More on the Tesla electric car

[REWahoo]

And to spice up the discussion a bit more: Let’s Hope You’re Not Trying to Sell an Electric Car Anytime Soon | TIME.com

According to a new report from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), plug-in electric vehicles such as the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf depreciate in value at a rate much higher than traditional gas-powered cars, as well as hybrids like the Toyota Prius. NADA trade-in data show that in April 2013, a 2012 Honda Civic retained 73% of its value compared to the original manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP), while a 2012 Prius retained 66% of its value. The 2012 version of the Volt and Leaf, meanwhile, retained just 58% and 51%, respectively, of their value.

In part, the manufacturers are to blame:

..., one big reason EV values have fallen so dramatically is that used EVs are competing for the attention of buyers against their shinier, untouched brethren: new-model EVs. Thus far, 2013 has been marked by aggressive deals on the Leaf and other electric cars, spurring on increased demand for plug-ins among bargain hunters. Now that the base price of the Leaf is under $19,000 once incentives are factored in, and there are an abundance of cheap lease deals for cars like the Fiat 500e, Honda Fit EV, and the Chevy Spark EV, it’s no wonder sellers are being forced to cut prices on older EVs. Who’d buy an old car when the new version costs about the same, or is maybe even cheaper?

 

[Katsmeow]

And on the being able to drive a long distance....

Tesla battery swapping: Elon Musk demonstrates 90-second robotic swap technology. (Video)

The cost seems pricey now but it is definitely interesting.

 

[ERD50]

...

ERD50, I get the argument you make on the PV panels... I think you explain it well... if someone does not get it, they are either set in their thinking too much or are just unwilling to think it through....

Thanks for the confirmation. I'm curious if anyone will come up with a serious challenge to it. It's a funny thing - when someone says their PV powers their EV and that means they are driving with no eco-impact, it sure seems to make sense on the surface. And it sure sounds appealing, so I think there is little thought to question it.

I guess the reason I questioned it is that I'm used to thinking in financial terms, and there we consider the 'opportunity cost'. When you think about making an investment, your money isn't just going to sit idle if you don't make that investment - you will put it to work somewhere else, so you compare the two. And I realized that the PV doesn't just sit idle when no EV is charging, it feeds the grid. So that must be considered, and that is where the 'no eco-impact' fairy-tale falls apart.

And I sure had to catch myself to avoid double counting something. It's easy to get trapped by giving the EV a 'gasoline credit' for not using gasoline, and also ding the hybrid with a 'gasoline debit'. But you don't get both. You either were using gasoline as status quo and then saving it with an EV (credit the EV), or you weren't using gasoline as status quo and now you are with a hybrid (debit the hybrid). But not both.

... Having spent a career in marketing, I admire a good spin more than most people.

I actually do find creative spin very interesting, maybe we should start another thread on that? An old one I remember is Bayer Aspirin, or maybe some other pain relief pill - "You can't buy a stronger aspirin than Bayer". Well, the FDA regulated OTC pain relievers, and as I recall, all aspirin were the same strength (other than 'baby aspirin' - which you don't see today, it's now 'low dose'). But 'nothing is stronger than ours' is far better marketing than 'we are the same as the other guys'.

Oh and if spending 20-30 minutes at supercharging station is too inconvenient, today Elon unveiled the Model S battery swapping process.
It is one of those things you have to see to believe. Another view

Thanks to you and Katsmeow for those links. I saw the news on google, but the videos were being posted late PST, past my Midwest bedtime.

Good news for Tesla owners, but I don't know if this is significant for EVs in general. I had been thinking this makes some sense in general, esp if battery packs are standardized in say, 10 kWh bundles. That way a Leaf owner could pull up and say - 'swap out 2 packs please'. A Tesla S could ask for 6 or 8 depending, etc. But the more I research, the less I feel that EVs are worth pursuing. Why bother with all this infrastructure and other issues when advanced hybrids can perform near as well in some areas, and far better in others - at lower cost and w/o issues like having to have a 220V hi-amp outlet available, and all the range anxiety issues? I'm feeling it's a dead-end, at least if/when both battery tech and grid greenness improves enough to change the picture. Battery improvements just tells me we can use 'em in hybrids.

How would this conversation change if we all lived in France, with ~ 80% of the grid powered by nukes? Hmmm, but wiki says: "Sales of all-electric cars in 2012 increased 115% from 2011, and captured a market share of 0.3% of new car sales in the country". With high petrol prices and generally shorter drives there, and a cleaner grid - just 0.3%?

