John Petersen bogus article (out of main)

[jerry33]

This is very close to what I was looking for.

If I may paraphrase:

If the utility has power storage, the whole argument about “EVs charging from natural gas a night” is garbage.

If the utility does not have power storage, there is indeed a gap after sunset and until midnight described by the “duck curve”, where some marginal power might have to be brought on-line, but after that, in the wee hours of the night, power requirements go down again and the base supply sources will be used, at very little marginal cost. I am guessing that electricity is very cheap after midnight and for this reason.

So the only time of day for which this argument could work is from 5pm to 8pm, or 6pm to 9pm, wherever that duck’s back is. Since power utilities price accordingly, all Tesla owners subject to variable utiltity rates are gonna program their chargers to fire up at 1am or somesuch, NOT along the ducks back.

Am I starting to grok a good response to this annoying pitch of “BEVs charge using dirty power times, so even Tesla Model 3 ain’t any better than a Camry Hybrid”???

That is pretty much my understanding. Because (my understanding) most folks charge their cars starting late at night, there's very little charging done during the duck curve times. The exception would be those taking trips. I've no idea what percentage of EVs are on a trip at any given time/day. It's very likely small. Those who charge at work would more likely be the ones that fall into the gas powering because that's during peak times. (Another reason why I'm not a big fan of workplace charging. Ducks, and not from the duck curve.)

Note that where we live, the A/C is the big electric consumer--even at our house where there are two EVs, and only hot water and heat are gas). In a hot month, of the $170, about $40 is for EV charging (2K mi/month between the two cars last year), $95 for A/C, and $35 for lights, cooking, and laundry. There's no TOU, so the electricity price is the same all day and night. If the house doesn't have the efficiencies built into ours over the years, the A/C will be three or four times as much.

Something else to note is that I just was at a presentation the other day where they showed what new power generation was going to come on line in the next few years on the ERCOT grid. The vast majority will be solar. There's almost no doubt that it will be accompanied by battery storage. The reason for this is that solar and wind can be brought on line in a few weeks or months (worst case) rather than years or decades for gas and nuclear.

 

[Doggydogworld]

This is very close to what I was looking for.

If I may paraphrase:

If the utility has power storage, the whole argument about “EVs charging from natural gas a night” is garbage.

If the utility does not have power storage, there is indeed a gap after sunset and until midnight described by the “duck curve”, where some marginal power might have to be brought on-line, but after that, in the wee hours of the night, power requirements go down again and the base supply sources will be used, at very little marginal cost. I am guessing that electricity is very cheap after midnight and for this reason.

So the only time of day for which this argument could work is from 5pm to 8pm, or 6pm to 9pm, wherever that duck’s back is. Since power utilities price accordingly, all Tesla owners subject to variable utiltity rates are gonna program their chargers to fire up at 1am or somesuch, NOT along the ducks back.

Am I starting to grok a good response to this annoying pitch of “BEVs charge using dirty power times, so even Tesla Model 3 ain’t any better than a Camry Hybrid”???

First, Camry Hybrid is damn good. 50+ MPG in a practical family sedan.
Second, forget about massive scale utility storage. It's an expensive, unnecessary brute force approach. (Which means California will certainly adopt it, lol.)

If you parachute 5 million BEVs into CA tomorrow, the state would burn a crapton of additional NG in peaker plants because that's the only option. But 5 million BEVs added over time with smart daytime charging enables you to add more solar than would otherwise be practical. With smart chargers, a huge BEV fleet becomes a grid asset which can provide frequency regulation and other ancillary services "for free". They can also soak up excess mid-day solar and, in a decade or so, power homes during the evening and eliminate the duck curve. Among other things.

You'll never convince the death cult of this, since it involves future trends which, by definition, can't be proven. It's hard enough to get them to accept historic fact.

 

[Carl Raymond]

FWIW, I found this book super helpful in understanding how the grid works.
The Grid

Does it even matter for those non Electrical Engineers among us? This is an era of self driving cars and rockets landing on barges. No post, regardless of word count, will convince me that getting to 100% renewables is not achievable.

We don’t have a choice, we have to do it. It’s ultimately free fuel and will be much cheaper.

Part A, make all vehicles electric. Part B, make all electricity clean. Done.

 

[KarenRei]

Can someone explain why anyone is taking a SA post (aka, a blog) seriously on a topic that has been studied to death by actual peer review? I mean, there's entire computer models for this sort of stuff (like Argonne's GREET). "Some random guy" is not a counter for peer-review.

