More on the Tesla electric car

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro The Tesla full model has a battery pack of 85 Kwh. An average household in the US uses somewhere between 20 kwh and 40 kwh per day (24h). So, one Tesla can function as battery for the nighttime with still plenty of juice left to drive moderate distances. ... I know this is all minor right now, but you were asking how they help each other.

No, more wishful thinking from fans w/o analysis. I may have addressed this before, but...

#1 - A battery designed to meet the requirements of mobile power is an expensive battery. Using it for stationary power doesn't make sense - there are cheaper alternatives (even Tesla's PowerWall is a different chemistry/configuration).

#2 - Range anxiety is real. A consumer never really knows when they may need to make that extra trip. It sure doesn't help range anxiety to run down the battery to feed the grid. So for apples-to-apples, the consumer would need to buy additional battery capacity to keep range anxiety at the same level, and then drag that battery around in their car wherever they go. Makes no sense! Again, stationary batteries would fill that need better - you are again fitting a square peg in a round hole, in a desperate attempt to rationalize these polluting EVs! Using semi-depleted, used EV batteries in a stationary mode might be economical - we will see.

#3 - Look at the warranty for a Tesla car battery. They prohibit you from using it this way. Their warranty is based on driving, if you cycle ~ 1/4~1/3 of that battery power daily, you can be assured they would need to adjust the warranty - that's a LOT of extra demand on that battery. Look at their PowerWalls, one is designed for occasional backup, the other for daily cycling. Different chemistry for different needs.

#4 - The Tesla is an $$$ car. To really make a difference, we need to look at where we would be if EVs made up some significant % of miles driven. Those will need to be cheaper cars for mass acceptance (and as I've said before - how dp you get mass acceptance of EVs to people w/o garages, or inadequate power in their garage?). Cheaper cars won;t have an excess of battery power, and won;t have batteries that can take excess cycling. Tesla can afford to cover few outliers, due to their high cost. Large scale mfgs will be looking at this with a very sharp pencil.

I'll give a more concise reply to your next post regarding intermittency. You are still using hand-wave magic here. Intermittency costs, and someone will need to pay, no free lunch. You are wrong to say no one is 'guarding' the system, utilities are regulated. In Chicago, a few years back the utility had slipped on maintenance, and brown/black-outs were increasing. Even in ineffectively run Chicago. this problem got fixed in pretty short order. Public and political pressure really pushed a lot of upgrades to the infrastructure in a short time.


I already demonstrated that while the producer may not 'care' - the energy buyers will, and will pay accordingly - and that will make the producers 'care' very quickly! Just imagine three days with little sun and wind, and now the energy buyers have to turn to the coal and gas plants for power - the fuel plants have the buyers over a barrel, and will collect enough to cover their 'slumps' with a very high rate charge. The buyers will have no choice. No free lunch.

Bankruptcy? That's a way to lower production costs? No comment...

-ERD50

[LARS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 No, more wishful thinking from fans w/o analysis. I may have addressed this before, but... -ERD50

ERD50, you seem very knowledgeable on these issues. What is your background? Were you/are you involved in power generation industry in a past/present life?

I ask because understanding your background helps to add perspective to your comments.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Who knows? The rates were no different than a standard taxi. I imagine there is some major supplement program for "green" taxi. We saw a ton of Prius taxis. Have to say - the air quality with all the traffic was very good.

I wouldn't think any supplement for a Prius taxi would be needed.

A hybrid captures wasted energy with regenerative breaking, gets by with a smaller engine, so provides better fuel efficiency than a non-hybrid. The payback for a taxi company is probably pretty quick (not so for me, we don't drive many miles).

The good air quality might be due to the French using nukes for ~ 80% of their electricity?

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LARS ERD50, you seem very knowledgeable on these issues. What is your background? Were you/are you involved in power generation industry in a past/present life? I ask because understanding your background helps to add perspective to your comments.

Thanks. I'm a retired electrical engineer, but I never worked in the power generation industry. I did work with battery-powered mobile electronics, so have some experience with that end (but would not claim to be an expert in that area).

Anyone can do the analysis I have presented, no special skills required. It just takes a few things:

A) Basic math skills, and a basic understanding of energy terms (easy to learn or brush up on at Wikipedia, and all sorts of energy converter calculators on the web).