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

ERD, I think the biggest area where I disagree with your analysis is where you start with the assumption that the PV panels are the status quo. Many EV owners are buying PV panels because they are/have/will be buying an EV. Those panels, for those owners, would not exist.
In addition, many people buying EVs start taking a look at their other electricity uses and how to get more efficient in other areas.
Yes, that could certainly be done separately, however the EV was the catalyst for the energy saving behavior.
So even if they go back to another car that uses gas, they still have the energy saving behavior they adopted.

Please note, I am not saying this is always the case, but for some portion of owners, it is.

I also mentioned, coal, NG, and fuel-grade uranium don't magically appear at the power plant all ready to jump into the fire/core either. While I'm sure those losses are less than petroleum refinery losses, those losses are not zero. I'd like to find out what they are.

As for your earlier comment about the energy to dig up the coal/Nat gas/uranium, I'd love to see numbers on that as well. However, you seemed to draw a parallel with oil refinery loss.
I would offer the appropriate comparison would be with the energy used to retrieve the oil. For which I would also love to see the numbers.

 

[Texas Proud]

ERD, I think the biggest area where I disagree with your analysis is where you start with the assumption that the PV panels are the status quo. Many EV owners are buying PV panels because they are/have/will be buying an EV. Those panels, for those owners, would not exist.
In addition, many people buying EVs start taking a look at their other electricity uses and how to get more efficient in other areas.
Yes, that could certainly be done separately, however the EV was the catalyst for the energy saving behavior.
So even if they go back to another car that uses gas, they still have the energy saving behavior they adopted.

Please note, I am not saying this is always the case, but for some portion of owners, it is.


As for your earlier comment about the energy to dig up the coal/Nat gas/uranium, I'd love to see numbers on that as well. However, you seemed to draw a parallel with oil refinery loss.
I would offer the appropriate comparison would be with the energy used to retrieve the oil. For which I would also love to see the numbers.

I am sure he will jump in here, but I will give my answer..

He did not start with the PV as the status quo.... what he was saying is that IF someone with an EV added PV.... it is not making things 'greener' having the two...

The adding of the PV by itself makes things greener... the EV did not add any greenness to it...


Let me try and say it in a different way.... say my neighbor buys and EV... the benefits might or might not be good....

But, if he buys a PV.... is it being used to charge his EV Not really... it is being used in the grid...

Use the same thing.... neighbor buys EV.... but I buy the PV.... is my PV being used to charge up his car Nope... it is going into the grid...

So the EV, PV combo is not some super green combo....


Now, if your argument is that the PV would not have ever been built if that person had not bought and EV.... well, maybe so.... but it still does not change the fact that the PV is a separate decision when it comes to power usage....

 

[Zathras]

I am sure he will jump in here, but I will give my answer..

He did not start with the PV as the status quo.... what he was saying is that IF someone with an EV added PV.... it is not making things 'greener' having the two...

Only in isolation, as ERD mentioned a few times.
Here is his quote I was referring to...

edit/add: A slightly different way to state that - consider the grid plus PV to be status quo. The EV consumes an added 1 EEU, and zero Gasoline Units. The Prius consumes zero EEU, but 1 Gasoline Unit. So again, we compare a GU to an EEU. The solar PV is green, but it is green with or without an EV.

And yes,most people that are buying an EV and PV panels are doing so specifically because they are buying an EV. Some, such as me, who already had PV panels bought more to provide enough energy to offset the additional draw from the grid.

So EV & PV saves 0 net EEU plus one GEU (Gasoline energy unit).
EV alone saves 1 GEU and costs 1 EEU
PV alone saves 1 EEU and 0 GEU
Gas car costs 1 GEU and 0 EEU

Or, you can also include other savings that would not have been made/occurred to the EV owner.
EV & PV & catylized savings .2 EEU savings plus 1 GEU

Comparison really is, as ERD noted, EEU vs GEU

 

[ERD50]

ERD, I think the biggest area where I disagree with your analysis is where you start with the assumption that the PV panels are the status quo. Many EV owners are buying PV panels because they are/have/will be buying an EV. Those panels, for those owners, would not exist.
In addition, many people buying EVs start taking a look at their other electricity uses and how to get more efficient in other areas.
Yes, that could certainly be done separately, however the EV was the catalyst for the energy saving behavior.
So even if they go back to another car that uses gas, they still have the energy saving behavior they adopted.

Please note, I am not saying this is always the case, but for some portion of owners, it is.

I am sure he will jump in here, but I will give my answer..

Now, if your argument is that the PV would not have ever been built if that person had not bought and EV.... well, maybe so.... but it still does not change the fact that the PV is a separate decision when it comes to power usage....

