Why not drive a Tesla?

[NW-Bound]

While this is true, the point I make in my other posts is that until we have a regular supply of excess power at night from wind, the EV fleet will still be charged by fossil fuel. The wind (unless there is an excess) is all going to be used anyway...

+1

If an EV car owner claims that his car is "green" because it is charged by solar power provided by a commercial installation, why can't I also claim that my AC and fountain and pool pumps are green the same way?

The only way one can claim green-ness is if he produces his own solar power for charging his car, and without subsidy I might add.

 

[NW-Bound]

Holy Cow that's a lot of solar! The two large installations near me, rooftops of big schools, covered in panels ( ~ 2000 of them), are 0.44 MW each.

I think the cost was over $3/W installed, though I've heard talk of negotiating $2/W installed. So I'd guess those were ~ $50 to$75 million installed? Hmmm, figure a SWR opportunity cost of 4%, I wonder if they reduce their bill by $2M~$3M a year? In Arizona, maybe? Is their annual electric bill $4M-$6M?

I wonder if conservation efforts would have had a better payback, and better environmental payback?

-ERD50

ASU is the alma mater of at least 12 of us in my extended family. When I was in school (40 years ago), they already went around shutting off lights and shooed students off rooms that were not fully occupied. Don't know what they keep the temperature at now, but I recall attending some sweaty lectures in the summer.

Don't know if the school can conserve any more without students bailing out to go where it's less warm.

PS. ASU's attendance is 82,000, a lot more than when I was in school.

PPS. Somewhere, I saw an article saying they were aiming for 50MW.

 

[ken830]

Erd50... We are in agreement on many points but I think your anger or frustration is clouding some of your comprehension. I don't mean that as a personal attack. Its just that I tried to explain several points where I actually agree, but your responses appear to assume some sort of meaning that is different from what I intended. I don't want to keep going around in circles, so I will just let it go.

 

[NW-Bound]

OK, since you are curious, the number of PV panels installed by ASU so far is 81,424 to get that 24.1MW as of March 2017. It's 300W per panel.

 

[ERD50]

+1

If an EV car owner claims that his car is "green" because it is charged by solar power provided by a commercial installation, why can't I also claim that my AC and fountain and pool pumps are green the same way?

The only way one can claim green-ness is if he produces his own solar power for charging his car, and without subsidy I might add.

Even the bolded comment does not hold up (except in some uncommon, specific situations). Solar panels don't exist in a vacuum. If they weren't being used at the home of an EV owner, they would still be used to generate power, which reduces the fossil fuel generation on the grid. Then plug in the EV, and you suck up power from the grid, which has to be replaced.

Short version - Solar panel adds to grid, EV takes away. They are independent of each other.

An EV can only be 'green' when the electric generation effects to power it are weighed against the gasoline effects to power the ICE/hybrid. Then take into account the environmental costs to produce an EV versus an ICE/hybrid. I've read that even if the fuel use looks good for the EV, if you drive few miles per year (my idea of 'green', but not everyone can do it, and some choose not to), the production costs can't be paid back over the life of the vehicle.


-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Erd50... We are in agreement on many points but I think your anger or frustration is clouding some of your comprehension. I don't mean that as a personal attack. Its just that I tried to explain several points where I actually agree, but your responses appear to assume some sort of meaning that is different from what I intended. I don't want to keep going around in circles, so I will just let it go.

I'm cool as a cucumber. There is no anger. Any frustration is from what I see as people not wanting to face facts that are in contrast with what they want to believe. If what I believe are facts are 'cloudy', then please clear them up for me. I'm actually agnostic on technology issues, I learned that the facts should speak, not our personal preferences.

If you want to end it, your choice of course. But I am honestly curious what you think I misunderstood. I'm always willing to learn. Unlike some people, I appreciate being shown I'm wrong. That means I learned something, and am better for it. I'd appreciate the lesson.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

What I wanted to say is being "green" costs more. When that is no longer true, all the debate will stop.

It is easier to be green when someone else pays for it. It's the same thing as charity donation out of your own pocket vs. using other people's money.