 

[Zaxxon]

If the utility does not have power storage, there is indeed a gap after sunset and until midnight described by the “duck curve”, where some marginal power might have to be brought on-line, but after that, in the wee hours of the night, power requirements go down again and the base supply sources will be used, at very little marginal cost. I am guessing that electricity is very cheap after midnight and for this reason.

So the only time of day for which this argument could work is from 5pm to 8pm, or 6pm to 9pm, wherever that duck’s back is. Since power utilities price accordingly, all Tesla owners subject to variable utiltity rates are gonna program their chargers to fire up at 1am or somesuch, NOT along the ducks back.

Pretty much. If you want to simplify the response to its minimal form: follow the money. There's a reason utilities offer time-of-use rates that typically bottom out in the wee hours of the night--and it's not because they have to fire up their peakers when you take them up on the offer.

 

[KSilver2000]

Note that where we live, the A/C is the big electric consumer--even at our house where there are two EVs, and only hot water and heat are gas). In a hot month, of the $170, about $40 is for EV charging (2K mi/month between the two cars last year), $95 for A/C, and $35 for lights, cooking, and laundry. There's no TOU, so the electricity price is the same all day and night.

How do you get to only ~$40 for 2,000 miles of EV when there is no TOU?
Let’s say both of your cars are efficient at 250Wh/mi.
2000 mi. x 250Wh/mi. = 500kWh
$40 / 500kWh = $0.08/kWh
Where do you live that electricity cost is so little 24/7? Where I am, it’s about $0.12/kWh during off-peak on TOU!

 

[VValleyEV]

Can someone explain why anyone is taking a SA post (aka, a blog) seriously on a topic that has been studied to death by actual peer review? I mean, there's entire computer models for this sort of stuff (like Argonne's GREET). "Some random guy" is not a counter for peer-review.

The SA post is being taken seriously by lots of folks, judging by the comment section, including the conclusion that EVs are not a smart investment for anyone, not individuals, politicians, no one. They think EVs are a big boondoggle and waste of money, and it just frosts my follicles.

None of this audience will ever read peer review studies, but they might sit up and take notice to “no, electricity is going to waste at night and during various parts of the days, and EVs could really, really help smooth out that curve. And gasoline cars cannot.” OR “your tax dollars are being used to subsidize gasoline cars to a massive amount relative to the tiny subsidies for EVs, and guess which vehicles are fouling the air”. OR ???

 

[jerry33]

How do you get to only ~$40 for 2,000 miles of EV when there is no TOU?
Let’s say both of your cars are efficient at 250Wh/mi.
2000 mi. x 250Wh/mi. = 500kWh
$40 / 500kWh = $0.08/kWh
Where do you live that electricity cost is so little 24/7? Where I am, it’s about $0.12/kWh during off-peak on TOU!

Actual electrical cost is $0.072/kWh. That includes electric cost, transmission charge, and various taxes.

 

[BioSehnsucht]

How do you get to only ~$40 for 2,000 miles of EV when there is no TOU?
Let’s say both of your cars are efficient at 250Wh/mi.
2000 mi. x 250Wh/mi. = 500kWh
$40 / 500kWh = $0.08/kWh
Where do you live that electricity cost is so little 24/7? Where I am, it’s about $0.12/kWh during off-peak on TOU!

Here in Texas (same as @jerry33 according to his location), it's quite common to get electricity plans with free nights (and sometimes weekends). Which depending on when you charge might make your EV cost close to zero ... and your average power usage could then be easily $0.08/kWh overall.

This is mostly due to needing to get rid of the gobs of Texas panhandle wind power that occurs at night.

In my case, I don't get this option, as my local utility is the only option (they did recently add a new green power plan finally for about 10% more cost though). Much of Texas, at least in the big cities, you get to choose from a number of providers, including these free nights plans, green plans, etc.

My plan varies throughout the year but it's generally about $0.12/kWh any time of day, no TOU.

 

[TheMrX]

How do you get to only ~$40 for 2,000 miles of EV when there is no TOU?
Let’s say both of your cars are efficient at 250Wh/mi.
2000 mi. x 250Wh/mi. = 500kWh
$40 / 500kWh = $0.08/kWh
Where do you live that electricity cost is so little 24/7? Where I am, it’s about $0.12/kWh during off-peak on TOU!