OK, I'll go along to a point - it does seem that there are some people putting in PV based on this false premise that EV&PV combined is greener than the sum of the parts. Can we (should we?) count on a false premise to continue into the larger numbers that we would need to make any significant difference? False premises are what got us into corn based ethanol, and the anti-nuke movement.

It would be very tough to put a number to this - how many EV owners bought PV who would not have otherwise? A survey might not even be that accurate, what people say they do and what they actually do can be quite different - but it would at least give us some scale. I don't doubt that some did, but how many? And some subset of an already tiny number of EV owners is a very tiny number.

And I'd think that this would be double counting. The reports I see that tell us the grid will be getting greener - don't these include PV installations, regardless of the reasons behind that installation? Would that PV panel sit in a warehouse if the EV owner didn't buy it?

As I've mentioned before, the best use of each is to use the EV on a clean grid, and use the PV on a dirty grid. Sure, the 'perfect is the enemy of good', but a true environmentalist should at least try to push towards the 'better' end of the spectrum, w/o holding out for 'perfect'. I see some comments (paraphrasing) 'but, but, but - look at that EV on the greenest grids.' - OK, but then the PV is relatively less advantageous on those green grids also - you can't have it both ways. That's why I like using the national averages for large scale comparisons.

As for your earlier comment about the energy to dig up the coal/Nat gas/uranium, I'd love to see numbers on that as well. However, you seemed to draw a parallel with oil refinery loss.
I would offer the appropriate comparison would be with the energy used to retrieve the oil. For which I would also love to see the numbers.

Right, the numbers should go the whole way for all sources. And I've read that hydro is actually a negative for the fist 60 years (ghg) - how do we account for that in the 'green grids'? That's a complex task, and unfortunately, seeing the flagrant BiaS in the DOE numbers, I don't feel I can trust anything from them w/o verifying it myself from multiple sources. Maybe we can find some reasonable source for this info, one that considers the contamination from coal mines (I've read that the tailings are acidic, and are raising acidity of streams and lakes) and the equiv for oil exploration - on a per-mile basis. Many facets to this.

I'm also somewhat questioning that 'greening' of the grid. If we were to add a large number of EVs, draw on the grid will increase. While the % of coal may be decreasing, is the absolute amount decreasing? Can they afford to shut down a lot of coal plants, or will they just be adding more alternatives to the mix? IOW, would coal use have even decreased more w/o EVs? It's a question, I don't know. But I assume total usage is increasing, even w/o EVs.

Sorry to get so long-winded again, but two more points:

About a year ago I think, we were debating coal use and the fact that most EV charging will (should?) be done at night. Some make the extreme claim that since there is an excess of electricity at night, that the EVs are not actually using any coal at all, that these plants would be running at some baseline anyhow. Others don't go to that extreme, but claim it is a significant factor.

Charging at night is a good thing (and charging during a hot summer day is a bad thing) - night charging levels the grid loading so no added infrastructure is required. The grid is sized for peaks, so off-peak draw is relatively cheap. During the previous conversation, I couldn't find info that I could digest on the whole coal and baseline debate, and to what degree coal output power could be modulated. What I found was either too simplistic, or so loaded with industry terms that I couldn't make heads/tails out of it. I think I'm finding some better sources now, and it's leading me to believe that EVs will in effect, be using mostly base-line power (coal, nukes, hydro) - and in coal regions, the coal plant will be throttled down less at night to meet EV load. I'll try to report on this when I can get something together.

Second point, more an aside - the Chicago Trib had an article this AM about a BP refinery in Indiana, on Lake Michigan, near Chicago. This refinery has been in the news before, they are exceeding Federal limits for some pollutants, and somehow, Indiana is giving them a pass (I don't understand how local laws can be looser than Fed laws?). Anyhow, the article focused mostly on mercury being released into the Lake. The numbers are tiny, 23 parts per trillion, but mercury doesn't go away so it keeps adding up. Fed rules say 1.3 ppt allowed, so they are many x over.

But, at the end of the story, they give some perspective. In absolute terms the refinery releases between 0.2 pounds and 2.0 pounds of mercury into the lake per year. This would be limited to .08 pounds if they met Fed rules. Now, they finally mention that 880 pounds of mercury drops into Lake Michigan mostly from nearby coal plants. Even if we use 'best case' for coal, and take 'mostly' to mean a smidge >50%, and 'worst case' for the refinery, that means eliminating the refinery would cut less than 2/440 pounds, or ~ 0.45% reduction. Yes, the refinery should comply with Fed regs (and if the regs don't make sense, change the regs), but this is like building a bigger fence while leaving the gate wide open. Yet, the refinery gets the negative press - not the coal plants (and EVs)?