... I've read that even if the fuel use looks good for the EV, if you drive few miles per year (my idea of 'green', but not everyone can do it, and some choose not to), the production costs can't be paid back over the life of the vehicle...

Hopefully, the battery life will improve to the point that I can pass my vehicle to my grandchildren when I die, the same way I leave them my homes.

If the car cost is amortized over many decades, then the economics change. Electronics and the motor should last a long time. Batteries seem the weak point now.

 

[Texas Proud]

Holy Cow that's a lot of solar! The two large installations near me, rooftops of big schools, covered in panels ( ~ 2000 of them), are 0.44 MW each.

I think the cost was over $3/W installed, though I've heard talk of negotiating $2/W installed. So I'd guess those were ~ $50 to$75 million installed? Hmmm, figure a SWR opportunity cost of 4%, I wonder if they reduce their bill by $2M~$3M a year? In Arizona, maybe? Is their annual electric bill $4M-$6M?

I wonder if conservation efforts would have had a better payback, and better environmental payback?

-ERD50

I would bet that they have already done all the conservation efforts that were cost effective... my last job at mega was doing accounting for the real estate group... there were many proposals for saving money and we implemented a good number...

It is not like a homeowner who just does nothing (like me)... they have big spends and very smart people who know how to reduce waste...

 

[Texas Proud]

+1

If an EV car owner claims that his car is "green" because it is charged by solar power provided by a commercial installation, why can't I also claim that my AC and fountain and pool pumps are green the same way?

The only way one can claim green-ness is if he produces his own solar power for charging his car, and without subsidy I might add.

I will disagree.... I have paid for 100% wind electricity before... that is more green than paying for normal electricity....


Sure, the stuff coming through my wires were probably from coal or other dirty production, but SOMEBODY was getting that wind energy that I paid for... they bought 'dirty' and I bought 'green'.... so I can claim 'green-ness'

But... when it came time to renew they jacked the rate up and I went dirty again.... but my last change was to 100% 'renewable'... I do not know what that means, but I will claim being a greenie again... at least until they jack up the rates and I can get dirty cheaper...

 

[Texas Proud]

I was reading an article the other day and did not link it anywhere....

The gist is that the carbon footprint of building all that battery is much higher than people think... so I decided to see if I can find the article...

Found a few others that are interesting... have not looked for anybody saying these can be wrong...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/teslas-carbon-footprint-no-better-183047337.html


But I also see a number of articles that argue the exact opposite... so even here there is no consensus.... which is frustrating since this should be something that CAN be analyzed... as ERD50 says, let the facts speak for themselves...


OH... here is the first article that I read...

Tesla Battery Emissions Study - Carbon Emissions From Making EV Batteries


The headline is based on a Swedish study. It posits that production of a 100 kWh battery—Tesla's biggest—produces 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide

 

[ken830]

I'm cool as a cucumber. There is no anger. Any frustration is from what I see as people not wanting to face facts that are in contrast with what they want to believe. If what I believe are facts are 'cloudy', then please clear them up for me. I'm actually agnostic on technology issues, I learned that the facts should speak, not our personal preferences.

If you want to end it, your choice of course. But I am honestly curious what you think I misunderstood. I'm always willing to learn. Unlike some people, I appreciate being shown I'm wrong. That means I learned something, and am better for it. I'd appreciate the lesson.

-ERD50

See.. Again, you're assuming I'm disagreeing with you and suggesting that I don't want to face facts. I'm not intentionally. And it feels really bad to be accused of this when I am very careful with my facts. I'm not aware of anything in my posts that are not factually accurate. I am even careful with my wording and spend hours on each post to ensure this.

If you're really curious about what I see as a misunderstanding, I'll try to put it simply. This is something you quoted me me saying in post #296 in response to Texas Proud:

"One advantage for electric cars is that even after you buy it, they get effectively "cleaner" when the source of energy gets "cleaner"."

