the most popular places for Tesla Model S's are not primarily using coal. Did you see the maps?

Yes, I did. After CA, IL is among the top states. And do you follow my logic - in all these states, renewables are limited, so adding draw from EVs must be drawing from non-renewables. So it doesn't matter much, does it?

And beyond that, I keep saying that if EVs are going to have a real effect, they need to be sold pretty much everywhere. Then what?

Aside: In parts of IL, ComEd has a hourly rate program (RRTP) so you can charge your EV in the middle of the night so there is limited/no impact on the grid.

That's good. But it is changing the subject (maybe because my point is an 'inconvenient truth'?).

Sure, the grid has excess transmission capacity at night, so EVs charging at night doesn't create a problem for the transmission lines. But that electricity still needs to be generated. Solar obviously isn't a source at night. Wind is generally stronger at night - but back to my point. Do we have an excess of wind power at night? Would we if 1/3 of the population had EVs charging at night? If so, some of that excess could go to 'clean' recharging, but how much? And how often?

I'm suggesting that if you had enough wind to have excess to power EVs on average, you would have a lot of excess that could not be sold. That makes it tough to meet the economics of being competitive with other fuel sources. If you have to waste half your output, you have to charge 2x your base rate. Are you still competitive? Will you be motivated to install more renewables at that point?

-ERD50

 

[eroscott]

Electricity generation keeps getting cleaner and cleaner every year. IL was an example. You are harping on coal so I mentioned IL getting cleaner. The NE is another good example of sales and limited coal. It takes a LOT of energy to get the gas to a gas station from under the ground. Often overlooked.

Renewable keep growing year after year. This is just a matter of time. Think future not yesterday.

IL was pretty attractive EV-wise because of high gas prices (special blends) and good EV incentives that are now gone so may slow down by comparison.

Solar prices continue to be attractive and dropping. Battery storage by utilities and homes is starting to happen so regardless if it is solar or wind it can be used at different times than the optimal generation.

A lot has changed even in the time since this thread was started. There are many other related forums to this stuff where the details are discussed. An ER forum has limited expertise and input by comparison.

 

[ERD50]

Electricity generation keeps getting cleaner and cleaner every year. IL was an example. You are harping on coal so I mentioned IL getting cleaner. ...

It does not sound like you have read the points I've been making on this (or chose to ignore them, as they don't fit your view?). See my POST #507 and POST #518 for the full exchange.


Brief summary - Renewables are a limited resource. We don't have an excess on our grids to apply to EVs, and won't for a very, very long time (maybe an extremely long time, depending on the economics regarding handling the excess, cost/safety of storage, etc). EVs are added demand on the grid, so if the renewables are already near 100% fully utilized, there is no renewable power available for those EVs - so the power comes from fossil fuel and/or nukes.

Again, show me any flaw in that thinking.

It takes a LOT of energy to get the gas to a gas station from under the ground. Often overlooked.

There are plenty of "wheel-to-well" studies that include that number, and we also need to include any difference between mining the components for those batteries, versus the iron/aluminum they replace compared to other vehicles. And it still doesn't change my point regarding the EVs effectively running on non-renewables.

And lets review the externalizes of those EVs, on an average grid, and using coal (compared to hybrid, and even conventional vehicles) to see that this isn't some minor issue - it's a huge delta. EVs don't appear to help the environment, they hurt it.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

So I was wondering why I don't see more about this issue of EVs using the marginal electrical production, after all the renewable power has already been used. I Googled some of those terms, and came up with this - published by:

Maximilian Auffhammer -
Maximilian Auffhammer is the George Pardee Professor of International Sustainable Development at the University of California Berkeley

https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/...rage-generation-the-case-of-the-electric-car/

He points out that the report by the "Union of Concerned Scientists" (which I picked apart in other ways earlier) makes note of the importance of this marginal production, and then they... completely ignore it and use 'averages' instead! How scientific! [/satire]

-ERD50

 

[eroscott]

Early adopters allow for the future changes and evolution. Disregarding everything only using today's perspective is nearsighted. I've followed electric cars for several years. The related industries have changed significantly in a short timeframe.