-ERD50

 

[eridanus]

OK, I'll go along to a point - it does seem that there are some people putting in PV based on this false premise that EV&PV combined is greener than the sum of the parts.

You're not getting it. Yes, as Texas Proud suggested, if I buy an EV and my neighbor buys a PV independently, then it's no greener than the sum of its parts (if grid driving is no better than gas driving, which we know isn't the truth where EVs are being bought).

But, as two people alone on this thread have stated, the EV is the impetus for installing a PV (or more PVs). No EV, no PV. No PV, no displacement of power plant power. No EV, no displacement of gas driving.

It's a consumer created product bundle.

Product bundling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ERD50]

You're not getting it. Yes, as Texas Proud suggested, if I buy an EV and my neighbor buys a PV independently, then it's no greener than the sum of its parts (if grid driving is no better than gas driving, which we know isn't the truth where EVs are being bought).

But, as two people alone on this thread have stated, the EV is the impetus for installing a PV (or more PVs). No EV, no PV. No PV, no displacement of power plant power. No EV, no displacement of gas driving.

It's a consumer created product bundle.

Product bundling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think I get it just fine. Now, show me how this will work if/when we have some sizable number of EVs on the road, enough to actually make a difference in any measurable way (other than increasing SOx, which is about 100x higher for an EV even on the cleanest grids). Does it apply to a larger cross section, or just the early adopters?

And show me that this isn't already accounted for in the 'greening' of the grid.


You are going to have to do much better than using the teensy-weensy sample size of this thread to make your points. Or I might be tempted to remind you that 100% of the Tesla owners in this thread are on grids that are significantly dirtier than the US average (ooops, I guess I just did!). So is your 'if grid driving is no better than gas driving, which we know isn't the truth where EVs are being bought' statement invalidated? No, but we need a higher level of discourse than that if we are trying to get to the truth.

How clean is the electricity I use? - Power Profiler | Clean Energy | US EPA (enter a zip from HI and MN. I used 55445 and 96803.

-ERD50

 

[eridanus]

Does it apply to a larger cross section, or just the early adopters?

It applies to anyone who buy a PV because of their EV. That may not/probably won't happen with non-early adopters of course. It's apparently common enough now on EV forums to get you all riled up.

You are going to have to do much better than using the teensy-weensy sample size of this thread to make your points.

These Tesla/EV owners have made their driving greener. If they state in an EV forum that their new PV (bought and sized for the EV) is powering their new EV, then it's true, regardless of any sleight of hand you can muster. If they bought a PV 5 years ago and decided to buy an EV this year, without adding more panels, your "truth table" would apply.

So is your 'if grid driving is no better than gas driving, which we know isn't the truth where EVs are being bought' statement invalidated? No, but we need a higher level of discourse than that if we are trying to get to the truth.

We've gone over this. Most of the Leafs (60% as of EOY 2011) were bought in California. Over 40% of the Tesla S' (Q1 2013) were bought in California. You can easily look up the fuel mix of California so I won't bother posting a link.

A MI or HI owner may not be better off than a hybrid, unless they bought a PV because of and with their EV.

 

[ERD50]

It applies to anyone who buy a PV because of their EV. That may not/probably won't happen with non-early adopters of course. It's apparently common enough now on EV forums to get you all riled up.

I'm not riled up about that. I'm just trying to sort out the hype and misinformation from reality. And I had not seen my viewpoint raised before (though it is hard to google - the same terms apply whether in support or not), so I really detailed it out to see if there were any holes in it.

What does get me riled up is all the misinformation from our govt, from CAFE to the the Monroney sticker, and misleading info from Musk (substituting battery draw for the electrical production required to 'fill the battery', and more).

These Tesla/EV owners have made their driving greener. If they state in an EV forum that their new PV (bought and sized for the EV) is powering their new EV, then it's true, regardless of any sleight of hand you can muster. If they bought a PV 5 years ago and decided to buy an EV this year, without adding more panels, your "truth table" would apply.

There is no 'sleight of hand'. The trouble is, you'd need to get 'inside their mind' to determine if they really would not have installed PV w/o the EV purchase. That's tough to quantify. And if it is less likely to occur with later adopters, as you yourself pointed out, then it is of very minor impact. But there are still people who will do both (w/o the EV being a 'push factor'), and I think it is best that we face the fact that they are not driving with zero enviro-impact.

We've gone over this. Most of the Leafs (60% as of EOY 2011) were bought in California. Over 40% of the Tesla S' (Q1 2013) were bought in California. You can easily look up the fuel mix of California so I won't bother posting a link.