In my mind, what that statement really means is this: the "greeness" of an EV after it is manufactured is dependent on the source of the energy. Whether it be sorta clean, sorta dirty, get cleaner over time, get dirtier over time, clean during the day while dirty at night, from local solar/wind, from grid, a combination, etc., it doesn't matter. If you buy and drive an EV in a coal state, and then move to California, operating that EV just got cleaner. The opposite is also true. If we achieve a nuclear fusion plant tomorrow, operating the EV will be really clean (same goes for all of your home appliances too). Once again, the opposite is also true. If that nuclear fusion plant blows up and we fire up the old coal plants, operating that same EV will effectively cause more emissions the very next day.

And then you quote me and said it doesn't "hold up", which is quite confusing to me because you go on to make a whole bunch of points that not only doesn't refute this very statement, but actually seem to agree. And then when I tried to point this out and clarify, it doesn't seem to register the way I expected because your follow-up response seems to imply that you're disagreeing with me on something. But whatever it is, I can't figure it out. So, to me, it feels like you read my posts with a preconception and no matter what I'm actually saying, you're seeing it with a tint of pre-judgement that I can't overcome.

I just can't understand it. Am I saying something unintentionally? Are you mis-reading? Am I vague? or are you skimming? Is it a bit of both? I'm simply baffled.

Enough with how I feel & think. How do you interpret that sentence? Do you understand it differently now or not? If so, is it something I said that caused the misunderstanding? I don't want us to be defensive in our replies. I want us to be able to understand each other clearly and communicate well because form what I can tell, I could learn a lot from you. And I truly want to participate in an effective discussion, not a back-and-forth.

 

[ken830]

Hi ERD50... I'm taking some time to try to really see it from your side. Also, I've included one comment I felt was unfair. Don't take that as an attack, but as effective feedback. I think this should help.

I never made any claim that an EV is "greener" than a gasoline equivalent in that post.

OK, that may have been an assumption on my part. So you are saying that an EV in general is not cleaner than the gasoline equivalent? And even worse than a decent hybrid?

Thanks for admitting that, but I feel you did so in a very passive aggressive way. Just because I didn't say one thing, doesn't mean I meant or implied the opposite of that thing.

No matter how "dirty" the car is, it will be "cleaner" if the grid is "cleaner" because it is 100% dependent on the source of energy.

No, I don't agree with this. Or to put it more accurately, the facts don't agree with this (unless I'm making an error about this, and then please point it out). Did you understand my point about the marginal kWh generation required to charge the added demand from an EV fleet? It can only be the marginal generation that matters, and the renewable is all used up (until we have a regular supply of excess renewable).

So marginal power generation comes from fossil fuel, regardless of the average generation on the grid. OK, so I do agree with the last part of your statement ("it is 100% dependent on the source of energy"), and my point is that that marginal added energy to provide the added marginal demand from an EV is mostly powered by fossil fuel as the source.

I can see why you disagreed with me on this point and I now understand your point and agree with you. I can also see you read my statement carefully because you were able to agree with the "last part". Yes, I agree that even if the overall grid is cleaner on average, it does not necessarily imply that the EV runs cleaner because the "marginal added energy" could very well come from out-of-average dirtier plant (very likely the case at night). This level of detail simply wasn't considered in my statement.

I implore you to be much more careful about not misinterpreting what I say. I spend hours on each post because I want to only make fair, substantiated posts that are informative and non-intimating.

And I ask the same of you.

Yes. I'm trying.

We both agree that in parts of the US, an EV could (if powered by the present-day grid) generate the same emissions as an efficient gasoline car.

No, I believe the data says the EV is worse.

I guess we don't agree on this point. But at least it seems we seem to understand what we're discussing here. Could you clarify what you mean? Are you saying that every EV is worse in every state? I guess we would have to more clearly define some terms and then discuss further. I'm open to being convinced.

But on a fundamental level, you're forgetting a huge piece of the equation. On the electric vehicle side, you look "upstream" quite a ways, but on the gasoline vehicle side, you only look at the vehicle itself. For example, you take transmission loss for the electric grid, but you don't count transportation loss of gasoline. That's not a fair comparison.