B) Read and keep current on the technology - the key factor here is... don't just accept the headline or the 'happy talk' from the author, peel the onion back a layer or two to get down to the underlying facts and limits (seldom included in the article). Keep an open mind - if all you are looking for is validation of preconceived ideas, you can always find someone to support your view. But does it hold water?

edit/add to expound on this - I think it is important to be even more skeptical of your own ideas than you are of others. Note how in these recent posts, where I presented the controversial idea that EVs run mainly on the dirty part of the grid, and renewable % mean very little, I present it as a question. Can this be true? Did I miss something? Can you poke holes in it?

I'm not making a proclamation, I'm making a proposal. And so far, I think it is holding water. The logic of it seems sound, I can't convince myself that I'm wrong, and that is how I approach ideas - am I wrong?

I wish I knew more about the power industry. I'd like to better understand some of these factors on coal plants, their power range, ramp up/down rates, etc. Most of the info I find is either way too generic to be useful, or uses so much 'insider' talk, that I can't make it out either. But I do know in general terms that coal and nukes can't change very fast, that is why they rely on NG turbine peakers to fill in. Those peakers cost much more to run than coal/nukes, but they need to spend the extra $ to avoid brown/black-outs.

Hmmm, it seems that in Totoro's world, the buyers would not buy power from peakers - it is too expensive? But they do - to avoid the brown/black-outs. Puts a crater sized hole in his theory, that simply is not the way it works, today or in the future.

-ERD50

[Totoro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 No, more wishful thinking from fans w/o analysis. I may have addressed this before, but...

I'm no fan, and not sure I enjoy the tone there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 #1 - A battery designed to meet the requirements of mobile power is an expensive battery. Using it for stationary power doesn't make sense - there are cheaper alternatives (even Tesla's PowerWall is a different chemistry/configuration).

I was primarily talking about what you will do with the Tesla battery once it is no longer fit for that purpose, and yes, even while it is in the car. The original buyer (of the car) already paid for it in the current setting.

No dedicated use implied, just saying (like you asked) that both might help each other if they both scale up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 you are again fitting a square peg in a round hole, in a desperate attempt to rationalize these polluting EVs!

Or the tone here. I was talking about ex-EV batteries and potential use for current EV batteries for some people in addition to EV right now. 10 KWh on a 85 KWh isn't much (12%), and not everyone has a long commute.

I know it reduces wear on current batteries as its use is unintended, so Tesla can't garantuee the mileage. It depends on what effect it will have and how much costs will differ between night and day. There is no telling what direction the future will take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 #4 - The Tesla is an $$$ car. To really make a difference, we need to look at where we would be if EVs made up some significant % of miles driven.

Yes. The battery cost is $30k or so right now. That needs to come down, and it will. It's Tesla's target and ambition. In terms of where we are right I already said it was marginal right now, so I don't get the point you are trying to make. You merely asked me how EV batteries and intermittency help each other. It won't have an impact at all right now, I said as much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'll give a more concise reply to your next post regarding intermittency. You are still using hand-wave magic here. Intermittency costs, and someone will need to pay, no free lunch.

No hand waving, read my comment. Yes, someone will pay. Typically taxpayers via the transportation infrastructure, funded by governments. I'm repeating myself here it seems.

But not the producers. That's the tragedy I was talking about. Transportation costs go up for everyone through actions taken by producers. Again, unless renewables get taxed or non-renewables get subsidized, which I don't see happening soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I already demonstrated that while the producer may not 'care' - the energy buyers will, and will pay accordingly - and that will make the producers 'care' very quickly! Just imagine three days with little sun and wind, and now the energy buyers have to turn to the coal and gas plants for power - the fuel plants have the buyers over a barrel, and will collect enough to cover their 'slumps' with a very high rate charge. The buyers will have no choice. No free lunch.

I agree, they won't have a choice. Yet it won't stop solar producers unless government actors make them. I'm getting confused now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Bankruptcy? That's a way to lower production costs? No comment...

Yes. Not saying it is a business strategy to lower costs. I'm just saying that any installed solar capacity will never be removed from the marketplace. And that if any solar production site will go into bankruptcy, it will only serve to make life tougher on non-renewables. I've seen it in plenty of other industries. And I'm telling you this dynamic makes planning new production a very uncertain affair.

I'm not sure I am conveying correctly what I want to share here.

In no way am I saying that solar or renewable is cost competitive right now, nor that EVs are "the green choice" in the short term. Where did I write that?

What I am saying is that given the current cost trend solar and wind will displace non-renewables pretty quickly. And even if it drives up infrastructure costs dramatically and increases overall costs that won't stop the trend. Non-renewables are pretty much dead in the water in the medium term, and the whole industry knows it.

[Totoro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Hmmm, it seems that in Totoro's world, the buyers would not buy power from peakers - it is too expensive? But they do - to avoid the brown/black-outs. Puts a crater sized hole in his theory, that simply is not the way it works, today or in the future.