A MI or HI owner may not be better off than a hybrid, unless they bought a PV because of and with their EV.

And again, how relevant is this to wide-scale adoption? Do you care to comment on SOx, NOx, particulates, mercury, etc?

-ERD50

 

[clifp]

A MI or HI owner may not be better off than a hybrid, unless they bought a PV because of and with their EV.

I did buy my PV because of the EV although I should have purchased a PV a least two and probably three years ago. But Hawaii is a unique case, is arguable the only place in the US, and one of the few in the world,where it makes economic and environmental to do so. It isn't green at all to put up PVs practically anywhere else.

Economically my PV system is $4.16/KWH, since I pay $.35 KWH my pay back period is perfectly respectable 12 year or 8.4% ROI. On the mainland with electricity rates at $.12KWH the payback is 3 times that for sunny places and probably more 4 or 5 for colder places with cheaper electricity. If it wasn't for the provision in most states that utilities have to buy back PV electricity at retail (i.e.run the meter backwards), and consumers were forced to sale their electricity at the wholesale rate of $.035 -.$06 KWH, no one would put up a PV system anywhere.

The reasons EVs make sense is it more efficient to centralize power production. PV are the exact opposite, we are making small panels, expensive inverters and installing them on millions, and perhaps soon tens of millions of roofs and spreading out power production. This is just crazy.

One of biggest growth area in green jobs is folks installing PV systems. Which really means we are increasing the number of roofers, which happens to be the 5th most dangerous job in the country, twice as dangerous as cops. One of the byproducts of installing PV system on all our houses is another 50 to 100 folks dying by falling off roofs a year and thousands more injured.

When you factor in the energy and pollution associated with the manufacturing and distribution of the panels, and the sales, installation, and maintenance of the system, I doubt they are green at all. Certainly far less green and 1/3 the cost of a nuclear plant, and probably slightly less green and 1/5 the cost of replacing coal plants with advanced natural gas plants.

 

[ERD50]

I did buy my PV because of the EV although I should have purchased a PV a least two and probably three years ago. But Hawaii is a unique case, is arguable the only place in the US, and one of the few in the world,where it makes economic and environmental to do so. It isn't green at all to put up PVs practically anywhere else.

I'm curious about this, and almost afraid to ask. Here, I've been questioning the eco-benefits of EVs, but had been pretty well convinced that PV was an overall positive (ecology-wise, not the economics of them). I have not peeled the onion very far on PV, from what I have learned the overall energy recapture takes ~2~4 years, and with a >25 year life-span, that should be very positive. I did find some agreement (not always meaningful, a lie repeated..., but) that life-cycle GHG of PV is ~ 10% that of NG which is ~ 60% that of coal.

Now I know there are comments on the web about the toxic chemicals used to produce PV, but I have not found this broken down in any detail. What basis are you using to make your statement? This is going to PO a lot of greenies!

... it (is) more efficient to centralize power production. PV are the exact opposite, we are making small panels, expensive inverters and installing them on millions, and perhaps soon tens of millions of roofs and spreading out power production. This is just crazy.

Agreed - I wish we could quash this home-install of roof-top solar PV insanity. It has so much 'emotional traction' and it makes no sense (like so many 'green' ideas). And I've seen some that get some shade during the day, and shading even a small part of the panel drops power near zero because the cells are in series.

So much more efficient to do an industrial scale installation. One site, one analysis, fewer things to work around, probably safer on a flat roof - huge economy of scale. And the greenies won't believe you when you tell them rooftop solar PV is more dangerous than nukes (the falling from roofs that you mentioned). IIRC, that holds whether you look in absolute terms, or in deaths/terraWhr.

And to get my rant mode going, it irks me that my utility is offering incentives for home PV. I end up paying that in my bill, and some other guy gets the economic benefit. I'm helping to pay some rich guy's bill (you need some upfront cash to get these installed), and I'm helping to pay poor people's bills (there are some 'forgiveness' plans that some people can qualify for)! Gimme a break!

It makes so much more sense to do a co-op style solar 'farm', and I have read about some of these. Basically, a co-op installs a large number of panels, and you buy a share of the farm. And you get the credit for the kWh produced by your share. If you move, you can keep, or sell your share. So much better than having it on your house. But as you point out, the economics are marginal. The one I read about was counting on carbon offset credit trading, and the price on those has dropped, so they can't make money now. Sound familiar?

...If they state in an EV forum that their new PV (bought and sized for the EV) is powering their new EV, then it's true, regardless of any sleight of hand you can muster. ...

I need to get back to your 'sleight of hand' accusation. I've been trying hard to present meaningful numbers in an unbiased, transparent and verifiable manner. Yet you accuse me of 'sleight of hand' because I didn't include a number that you can't quantify and that you admit 'may not/probably won't happen with non-early adopters of course. '?