OK, I agree with you that my numbers don't include getting the fuel to the station. I will look into your references and check my own, but IIRC, this is a pretty small part of the equation, probably as small as the rounding in some of my estimates of the EV (I think 40% generation efficiency is generous, IIRC the average for a fossil fuel plant is ~ 30% - but in Tesla's blog they used the best case, and uncommon, co-generation plant at 60% overall eff%).

This sounds good. I don't think fuel transportation will be a "rounding error". But I don't really know. That Tesla blog said refinement & transportation losses add up to 18.3%, but I have no other source to refute or confirm that. Let me know if you find some.

Do you have some sources for the number of co-generation plants? I feel like your 40% generation efficiency is either accurate or generous, but I can't find data on the number of co-generation vs regular plant.

Since you're open to looking further upstream on the gasoline side, are there other factors we should consider? Evaporative losses, etc?

But things will look much better as larger vehicles like SUVs and trucks become electrified.

That's a ways out I think. Larger vehicles need more power, often are on the road more. We will see.

We don't have to wait too long because the Model X has already been around for a couple of years and it's only a bit less efficient than the Model S. We'd have to do the calculations, but I feel (strictly in terms of efficiency/emissions) it should compare to gasoline SUVs more favorably than the Model S compares to full-size gasoline sedans.

Also, keep in mind regulating and controlling emissions at a central power plant is cheaper and more effective than in millions of aging cars. ...

The engineer in me agrees with this in theory. But in practice it hasn't happened. Modern cars have catalytic converters, fuel injection, computers monitoring everything. I could dig up the links if you want, but some of those emissions from cars are thousands of times lower than they were in the 70's. Our power plants are cleaner, but not that much cleaner than they were, and not that much to gain I think. Unless you go nuke.

The numbers above only assume new, perfectly-maintained cars. I'm a car guy, so I know it is fairly common for people to cheat.

I don't think it makes much difference if the car is maintained or not. The computer controls do an amazing job of keeping things in spec. I mentioned earlier, my thermostat was maybe opening just a hair early, and the computer detected it (cars produce more emissions while they are warming up). I have an analog temp gauge in that car, I watch it, and I never detected a change. The computer is very sensitive.

Cheating is fairly common? What % 'cheat'? In IL at least, we have an emissions test, and if the Check Engine Light is on (or has been reset), you fail. No renewal, no sale (I think) for you.

Actually, it is well-known that even vehicle manufacturers.. ahem.. VW.. ahem... themselves are capable and willing to cheat emissions standards.

Just some things to keep in mind.

And IMO, the EV industry, in collusion with politicians who want to convince people they care (regardless of actual consequences), are 'cheating' the public far worse by emphasizing EVs as "Zero Emissions" (small print - Zero tailpipe Emissions - well, they don't have tail pipes - DUH! But coal and NG plants do!).

-ERD50

I only observed a lot of "ricers" here in California that have no cats. But they also have no problems passing the strict SMOG test because they also have friends working the test stations. Those without "friends" can simply re-install the cat every two years, reset the ECU, and then do a week of regular driving to set all of the necessary codes to indicate the car is smog-test ready. I observed this first-hand, but I have no numbers for cheaters, so I will retract that.

I'm also interest to know how familiar you are with cars' actual emissions. Do any of the emissions statistics/data take into account the average open-loop duration of average drives? Smog & emissions test only run in various closed-loop modes. Intuitively, it seems daily engine warm-up and several WOT passes per day could add significantly to the emissions, but wouldn't be easily accounted for.

 

[ken830]

Could be... I was going from memory and did not look it up... but I think I did the math correctly... if it were wrong it would be wrong big time and I would have caught it...

I think you did the math right, but just a typo. The price difference is much less here in California, but still kind of unfair to compare a Model S to an Accord. We actually had an Accord. That's why we wanted a bigger car to begin with. The Model S is far bigger. I think the upcoming Model 3 would be a more fair comparison (size-wise) in a month or so. It's promised at $35,000 base before any incentives, so it compares well in terms of purchase price too.

Of course, in my opinion, there are many other factors (acceleration, convenience, etc) that add value to the Tesla, but I understand we're talking strictly cost of ownership here.