Thought these were cool examples of how factories will evolve in the future with all that roof space:

1)

General Motors Baltimore Operations complex in White Marsh, Maryland, which is producing electric motors and drive units for the Spark EV, recently got a LEED Silver-certificate after installing a lot of solar on its roof.

“The greening of the General Motors Baltimore Operations complex included the addition of 580 kilowatts of solar to the roof of its e-Motor building. Together with a 1.23-megawatt solar array on its grounds, 6 percent of the facility’s electricity comes from renewable sources. Maryland-based Empower Energies installed the solar system.

2)
Tesla GigaFactory will be similar with solar panels on it's roof and nearby field of wind power (charge batteries) but produce all it's electricity (net zero).
Construction of Tesla's $5B solar-powered Gigafactory in Nevada is progressing nicely : TreeHugger

3)
Similar for all the Tesla Superchargers which are in early stages of build out. a) build, b) add batteries (giga-factory) to charge during low cost/night, add solar for charging.

The SuperCharger Station Has Batteries & Inverters and Can Exchange Power with the Grid for Arbitrage, to Capture Minimum Rates, or to provide Grid Stabilization Service, any of which can offset energy costs for recharging cars.

Some info via: Tesla's Supercharger - The Cost of Giving Away Free Energy - TESLARATI.com

 

[ERD50]

Early adopters allow for the future changes and evolution.

That's a common myth that I've dispelled before. Early adopters are simply a natural step in the supply demand curve, and they are looking out for themselves, not trying to change the future. In the early stages of most products, the product has some unique, valuable feature(s). But they typically come at a relatively high price. Early adopters are simply the ones who value those features enough to pay the higher price. If the price doesn't come down, wider adoption does not generally occur.

There's a long list of products that early adopters bought, that failed in the general market place, because the value didn't continue to improve, or better alternatives came along. But they each had early adopters.

Sure, it's true that by getting some product out on the market, and having it proven, producers can invest in more automation, etc to bring prices down. But that doesn't happen 'because of' early adopters, it just happens (or not, as the case may be).

Here's a test - take a lousy product, and pay a bunch of people to buy it so you now have a bunch of early adopters. Will the product succeed long term, just because of early adopters? No, they are a cog in a wheel, along for the ride, not the driving force.

Disregarding everything only using today's perspective is nearsighted.

Very true, and that is why I try to avoid that trap in these discussions. Unlike some of those pro-EV reports that seem to pretend that hybrids won't improve in the future!


So let's look to the future: back to my point on the future greening of the grid and EVs - how green does the grid need to become before the added demand from EVs is mostly from renewables?

A slight paraphrase of my earlier post:

I'm suggesting that if you had enough wind/solar to have excess to power EVs on average, you would have a lot of excess that could not be sold (because of the variable nature of W/S). That makes it tough to meet the economics of being competitive with other fuel sources. If you have to waste half your output, you have to charge 2x your base rate. Are you still competitive? Will you be motivated to install more renewables at that point?​

I was just reading that on many grids, the coal plants have to be ramped up for the morning rush, and can't ramp down as fast as solar can come up (envisioning a grid with lots of solar), and they can't ramp up fast enough as the sun goes down, so there is a period of time where these coal operators are willing to sell their excess power for near zero - essentially the fuel is 'free' to them, like wind/solar. So even though wind/solar power 'fuel' is free, there are still competitive forces at work.

And if storage is affordable for wind/solar, it will be affordable for coal (maybe more affordable - as the coal excess output is more predictable?). So wind/solar will still need to compete on that level.

I've followed electric cars for several years. The related industries have changed significantly in a short timeframe.

And so has the mpg of fuel cars, especially as they move to hybrid mode, and there are other potential advances being worked on, micro-turbine, free-piston, etc. Don't ignore those ( relevant to your own second comment)!