Tell you what - you come up with some reasonably scientific, verifiable, and transparent methodology (not counts of posts on a forum) to determine an estimate of the % of the first 20 Million EV drivers that installed PV that they would not have installed w/o the EV purchase, and I'll adjust my numbers by that factor. And 20M is less than 10% of vehicles on the road, so even that would include a high % of early adopters. But I'll give you that.

A MI or HI owner may not be better off than a hybrid, unless they bought a PV because of and with their EV.

Sounds like I'm making some progress! But I'll ask again - have you give any thought to NOx, SOx, mercury, particulates, etc? Or are you using 'sleight of hand' and cherry-picking CO2 as your singular measure of 'better off'?

If they bought a PV 5 years ago and decided to buy an EV this year, without adding more panels, your "truth table" would apply.

I have no idea what 5 years has to do with it, or why it would matter if it was installed before or after the EV purchase. The only wrinkle I see is if the EV owner installed PV that he/she would not have installed w/o the EV. And even then, I question whether that PV would have gone un-installed by someone else, plus the EV-PV tie creates that irony that the EV is best applied to a clean grid, and the PV is best applied to a dirty grid.

There are so many of these secondary effects we could banter back-and-forth on. As clifp mentioned, these Tesla owners are often driving their cars aggressively, and not getting the miles/kWh that they could. Due to range anxiety, EVs probably aren't going to be driven as many miles/year as the average vehicle - they are replacing a second, or third family vehicle - so their impact can't then be compared to averages. It goes on and on. I'd prefer to stick to the 'hard' numbers. W/O evidence to the contrary, I think it's reasonably safe to assume that these smaller secondary effects will wash out - there will be as many positives as negatives.

-ERD50

 

[rodi]

How clean is the electricity I use? - Power Profiler | Clean Energy | US EPA (enter a zip from HI and MN. I used 55445 and 96803.

-ERD50

Interesting. I wonder how often they update that. It shows nuclear for my region at almost 15%... but San Onofre has been offline for more than a year (and is now permanently offline.)

I suppose it could come from nuclear energy purchased from plants well outside of the area. Maybe Diablo... But I've read about energy loss in the grid - so moving it from further away seems to be less than efficient..

I was also surprised by the amount of coal energy. - Much less than national, but still present. Not that many coal plants in CA... but there is one up in Riverside.

I looked up the power generation plants in CA - and it's interesting to match up what I've seen on vacations - Mojave and Imperial county are becoming ground zero for renewables... PV Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind... Makes sense to put this stuff in the desert.
List of power stations in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[samclem]

I looked up the power generation plants in CA - and it's interesting to match up what I've seen on vacations - Mojave and Imperial county are becoming ground zero for renewables... PV Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind... Makes sense to put this stuff in the desert.
List of power stations in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And another 15-30% of the power used by Californians comes from outside the state, much from coal plants in AZ. The shutdown of the San Onofre nuclear power plant will result in still more pollution in order to meet California's energy demands.

 

[Texas Proud]

Interesting. I wonder how often they update that. It shows nuclear for my region at almost 15%... but San Onofre has been offline for more than a year (and is now permanently offline.)

I suppose it could come from nuclear energy purchased from plants well outside of the area. Maybe Diablo... But I've read about energy loss in the grid - so moving it from further away seems to be less than efficient..

I was also surprised by the amount of coal energy. - Much less than national, but still present. Not that many coal plants in CA... but there is one up in Riverside.

I looked up the power generation plants in CA - and it's interesting to match up what I've seen on vacations - Mojave and Imperial county are becoming ground zero for renewables... PV Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind... Makes sense to put this stuff in the desert.
List of power stations in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It does say they are using data from 2009...

 

[clifp]

I'm curious about this, and almost afraid to ask. Here, I've been questioning the eco-benefits of EVs, but had been pretty well convinced that PV was an overall positive (ecology-wise, not the economics of them). I have not peeled the onion very far on PV, from what I have learned the overall energy recapture takes ~2~4 years, and with a >25 year life-span, that should be very positive. I did find some agreement (not always meaningful, a lie repeated..., but) that life-cycle GHG of PV is ~ 10% that of NG which is ~ 60% that of coal.

Now I know there are comments on the web about the toxic chemicals used to produce PV, but I have not found this broken down in any detail. What basis are you using to make your statement? This is going to PO a lot of greenies!