 

[Chuckanut]

Holy Cow that's a lot of solar! The two large installations near me, rooftops of big schools, covered in panels ( ~ 2000 of them), are 0.44 MW each.

Take a trip to Turkey. Hotels, office buildings, etc. have their roofs covered with banks of solar water heaters. Row after row on top of buildings, by the dozen.

One thing I learned early on my trip was that if I wanted a really hot shower, take it in the late afternoon or early evening. By morning, they are on the boiler and the water is warm enough but not that hot.

I did not see many solar panels. Perhaps hot water alone is such a huge energy user that they are better off with equipment that heats the water directly using the sun?

Not sure how a Tesla fits in with water heaters. Maybe an option to allow a driver to take a shower while their Tesla is charging?

 

[Texas Proud]

Ken,


Don't take hours to post... it is not worth it IMO...

And yes, I am talking cost of ownership.... which is why I cannot see buying an expensive Mercedes or Genesis (which one of my sisters bought)... once you get to a certain point of luxury then moving up another bit cost a whole lot of money.... and moving up a bit more is even more expensive for some reason...


But, the point that I was trying to make, and I will admit I was doing it badly... is that a Hybrid is much more cost effective than an all electric... I will get to a few that you can buy either in the same model and do some math in the next few days... but I think that the Hybrid will always cost less than the plug in.... or even the plug in hybrid....

 

[Texas Proud]

ERD50....


I have been thinking about it a bit and I will challenge one of your stmts...

I think your stmt is factually correct, but I do not think it is as bad as it might come across to others...


You state that the EV is taking the marginal production, so it is dirtier... (could have it a bit off)... but what if that marginal production is actually cleaner

As I had mentioned, the demand side goes way down at night here... so they have to take off peak production... but peak production is going to be natural gas... I would think that the avg MW produced at night is dirtier than during the day because of coal...

So, if a bunch of people plug their car in, wouldn't the marginal production be NG? And isn't NG cleaner than coal?

As I said, the stmt is 'correct', but it seems to imply that the marginal production is the dirtiest production when it might not be...

I also think this is what Ken talks about.... reading something into a stmt that is not actually there.... but is implied to the reader of the stmt... intentionally or not...

 

[ERD50]

ERD50....

I have been thinking about it a bit and I will challenge one of your stmts...

I think your stmt is factually correct, but I do not think it is as bad as it might come across to others...


You state that the EV is taking the marginal production, so it is dirtier... (could have it a bit off)... but what if that marginal production is actually cleaner...

Good, as I said, I like to be challenged, I'm not kidding about that. I'll 'walk the walk'. I will get back to ken830 a little later, glad to see he is back in the conversation.

You are correct, if the marginal power that the EV fleet uses to charge is clean, that makes the EV clean. So it comes down to analyzing that marginal power.

As I mentioned, there are some grids (Texas I think), that have an occasional excess of wind at night. This is great for an EV set to charge at night. We could even get to a point of predicting the hours of excess (short term wind prediction is reasonable accurate), and use a smart algorithm and communication with EVs so we maximize the amount of charging that takes place during the period of excess. Maybe you need a full charge in the AM, so you enter that priority in, and maybe pay a premium over someone who can wait a few days for a charge, or accept a partial charge, etc.

However, I think (don't have a convenient ref right now, but I am talking in generalities and concepts now anyhow) that the excesses are fairly rare, and therefore probably also fairly small in amount, and probably only exists on a few grids with lots of wind. But these opportunities will increase as installed wind capacity increases.

But until then, and on the days without enough excess, the power comes from something else. And yes, some will be from NG, which is cleaner than coal. But from what I understand in conversations with some people on forums who know quite a bit about how the grid operators work, if a demand is predictable, and there is capacity from a coal plant (which are normally throttled down at night - but they have a fairly limited range of operation, and are fairly slow to ramp up/down), the grid operator will boost the output of the coal plant to limit how much NG/gas turbine hours they use. Even to the point that they waste some of that coal power, to avoid firing up another turbine. It's a delicate balancing act, and I understand they have it down to a science with detailed algorithms.

