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
Bia
S 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