Agreed - I wish we could quash this home-install of roof-top solar PV insanity. It has so much 'emotional traction' and it makes no sense (like so many 'green' ideas). And I've seen some that get some shade during the day, and shading even a small part of the panel drops power near zero because the cells are in series.

So much more efficient to do an industrial scale installation. One site, one analysis, fewer things to work around, probably safer on a flat roof - huge economy of scale. And the greenies won't believe you when you tell them rooftop solar PV is more dangerous than nukes (the falling from roofs that you mentioned). IIRC, that holds whether you look in absolute terms, or in deaths/terraWhr.


-ERD50

I haven't really researched the GHG numbers and I was talking in a relative sense. Anyway I am sure that PV is more green than a coal power plant, surprised that is that much better than a Natural Gas. It isn't anywhere as GHG friendly as large scale Wind farm or Solar, much less a nuclear powerplant. There are other factors involved so in my case I replaced my roof 3 to 5 years early (no point in putting on PV system that will last for 20 year if the roof needed to be replaced in a few). So my roof will be burned (at least in Hawaii that create electricity) before its useful life is up. Not to mention all of the energy associated with sales calls, inspector visits, distribution of the panels yada yada.

But the excess deaths bothers me. It seems to me the ultimate the whole point of being ecologically concern is to make the planet a safer place for everything including humans. So it is perfectly fair to calculate the deaths involved with mining both coal, and rare earth elements for PVs. But it seems to me a bit worse that a 25 year old PV installer kills himself falling from a roof than 75 year old dies from cancer due to pollution from a coal fired power plant.

 

[Chuckanut]

Each home having its own PV setup seems inefficient to me. Perhaps a setup like Aereo TV, but using PV cells rather than antennas, and delivering electricity over the power lines rather than TV shows via the Internet. Just an idea.

 

[samclem]

Each home having its own PV setup seems inefficient to me.

Maybe some sort of co-op ownership sponsored by the local utility. "We're building a PV station to supply power to our grid. It'll be located over the parking lot at the mall. Anybody who wants in, it costs $3 per watt (at max solar input) and you'll get a pro-rated credit on your regular electric bill depending on our actual output each month and based on our regular retail residential energy rate. You'll also get a share of any government credits, etc. We'll charge 10 cents per watt each year for maintenance and for our costs. You can sell your watts/shares to another customer of our utility at any time. The contract is for 40 years."
It would be good insurance for those worried about possible rising electric prices in the future. I'd rather do this than put the things up on my own roof. Better yet would be a nationwide exchange so I could buy my shares in a sunny spot and get better return on my investment.
Or, I guess I could just buy shares in a solar utility company.

 

[ERD50]

Earlier, I expressed my viewpoint that that 'State of Charge' by the Union of Concerned Scientists was too biased and unscientific for my tastes. Here's a blog from Seeking Alpha that discusses this. It's long (you really need to dig into the comments), and I do think the author is stretching the case a bit, but I generally agree, and I found it interesting and thought provoking.

One of the more interesting aspects was the mix of the grid. He's claiming that renewables have very little impact with regards to EVs - that this become baseline draw, and will be be fed by coal and NG. Not sure I fully buy this, but I can see his point, and renewables may well be a small player overall in charging EVs.

Recent Analysis From The Union Of Concerned Scientist Is Garbage. - Glenn Doty - Seeking Alpha

-ERD50

 

[M Paquette]

So, based on this thread, I should probably just cut out the middlemen and stick with my safe, clean coal-fired SUV plan.

 

[ERD50]

...
On the other if you think the DOE is pulling a fast one on EVs, you should see the tricks they pull on making BioFuels look good. I made it post about a few years ago.

It is more than a little depressing that even with Nobel Laurette running the DOE, facts aren't getting in the way of political agenda.

I just came across this - while I'm sure that Stephen Chu is world class in his knowledge of "developing methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light", I don't think he knows beans about business or economy of scale or some other matters of practicality.

My dream is to make renewable energy affordable for all: Steven Chu - Economic Times

What about storing solar energy?

As the technology gets better, energy storage too is possible, in batteries in your home. It is inexpensive — in 15 years maximum you can have storage inside home where it does not get up to 40 degrees Celsius. Utility companies, if they have to build a building to hold all batteries, will have to bear high costs. All they need is space. Which means they can offer you electricity at lower cost if they have local storage. So the consumer does not have to worry about inflation or equipment but just pay for the electricity. That is the business model I have been talking about to electrical companies this past year. If they know they can make money from solar energy generation on someone's roof, they would be most interested. And with batteries in homes, you would not have to worry about blackouts.

I guess the whole Industrial Revolution was backwards - it would be so much easier to make everything at home, instead of utilize the economy of scale of a large factory.