Thought these were cool examples of how factories will evolve in the future with all that roof space:

see link to "Empower Energies Media Teaser: GM Baltimore Operations 580kW Solar Installation (White Marsh, MD)"

Interesting how they claim those solar panels will displace X amount of coal. Maybe this should go in the solar power thread, but this is similar to my marginal power observations for EVs, so I'll touch on it here. The peak power of those panels is ~ 500 KW, a typical coal plant is on the order of 1000 MW.

Now, can you imagine the coal operator saying "Sunny day today, those panels might produce near their rated output for a few hours, we better kick back the plant output by 1/2000th! No, wait - they predict there may be some clouds rolling through, which means we will need to kick in the peaker plants which are far more expensive than coal. Never mind!"

Of course, as solar becomes a bigger player, it will start to replace some coal, but it is not the current reality, and it won't be one-for-one, unless there is storage (not even then as you lose energy in the storage process). So they shouldn't be making that claim now.

It's too bad, because I hate the environmental damage of mining and burning coal, but those are the realities (at least as I see it - reasoned counterpoints are welcomed).

Tesla GigaFactory will be similar with solar panels on it's roof and nearby field of wind power (charge batteries) but produce all it's electricity (net zero).

So when is the GigaFactory going off grid? Hey, if these Tesla PowerWalls are really a profitable answer to grid storage, shouldn't they be eating their own cooking (and be their own early adopters)?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

A little back-of-the-envelope data relevant to my earlier statement:

I'm suggesting that if you had enough wind/solar to have excess to power EVs on average, you would have a lot of excess that could not be sold (because of the variable nature of W/S).​

So a typical US home uses about 1,000 kWh per month.

An EV driven a typical 1,000 miles per month, would use ~ 320 kWh per month (based on Leaf - 24kWh battery, 75 mile range, does not account for charging losses). So roughly 1/3rd additional power consumption to add an EV.

And let's envision a future with an EV in ~ 1/3 of the homes. So let's round down to 1/10th the power on average ( EVs will improve somewhat, though I still gave them a free pass on charger losses).

So this is why I think it is just not realistic to think of the EVs running mostly on renewables. How can renewables consistently provide a 10% excess, without also having a lot of excess much (most?) of the time? And as I say, if that excess is 'wasted', it factors into the average costs for W/S, making them more expensive. Storage could utilize most of the excess, but that has a price as well.

Averages don't apply. Not now, not for the foreseeable future.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

A little back-of-the-envelope data relevant to my earlier statement:

I'm suggesting that if you had enough wind/solar to have excess to power EVs on average, you would have a lot of excess that could not be sold (because of the variable nature of W/S).​

So a typical US home uses about 1,000 kWh per month.

An EV driven a typical 1,000 miles per month, would use ~ 320 kWh per month (based on Leaf - 24kWh battery, 75 mile range, does not account for charging losses). So roughly 1/3rd additional power consumption to add an EV.

And let's envision a future with an EV in ~ 1/3 of the homes. So let's round down to 1/10th the power on average ( EVs will improve somewhat, though I still gave them a free pass on charger losses).

So this is why I think it is just not realistic to think of the EVs running mostly on renewables. How can renewables consistently provide a 10% excess, without also having a lot of excess much (most?) of the time? And as I say, if that excess is 'wasted', it factors into the average costs for W/S, making them more expensive. Storage could utilize most of the excess, but that has a price as well.

Averages don't apply. Not now, not for the foreseeable future.

-ERD50

The other problem is that solar is generating when people are not normally charging... so that cannot be factored in the greening of the grid by EVs... not now, not later....

 

[Totoro]

The other problem is that solar is generating when people are not normally charging... so that cannot be factored in the greening of the grid by EVs... not now, not later....

What makes you say that for the future scenario?

Most cars are parked >90% of the time, plenty of time to charge.

Also, solar concentrators. https://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/Chapter 3_compressed.pdf