What that means is, an EV fleet charging at night is going to be predictable. So the grid will keep coal running to meet that demand, and only fill the unpredictable demand with NG.

I'll re-post a chart later that measures the sources of electric power in a $ cost, including health effects, etc. The key point is that coal is so very bad, that even a little in the mix is worse than the effects from a decent hybrid. And it doesn't take much coal % to make that EV worse than even a conventional ICE. NG is much better in terms of particulates, SOx and NOx, but the CO2 is still significant (but ~ 2/3rd of coal I think).

Hope that helps.

-ERD50

 

[kombat]

To put it another way, say you are on a grid that has 30% renewables. And say they increase that over time to 40%. Now a 'silly' question - Why isn't it 50%? Well, obviously, because 40% is all they have. Since for most renewables (wind solar, maybe not biomass), the 'fuel' is free, the grid managers use it in preference over fuel they pay for. Following me?

Hang on - doesn't the percentage depend on the load? I mean, if Acme Power Company can provide 5 MWh of power from renewables, and employs fossil-fuel sources for any required overage, the percentage changes depending on the load. During the day, while people have their A/C running, perhaps the overall load is 10 MWh, therefore renewables account for 50% of the power (maxing out at 5 MWh), while the remaining 50% is supplied via fossil fuel sources.

However, at night, when everyone goes to bed, perhaps the overall load on the grid drops to 4 MWh, which can be met entirely with the renewable sources, with an additional 1 MWh to spare. If some of those folks buy EVs and charge them overnight, perhaps the overnight load rises to 5 MWh, but that can still be met entirely with renewables.

So I'm not following your argument about EVs using "dirtier" fuel than hybrids.

 

[ERD50]

Hang on - doesn't the percentage depend on the load? I mean, if Acme Power Company can provide 5 MWh of power from renewables, and employs fossil-fuel sources for any required overage, the percentage changes depending on the load. During the day, while people have their A/C running, perhaps the overall load is 10 MWh, therefore renewables account for 50% of the power (maxing out at 5 MWh), while the remaining 50% is supplied via fossil fuel sources.

However, at night, when everyone goes to bed, perhaps the overall load on the grid drops to 4 MWh, which can be met entirely with the renewable sources, with an additional 1 MWh to spare. If some of those folks buy EVs and charge them overnight, perhaps the overnight load rises to 5 MWh, but that can still be met entirely with renewables.

So I'm not following your argument about EVs using "dirtier" fuel than hybrids.

What you say is consistent with what I'm saying, given the example numbers you provided. But I don't think you will find a grid that regularly has a significant amount of excess of renewable energy at night. And I think that time is a long way off yet.

As I mentioned, wind is variable, demand is variable, the dips need to be filled in. NG turbines do that, but at relatively high costs. Coal plants can't be shut down completly (I don't know how low they can go, 50%? if anyone has a source, please share), and are slow to ramp up/down, and since coal is cheaper than NG, they will actually run the coal at a higher level than would be needed, and waste a little, to avoid some cycling of the turbines.

I'm not sure numbers are easy to come by, but as I understand it, the excess is 'sometimes', on 'some grids', and in fairly small relative amounts.

That's the rub.

-ERD50

 

[kombat]

However, I think (don't have a convenient ref right now, but I am talking in generalities and concepts now anyhow) that the excesses are fairly rare, and therefore probably also fairly small in amount, and probably only exists on a few grids with lots of wind. But these opportunities will increase as installed wind capacity increases.

Perhaps this is a regional difference, but in my jurisdiction (Ontario, Canada), there are plenty of other "Green" sources besides wind. The vast majority of Ontario's power comes from Nuclear (66.7%) and Hydroelectric (25.9%). Wind and solar account for 5.5%, with natural gas and biofuel making up the remaining 1.9%. Ontario shuttered the last of its coal-fired power plants years ago.

So perhaps, at least in Ontario, EVs really are considerably "greener" than hybrids or conventional ICEs?

 

[kombat]

What you say is consistent with what I'm saying, given the example numbers you provided. But I don't think you will find a grid that regularly has a significant amount of excess of renewable energy at night. And I think that time is a long way off yet.