It takes more than batteries to power your home. An inverter that could power everything for me during a blackout would be expensive indeed. Today, the A/C is running, and my well pump runs occasionally at the same time. That's a lot of batteries and inverter capacity Mr. Chu.

-ERD50

 

[M Paquette]

It takes more than batteries to power your home. An inverter that could power everything for me during a blackout would be expensive indeed. Today, the A/C is running, and my well pump runs occasionally at the same time. That's a lot of batteries and inverter capacity Mr. Chu.

For what little it's worth, a solar power system, whether grid-tied, off-the-grid, or grid-coupled, will have an inverter anyway just to make the DC from the solar cells into AC. The cheap inverters run roughly $100 per kilowatt of capacity, and the true sine-wave inverters run around $230 per kilowatt.

Note that some snake-oil salesmen sell a 'grid-coupled' system, that is, a system with batteries as a backup and tied to the grid for normal operation, with TWO inverters. One inverter does the normal grid tied operation, and a second one powers loads from the battery during power outages, while a THIRD module manages battery charge from the solar panels or AC line. This is a very silly design, which saves them the trouble of actually designing a proper power management system. Naturally, they charge extra for all the complexity. alm:

There are some really neat load centers designed for commercial use that can help balance things like your well and A/C loads. They use a microprocessor to watch all the connected loads, things like chillers (giant A/C compressors), fans, and pumps, all of which are in intermittent cycle systems. That is, these are all loads which could turn off for several minutes without causing problems elsewhere. The load center controller cycles through the connected intermittent loads using some preprogrammed policies to cap the total load at some preset value. (I dealt with one in a shopping mall a long time back that balanced demand between various systems while watching the total mall power load, so as not to overload their little substation on the electric grid. They got a better rate from the utility by having a guaranteed max load, and by being able to remove load for short periods on request. The mall patrons never seemed to notice the 1-2 degree changes in air temperature that were a side effect of this.)

Something like this could be done in a home power panel for maybe $200, tops. It's a $3 power triac per intermittent circuit to be switched, a load sensor (glorified clamp-on ammeter) and a Raspberry Pi or Arduino module. For bonus points, tie it into the 'smart meter' system and give the utility permission to dial back your load a little when supplies are tight in exchange for a discounted rate or free installation.

 

[ERD50]

For what little it's worth, a solar power system, whether grid-tied, off-the-grid, or grid-coupled, will have an inverter anyway just to make the DC from the solar cells into AC. The cheap inverters run roughly $100 per kilowatt of capacity, and the true sine-wave inverters run around $230 per kilowatt. ...

There are some really neat load centers designed for commercial use that can help balance things like your well and A/C loads. ....

Something like this could be done in a home power panel for maybe $200, tops. It's a $3 power triac per intermittent circuit to be switched, a load sensor (glorified clamp-on ammeter) and a Raspberry Pi or Arduino module. For bonus points, tie it into the 'smart meter' system and give the utility permission to dial back your load a little when supplies are tight in exchange for a discounted rate or free installation.

Right, the grid tie inverters are there, but as you say, bi-directional ones that can utilize a battery back-up are quite a bit more. I think a typical solar install would not be up to the peak draw from a house with A/C (and esp a well), its power would be delivered in a more level way during the daylight hours. When the compressor kicks in, there is a huge surge (2-5x running current?), and those inverters, AFAIK, have close to zero headroom above their max rating.

And yes, some clever circuitry could control so that two high draw devices don't start at the same time. It's pretty neat that is being done at the level of a shopping mall to level their loading. But $3 for the triac is understating things a bit - by the time you add all the support circuits, heat sinks, get it packaged and certified and installed and customized for the user, well the triac is a minor player.

Here's a link I found - a system that would give about 1 day of normal home power for ~ $10,000. It wasn't clear what the peak capacity was.

Should You Add Backup Batteries to Your Grid-Tied Solar Array? | Solar at Home, Scientific American Blog Network

It uses lead-acid batteries, which as I recall, are far cheaper then lithium, and since weight isn't a factor, are the way to go for this app. But I don't think lead-acids are coming down any steep price curves, so I'm not sure where Mr. Chu thinks these cheap batteries will come from in 15 years. Maybe marginally degraded units from EVs and hybrids?


I think my main point stands, that this makes more sense at a commercial level than the home. I still think Mr Chu is off-base in that area.

-ERD50

 

[zedd]

A battery powered car!? That's what y'all have been blathering on about for 14 pages?

I saw the name Tesla and anticipated great things like maybe an engine that ran on the ambiant static electric in the air ... not a boy-toy hot wheels car that plugs into a wall charger.

Geez give it a break