Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Hong Kong electricity fuel mix and Equiv CO2 by EV

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
On the island side, most power generated is from Coal Fuel (HKE). On the Kowloon side and NT, coal firing plants are responsible for less than half (CLP). On Average, about 55% of electricity coming from Coal.

And if our EV use power generated in Hong Kong, the Tesla create more CO2 than a average normal petrol car. (the statistics use a LEAF). Our Government need to give up Coal firing plants. Otherwise even we use EV and government promotes it, it's meaningless.

CO2BYELECHK.jpg
 
On the island side, most power generated is from Coal Fuel (HKE). On the Kowloon side and NT, coal firing plants are responsible for less than half (CLP). On Average, about 55% of electricity coming from Coal.

And if our EV use power generated in Hong Kong, the Tesla create more CO2 than a average normal petrol car. (the statistics use a LEAF). Our Government need to give up Coal firing plants. Otherwise even we use EV and government promotes it, it's meaningless.

The "Tesla create more CO2 than a average normal petrol car" statement is definitely up for discussion. Most studies I have seen on that topic neglect to include electricity usage for oil refinement. Well to wheels.

See: Fully Charged Discusses Electricity Use By Fossil Fuel Refining

and:


as a starting point for the counter-argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the island side, most power generated is from Coal Fuel (HKE). On the Kowloon side and NT, coal firing plants are responsible for less than half (CLP). On Average, about 55% of electricity coming from Coal.

And if our EV use power generated in Hong Kong, the Tesla create more CO2 than a average normal petrol car. (the statistics use a LEAF). Our Government need to give up Coal firing plants. Otherwise even we use EV and government promotes it, it's meaningless.

View attachment 87908

Well, there is already a plan on lowering the percentage of coal used in electricity generation. My blog entry has touched on exactly this discussion: Locky's English Playground: 24-Dec-2014


Mark has posted this CLP page somewhere before and will definitely help with more information.
https://www.clponline.com.hk/ev/Pages/Home.aspx

And here's one by HKE
http://www.hkelectric.com/web/ElectricLiving/EV/Index_en.htm

There are also a couple more older threads on this HK-specific forum:
My CO2 emission
Are Electric Cars Really Green?
 
I met with Hong Kong Electric Investments at a company meeting recently (they run power stations for HK Island). Bottom line is the way the utilities are incentivized is completly wrong!

They are currently a regulated monopoly where they are allowed to make a maximum of 9.99% return on their fixed assets (and additional capital investments). For renewables, they are allowed to make a return of 11% (hardly much of an incentive). The terms of that agreement will expire in 2018 or most likely 2023. Govt is suggesting that with interest rates so low, they should accept a lower return of 6-8%. They angrily said this is not going to happen and they will not accept it (and potentially hold HK for ransom) and would refrain from making major investments.

I was truly shocked.

I suggested to the management that they should negotiate with the government to come up with incentives directed at minimizes carbon footprint. In other words, if they reduce CO2 emmissions by X, they can make a bigger maximum return. The way it works in Hong Kong currently, just shows how corrupt the system is currently and how low a priority there is at minimizing carbon emissions.

There is a technology for instance, which can be fitted to coal plants that drastically reduce carbon emissions - it is expensive but they are doing it at some plants in china already. Some say the emissions can be reduced to close to that of gas fired power plants.

They kept saying that they are proud in that HK has the lowest incidence of outages globally while electricity prices are inexpensive globally. I felt like saying - duh! That's what happens when you burn cheap coal and the cost of transmission per customer is tiny given the density of population!

The current HK government really makes me feel ill sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -

On the island side, most power generated is from Coal Fuel (HKE). On the Kowloon side and NT, coal firing plants are responsible for less than half (CLP). On Average, about 55% of electricity coming from Coal.

And if our EV use power generated in Hong Kong, the Tesla create more CO2 than a average normal petrol car. (the statistics use a LEAF). Our Government need to give up Coal firing plants. Otherwise even we use EV and government promotes it, it's meaningless.

View attachment 87908


I am not sure this is correct. I think a lot of electricity in HK is wasted during off peak hours. HK does not have an off-peak/peak pricing policy. You pay more the more you use in any given month (price per kwh is tiered on usage levels).

Power plants run 24/7. A lot of electric cars will be charged during off peak hours (i.e overnight). This power is still being produced but wasted. So it depends on how you look at it.
 
I met with Hong Kong Electric Investments at a company meeting recently (they run power stations for HK Island). Bottom line is the way the utilities are incentivized is completly wrong!

They are currently a regulated monopoly where they are allowed to make a maximum of 9.99% return on their fixed assets (and additional capital investments). For renewables, they are allowed to make a return of 11% (hardly much of an incentive). The terms of that agreement will expire in 2018 or most likely 2023. Govt is suggesting that with interest rates so low, they should accept a lower return of 6-8%. They angrily said this is not going to happen and they will not accept it (and potentially hold HK for ransom) and would refrain from making major investments.

I have been wondering about this. If the arrangement is a return on fixed assets, then if they buy electricity in from somewhere else (import), how does that generate a return from them? Put another way, given the choice between investing in a dirty local power plant, or buying in clean electricity from elsewhere, won't the dirty investment give them a better return?
 
The electricity is generated locally. They do not buy electricity elsewhere. The tariff is altered based on the cost of feedstock. In other words if coal or gas prices fluctuate, they will adjust electricity tariffs accordingly to hit that 9.99% return. Given that the formula works on return on fixed assets, the only way they can really grow their earnings is by doing more capital expenditure. Even if they are generating more than enough electricity, they would find a way to convince the government that HK needs more electricity capacity to ensure that there are no black outs.

So for instance, in the USA, utilities are now realizing that it is cheaper to use batteries rather than installing peaker plants (peaker plants only switch on during periods of excessive use such as heat waves or during blizzards). A peaker plant is a very capital intensive investment relative to installing battery storage. In a place like HK, HK Electric would be more incentivized to install a peaker plant because it requires more capital which they can garner a 9.99% return on.
 
The electricity is generated locally. They do not buy electricity elsewhere.

But, for example, CLP brings in a significant portion of Daya Bay's output. Or did CLP invest into Daya Bay faciltiies?

The recent consultation studies regarding energy mix and imported vs local generation seem to highlight this disparity. Seems that the electricity companies can't meet increased demand by importing more, unless they want to take a hit on earnings.
 
CLP do invest in Daya bay in fact they are one of the major investor. I am not advocating Nuclear power, but the truth is, amount of people get killed by CO2 emission from coal firing plant is way more than casualties from nuclear reactor meltdown. Even so, thermonuclear power generation other than nuclear waste material, it also generate waste heat (cooling) and ejects hot water back into the sea. The steam turbine power transfer efficiency is @ ~40% only. Not to mention probably another 10% lost in transmission that goes to heat as well. And steam is one of the green house gas. Best way is probably do solar. Instead of generating more heat, it takes heat away. I think all these glass covered commercial buildings, if all these windows became solar windows, it should help a lot. Hong Kong have so many sunshine. I remember Elon mentioned to power the whole US, only a small piece of land in Arizona is enough to generate all these electricity. Property price and labor in hong kong isn't cheap, so the extra expense of solar windows probably won't make 1% difference to the property price. Pass an act, make that as one of the terms of any new built building in Hong Kong, minimum efficient rating rules, so they won't use cheap solar panels. But the latest tech ones, like quantum well or even quantum dot devices.

Homepage - SolarWindow