Kind request to read what I write, not what you think I wrote.

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 as it has the cheapest marginal production cost ("merit order") of effectively zero. As a consequence its price will be slightly below the marginal production cost of the next available energy source (up to demand saturation). Peaker plants only get used when there is no solar available because peakers will always be more expensive in the spot market. They are because they have variable immediate costs.

With non-peakers it is indeed slightly different. If there is a coal plant burning and it suddenly faces competition with solar power both effectively have no choice but to produce, and consequently that price competition will push the sales price effectively to zero. The cost impact however is dramatically different, coal burns up valuable inputs (coal) while solar doesn't. This has a far more negative impact on coal plants than solar plants.

[Texas Proud]

Totoro...


Not sure where you live, but the gvmt is not building out the electrical grid infrastructure where I live.... it is paid by the consumers....

I will have to look this up, but I remember that T Boone Pickens was wanting to ramp up wind farms in Texas.... but that the cost to get that energy to people who could use it was in the billions... he wanted others to pay this cost.... but the grid operators refused (last I heard).... they did not see a good reason to invest....


Also a thought on your marginal costs.... sure, if you are talking spot prices then solar and wind will have an advantage.... but if you are a utility that is getting electricity from many producers, you will make sure that you have a steady supply... and those providers will make sure that the utility pays for the privilege of them being able to provide electricity on a steady basis... the only thing that wind and solar will replace is peaker demand... even if it were able to supply 100% of demand at any time, all that electricity could go 'poof' if the wind stopped blowing or thick cloud cover blew in quickly.... then what do you do


As an aside.... I remember being in Hawaii and going to the farthest southern point in the US... they had a wind farm there.... and NONE were working.... the wind was blowing nicely, but nothing... I still do not know why they were not producing since (as you point out) the cost of input is zero....

[Totoro]

I live in Europe.

Out here the network infrastructure is completely separate from the producing side, as the infrastructure is a well-regulated natural monopoly. It used to be different.

In the last mile from network to producer (e.g. offshore wind farms) it is a bit fuzzier, and a classic tug of war in "who gets to pay". Cross-border sometimes is even more fun (Germany building a new connection to the Netherlands, who pays? -- or gaslines from Russia to Turkey).

The infrastructure maintainers are also starting to pay peakers (gas mostly) in Germany a garantueed income, not sure about other countries. This is to make sure as you said that capacity will actually be there when needed. Practically speaking the only way to keep things going.

The strange dynamic is then that it increases infrastructure costs and effectively subsidizes non-renewables. So what you describe is also happening here. They have to do that because otherwise the peakers simply won't be there. The business case and risks don't work anymore.

With regards to wind farms it is puzzling sometimes, and I can only guess. Sometimes wind speed is not correct, and they are shut off. Wind also does have slight cost in terms of wear and tear, so maybe too much sun?

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro I live in Europe. Out here the network infrastructure is completely separate from the producing side, as the infrastructure is a well-regulated natural monopoly. It used to be different. In the last mile from network to producer (e.g. offshore wind farms) it is a bit fuzzier, and a classic tug of war in "who gets to pay". Cross-border sometimes is even more fun (Germany building a new connection to the Netherlands, who pays? -- or gaslines from Russia to Turkey). The infrastructure maintainers are also starting to pay peakers (gas mostly) in Germany a garantueed income, not sure about other countries. This is to make sure as you said that capacity will actually be there when needed. Practically speaking the only way to keep things going. The strange dynamic is then that it increases infrastructure costs and effectively subsidizes non-renewables. So what you describe is also happening here. They have to do that because otherwise the peakers simply won't be there. The business case and risks don't work anymore. With regards to wind farms it is puzzling sometimes, and I can only guess. Sometimes wind speed is not correct, and they are shut off. Wind also does have slight cost in terms of wear and tear, so maybe too much sun?

Here the transmission company and producers are separate... but both are private entities....

And yes, the people who provide the power will make sure they get a profit... as other have also mentioned... I use to have a friend who worked for a utility before it was split... he worked at a plant that rarely actually produced electricity.... the were in an industrial part of town and always had steam going, but sold that to local plants... he once told me they spent $20 mill to refurb a turbine that was not used... it was there so they could negotiate prices from other producers.... kinda hard to charge an astronomical rate when there is an idle plant that is just waiting to be turned on.....

[kgtest]

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.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro ... 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgtest 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgtest 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro ... 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/genera...-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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totoro 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)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by explanade ... 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.