You posted this while I was already creating my other post, but I don't think that day is as far off as you think. As I noted, Ontario's power grid is already supplied almost entirely by green sources. And lots of "green" sources work just fine at night (hydroelectric, nuclear, tidal, geothermal, etc.).

 

[ERD50]

Perhaps this is a regional difference, but in my jurisdiction (Ontario, Canada), there are plenty of other "Green" sources besides wind. The vast majority of Ontario's power comes from Nuclear (66.7%) and Hydroelectric (25.9%). Wind and solar account for 5.5%, with natural gas and biofuel making up the remaining 1.9%. Ontario shuttered the last of its coal-fired power plants years ago.

So perhaps, at least in Ontario, EVs really are considerably "greener" than hybrids or conventional ICEs?

You posted this while I was already creating my other post, but I don't think that day is as far off as you think. As I noted, Ontario's power grid is already supplied almost entirely by green sources. And lots of "green" sources work just fine at night (hydroelectric, nuclear, tidal, geothermal, etc.).

Wow, I didn't realize Ontario grid had so much nuke! Yes, it would appear that charging an EV on the ONT grid could be very clean indeed. Now, you would need to dig a little deeper to fully understand the marginal case, but with that much nuke & hydro, it seems to be covered.

I was aware that much/most of Canada had a lot of hydro. A few comments on that - first, hydro is somewhat controversial as a 'green' source. Yes, no fuel is burnt, but there was a lot of environmental destruction in damming the rivers to provide the reservoir, and that is claimed to create a large carbon emission from loss of plant life (which all decayed, releasing its carbon in the process), and in all the cement required (very carbon intensive). I've read sources that say a hydro plant is carbon negative for something like 90 years!

Second on hydro, at least in the US, I understand that there just isn't much more that could be developed (and environmentalists would probably oppose it anyhow due to habitat destruction, etc).

Also, hydro tends to be conserved at night. The great thing about hydro is that it can be ramped up/down very quickly, so they conserve it at night so they have reserve for the daytime peaks. So it might not be as available at night for EV charging.

And on the nuke front, there still seems to be a lot of opposition to expanding our nukes here in the US. I think we could learn a lot from ONT and France (80% nukes).

This gets back to my general observation that it isn't a "one size fits all", on just about anything. Like I said earlier, I'm technology agnostic, let the data/facts steer our decisions. If EVs make good environmental sense in ONT (and it would appear they do), then I think buying an EV there, and 'bragging' about being green is great. But we generally hear the "one size fits all" approach, that EVs are just great, and I don't think that is the general case.

Oh, looking at that excellent link you gave:

https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html

I was surprised that I didn't see a big drop in overnight power (they show by the hour). You can see the hydro drop, but the total stack is pretty flat? I wonder why that is? That is not consistent with other charts I've seen.

edit/add: I wondered if they were actually using the hydro as a pump, driven by the increase in nuke power at that time, as a day's worth of storage, but I would think you'd see hydro go negative then, rather than just reduce? Or maybe only some of the hydro (more than one plant I assume?) is reversible like that?

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

I can claim 'green-ness'

And I can claim to be young, thin and good lookin'. While I'm at it, I'll claim to be a billionaire too.......

 

[ERD50]

Hi ERD50... I'm taking some time to try to really see it from your side. ...

Good, as I mentioned in some of the other posts that I've been responding to, I'm glad you are back, it looks like we are coming to some understanding here.


RE:

Originally Posted by ERD50 -- OK, that may have been an assumption on my part. So you are saying that an EV in general is not cleaner than the gasoline equivalent? And even worse than a decent hybrid?

Thanks for admitting that, but I feel you did so in a very passive aggressive way. Just because I didn't say one thing, doesn't mean I meant or implied the opposite of that thing. ...

Well, I can only say it wasn't meant in any passive/aggressive way. To me, it was just a logical extension - you pointed out that you never claimed EVs were cleaner, then I was simply asking whether you would say it or not.


RE: marginal power -

I can see why you disagreed with me on this point and I now understand your point and agree with you. ...

