Batteries do have its emission foot prints that are front loaded(some said almost 8 years of equivalent ICE driving, others say 2 years) and scaled with capacity, plus daily plug-in. Actually the 1% daily drain should be accounted for in MPGe(but likely not the case). So the 2x efficiency comes with hidden/front loaded costs.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hydrogen vs. Battery
- Thread starter siry
- Start date
Batteries do have its emission foot prints that are front loaded(some said almost 8 years of equivalent ICE driving, others say 2 years) and scaled with capacity, plus daily plug-in. Actually the 1% daily drain should be accounted for in MPGe(but likely not the case). So the 2x efficiency comes with hidden/front loaded costs.
The fundamental issue with electricity is storage, so that needs to be addressed wisely upfront. There are experiments of solar to heat storage that can he promising, but again billions are needed to play around with sci-fi ideas.
It probably does make sense to spend some billions to plant vegetation and build eco systems to expand land carbon sink capacity, as those organic solar plants are probably man's best friends instead of power hungry batteries.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
The 'great' thing about some of the issues with BEVs is that they aren't boxed in by thermodynamics. Sometimes even an OTA software update can have a dramatic effect on 'vampire load'. Best case FCEVs use ~2x as much energy as BEVs. We simply don't have the renewable capacity to justify such a power hungry waste of H2. Hopefully we will in ~20 years.
*sigh* .... ok.... think if it this way.... right now.... today.... storage is almost completely irrelevant. Step 1 is generation. Step 2 is curtailment mitigation. Step 3 is storage.
We mitigate curtailment with load shifting and making H2 for industrial use.... if we can soak up most curtailment with that... why..... why do we need storage? When we're doing that and STILL have a lot of curtailment THEN we need storage (>10 years away).... what about this is so confusing?????
CAISO curtailed ~3% of renewables in May and that is mostly due to load balancing issues NOT lack of demand.....
Last edited:
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Yes,agreed. But mitigating that is:
Early days. battery will improve.
Early days, we haven't seen the benefit from battery reuse and recycling yet. The prospects for that look really good (but of course we still have to, initially, produce enough batteries for 100% of the global fleet, at some point in time. All the while the market is growing old-batteries-being-recycled < new-batteries-required.)
Good point. However, I am always hauling around the extra weight, even on days when I am not going far, so that is impacting my miles/kWh efficiency. And as soon as a 130+kWh battery becomes available I'm a buyer, for range, which will make my overall efficiency worse ... that will be mitigated over the years, as battery energy density improves ... but I see it as a negative, until then.
Dr. J
Active Member
Buy an SR or an MR instead of an LR if you don't want to haul around so much battery. Or an Ioniq. You have choices. Use them.
From the sounds of things you don't want an automobile at all. You're carrying around the extra mass of the car you're not using at that moment, all that extra space for passengers you're not currently hauling around in the car. All that space for cargo you're not utilizing.
You should get an electric motorcycle, or at least an electric scooter.
Last edited:
The Powerwalls solves another important problem, namely, electricity to feed BEVs is offloaded from the grid.
Just use CA as an example, it has around 5.5% of cars registered in US, so let's assume CA uses 5.5% of that 10 million barrels a day, or 0.55 million barrels, or almost 1TWh a day. CA's current power consumption is around 30GWh.
1TWh "replacement" energy, on top of the existing 30GWh usage, is a lot of extra stress on the current CA grid and can cause persistent waves of blackouts!
Just imagine NYC with 1.5 million cars each needing to charge 100 miles per weekday(commuting in and out of the city). That is 150 million [email protected]/mile, or 45GWh extra load a day. So the NYC city grid(one major metro city alone) will need to upgrade its electricity capacity to bear that extra 45GWh load, or install 45GWh of battery farms in the city's parking lots and garages, and both options cost $$$$$
E.g. 129MWh battery farm already costed $66m, so 1GWh is around $6B.
Or 13.5KWh/Powerwall 2 means NYC needs 3.3M Powerwall2, @$10k installed, that is another mere $33B. Can NYC get extra 45GWh renewable energy locally, from its rooftops?!?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I did nothing but let them sit for years. You fail to understand the difference between bare cells and packs. Cells do not discharge on their own when no circuitry is connected to them.
Your maths need work. You appear to be mixing USA and CA quantities, but you haven't shown enough work for me to straighten it out. You also need to account for the efficiency of ICE and oil consumption vs the electric efficiency of EVs. In any case, you conclusions make no sense.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??? Why would you put the energy into a Powerwall and then into a BEV? Why not just put it directly in the BEV? The best grid-tie use of a Powerwall is arbitrage. Soak in curtailment when electricity is cheap and export when electricity is expensive. Most BEVs will also be charging when electricity is cheap... at the same time Powerwalls are charging.... Most BEVs will NOT be charging when electricity is expensive... at the same time Powerwalls would be discharging....
No... renewable generation in NY is ~28%. They don't need storage. Storage would be mostly counter-productive at this point and for another ~10 years. They need demand response. Seriously? You still don't understand this or you don't WANT to understand this. If Renewable Supply < Demand..... explain the benefit of storage.
Here's why this is important to understand. If you're increasing demand to use storage you're literally burning $$$$. It's pointless. To maximize efficiency and not make things worse you need to use otherwise curtailed energy for storage. Which is why load shifting comes first... THEN storage.
Under current policies, residential batteries increase emissions in most cases
Last edited:
Powerwall installed with solar cannot be charged from grid.
People around here use their Powerwall's to soak up daylight for daytime use and then charge BEV at night off-grid with zero extra load.
Stored power can become a workhorse in CA esp. with the rooftop solar mandate starting 2020.
As far as NYC, even 28% renewable as of now, that 28% is already accounted for. Any fossil fuel replacement must be synthesized/generated plus extra load on the existing overloaded grid. One option is Powerwall + solar off grid.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
That's the reason I linked to the report explaining how this is generally a bad idea. If you're taking power from the grid even if you own grid-tied system to charge a powerwall when that energy could be displacing fools fuel you're making things worse. Hence my repeated insistence that storage is currently in most cases NOT BENEFICIAL!
In most areas... most of the time... it's better to charge your EV at night when demand is lower. Which is STILL unlikely to overlap with PW discharge since the best time for that is peak hours ~6pm - 9pm while the best time for EV charging is after 10pm.
???? There's ~no curtailment => no benefit to storage! You simply add more generation NOT storage! What exactly is a powerwall going accomplish if Supply is < Demand? Explain that. Put 1kWh of solar into a battery to send 0.9kWh back out later when you could have done nothing and simply displaced 1kWh of FF? If you use storage you reduce fuel use by 0.9kWh. If you don't use storage ~1kWh. Which is the bigger number? 1 or 0.9?
Which part of this confuses you? The lack of curtailment, the lack of a benefit for storage, the need for more renewables or the fact you can keep adding more renewables without storage until they meet demand.... causing curtailment.
Last edited:
CA provides incentives for solar + storage to go off grid, in order to save the grid. No matter how many times others insist otherwise, no grid = no electricity(blackouts) even for basic needs(let alone BEVs).
CA as a state being at the bleeding edge of renewables at state level is learning lessons that others may ponder.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
There are no such incentives to go 'off-grid'. There's a $400/kWh inventive for grid-tied storage but even this is more laziness than effectiveness. A dynamic load-shifting program would be more effective, more efficient and less expensive.
CA offers 30% of purchase price solar + Powerwall installed at the same time as investment tax credit ITC.
This is a joke, right? Hydrogen is extremely difficult to store, it leaks out of just about anything and turns almost any affordable metal brittle. Gasoline also goes off over time, due to the various additives that are in it, and will destroy your engine if you put old enough fuel in it.
Here's the problem with battery swapping: It's fine for fleets, but if you own your car and the swapping company owns the batteries and goes bankrupt, they will take back the batteries and the car is useless. If you own both the car and the battery, you are constantly swapping for a battery of unknown age, physical condition, and quality. If you lease the car and battery, you're probably safe, but leasing is usually more expensive.
99% of people will do 99% of their charging at home. Speed of charging is not an issue. I spent more time pumping gas for the Prius when that was my daily driver, than I ever spent plugging and unplugging my EVs. The length of time the charger runs does not affect me at all. And on my one long road trip with the Tesla, charging on the road was always finished before I was ready to resume driving. Charging speed is a non-issue.
When I had the Roadster, Tesla treated me like royalty!
And how is the availability of H2 right now? Are there more than half a dozen H2 filling stations for public use in the nation? HFC efficiency is half that of BEVs. The real cost is unknown. And 99.9% of drivers cannot get one even if they want to.
I presume you mean that with a Powerwall charged from solar, the grid does not have to supply the power. Which we are in agreement on. However, I don't expect to charge my Tesla from the Powerwall except maybe on very rare occasions. If you charge from the grid it makes sense to charge during off-peak (night) times. But I will be charging my car during the day, directly from the solar panels. The Powerwalls will be for electricity at night, since I cannot get net-metering, and to carry me over cloudy days. Of course this also means that grid outages will not affect me.
It's possible that in summer I'll have A/C on for a short while after the sun goes down. My Powerwalls will handle that, under the category of night-time power. But the car will be charged during the day.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Unless I am mistaken that's just a stupid USA anti-competitive thing isn't it?
In UK a PowerWall can be charged from PV and Off Peak, and be used during power cut (I don't know, but if it is used during power cut presumably it provides power to PV and thus PV generation could be harvested too)
Similar threads