OK, this is an important step. Yes, it isn't an obvious thing that it is the marginal power that matters, but it isn't exactly rocket science either, especially once it is spelled out. But I find many people just won't accept it (yet, they cannot refute it either). When you were disagreeing, I thought it was just the close-mindedness that I often see on this issue, but you just showed you are open to the idea. Great!

Originally Posted by ERD50 No, I believe the data says the EV is worse.

I guess we don't agree on this point. But at least it seems we seem to understand what we're discussing here. Could you clarify what you mean? Are you saying that every EV is worse in every state? I guess we would have to more clearly define some terms and then discuss further. I'm open to being convinced. ...

No, I covered some of this in my reply to kombat on the ONT grid. But I think in much of the US, the grid power to charge EVs would make EVs 'dirtier' than a decent hybrid, maybe even 'dirtier' than a conventional ICE. Give me a day or two to put the data together, I really should be on to some other things around here!

Do you have some sources for the number of co-generation plants? I feel like your 40% generation efficiency is either accurate or generous, but I can't find data on the number of co-generation vs regular plant.

Since you're open to looking further upstream on the gasoline side, are there other factors we should consider? Evaporative losses, etc? ...

I think I do have some data about the averages, again, give me some time to dig it up. Not sure about other gasoline losses, that would be interesting as well.

Going from memory here again, dangerous, but just as a pre-emptive - there is a lot of talk on the internet about something like 6 kWh of electricity used to refine a gallon of gas, and 6 kWh would propel an EV ~ 20 miles, so we should stop refining gasoline and use that 6 kWh to power an EV. I believe that where that falls apart, is it isn't 6 kWh of electricity produced and used to refine a gallon of gas, it's 6 kWh of energy, most of which comes from waste products of the refining process itself. I think if you do the numbers on 6 kWh * the gallons of gas refined in the US, you'll find it such a large number as t simply not make sense.

I only observed a lot of "ricers" here in California that have no cats. But they also have no problems passing the strict SMOG test because they also have friends working the test stations. Those without "friends" can simply re-install the cat every two years, reset the ECU, and then do a week of regular driving to set all of the necessary codes to indicate the car is smog-test ready. I observed this first-hand, but I have no numbers for cheaters, so I will retract that.

Ew, that's nasty (the cheating)! Fortunately, I'm sure that's a small number %-wise. I'd bet most drivers haven't even lifted their hood in the last 6 months, let alone modify the engine. But unfortunately, a change like that can offset maybe hundreds of other working cars.

I'm also interest to know how familiar you are with cars' actual emissions. Do any of the emissions statistics/data take into account the average open-loop duration of average drives? Smog & emissions test only run in various closed-loop modes. Intuitively, it seems daily engine warm-up and several WOT passes per day could add significantly to the emissions, but wouldn't be easily accounted for.

The drive cycle for emissions test includes a cold start. Check the 'engineering explained' youtube videos for all sorts of geeky info. There is a prototype of an engine with computer controlled valves, and they say they can reduce emissions on the drive test by a huge factor, by extending the open times of the exhaust valves during warm up. This gets a LOT of heat into the catalytic converter quickly, and that's when a lot of the total emissions occur. Some cars include some kind of cat pre-heater for this purpose, this valve scheme eliminates that.

Good discussion, but I really, really need to run now! More later.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

.... I have paid for 100% wind electricity before... that is more green than paying for normal electricity....


Sure, the stuff coming through my wires were probably from coal or other dirty production, but SOMEBODY was getting that wind energy that I paid for... they bought 'dirty' and I bought 'green'.... so I can claim 'green-ness' ...

I really don't know the answer to this. As you say, your actual electrons are coming from wherever, it's an 'accounting thing', but that's fine if the end goal is met. But is it? I don't know.

It's hard for me to believe that they wouldn't sell that wind power if you didn't sign up for it. So I can't see how these contracts can be considered as being responsible for that amount of energy being 'green'. But does your contract help them to get a higher price overall? Does that help encourage more wind energy installations? If so, I guess it helps, but in a sort of indirect way?

I suspect it's more of a feel good kind of thing, but there might be something to it.

-ERD50