Province of Quebec : first 36 kW/h of the day = 0.0591$ CAD past that 36 kW/h it is = 0.0912$ CAD per kilowatt/hour

 

[jerry33]

Here in Texas (same as @jerry33 according to his location), it's quite common to get electricity plans with free nights (and sometimes weekends). Which depending on when you charge might make your EV cost close to zero ... and your average power usage could then be easily $0.08/kWh overall.

My plan is just a straight plan with no TOU and 100% renewable energy. However, it's still only $0.072/kWh.

 

[dc_h]

(Still believed relevant here because of strong suggestion that investment in EV is misguided and Tesla specifically targeted)
I replied to this article that the the power plant emissions data that should be used for comparison of EVs with ICE vehicles should come from this study:
New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to Get Cleaner

The responses I received were:
“
The article you reference makes the common error of using the mix of power sources to calculate the emission from electric cars. What John Petersen has done, correctly, is to use the incremental power source, which in the USA is almost always natural gas.

When you plug your electric car into a source provided by a utility that uses a mix of solar and gas to provide your power, the sun doesn't shine any hotter, the gas power station has to supply the extra load.”

AND
“A more careful and responsible reading of the article would reveal that battery charging (a) tends to occur at night and (b) marginal load increases are dispatched primarily with natural gas turbines.”

SO, what the anti-EV folks (and anti-investment in EV folks) are saying seems to be that one has to consider power used for charging an EV at home to be coming from the incremental power added when you plug it in, usually at night, and that will not be solar and wind, so phooey on your power grid emissions study that just gives averages and they don’t matter because the only reason those averages are low is because of wind and solar which are out of commission after the sun goes down.

IMHO if we believe that Tesla is accelerating the transition to sustainable energy, we need very good responses to this argument, to keep the investment from eroding.

Anyone willing to help me tackle this head on? Divert to sustainable energy discussion thread? I have home Solar that covers house and car, but I wish to leave that completely out of the argument.

I don’t have time to go into a John Peterson, but I have time to light a candle and give thanks. John proved that EV batteries, and Tesla, are not even possible. He spent 1000’s if words explaining that energy density of batteries vs gasoline makes it impossible for EVs to compete. John has been the greatest counter indicator in TSLAQ history, better then mark spiegel or even surprise earnings. He’s uncanny.

 

[traxila]

I don’t have time to go into a John Peterson, but I have time to light a candle and give thanks. John proved that EV batteries, and Tesla, are not even possible. He spent 1000’s if words explaining that energy density of batteries vs gasoline makes it impossible for EVs to compete. John has been the greatest counter indicator in TSLAQ history, better then mark spiegel or even surprise earnings. He’s uncanny.

It indeed auspicious that Peterson has emerged with more of his elite and detailed FUD. This bodes well for Autonomy Day.

 

[Artful Dodger]

I don’t see how adding more nighttime electricity use is 0 marginal cost or helps smooth the duck curve. What Am I missing?

Adding nightime use doesn't smooth the curve. Who said that?

Adding storage smooths the curve, by adding daytime demand (ie: charging the battery) and increasing nightime supply (ie: discharging the battery).

Read about the Hornsdale Power Reserve. It's the archetype grid-scale storage plant.

Hornsdale battery has 'significant impact' on market

 

[VValleyEV]

Thank you all.

I really believe this argument needs to be countered at a very simple common-sense level, not at a “read the peer-reviewed mathematical models of grid behavior” etc etc. Else we will be continually fighting this headwind, especially when it means popular support for continual big subsidies for the oil industry and objections to tiny subsidies for BEVs.

 

[VValleyEV]

I don’t have time to go into a John Peterson, but I have time to light a candle and give thanks. John proved that EV batteries, and Tesla, are not even possible. He spent 1000’s if words explaining that energy density of batteries vs gasoline makes it impossible for EVs to compete. John has been the greatest counter indicator in TSLAQ history, better then mark spiegel or even surprise earnings. He’s uncanny.

This is terrific background info, thanks.

 

[JRP3]

ps: oh, and on a related note: oil refineries are one of the largest users of electricity,
so by replacing ICE with EV you also reduce the need for refined fuel, thus electricity used during the refining process

I must point out that refining doesn't use much electricity on a per gallon basis, and much of the electricity that is used is generated from burning petroleum byproducts. So it's not as if replacing ICE with EV's frees up a lot of generating capacity.

 

[woof]

Just posting to get the mods to fix the spelling of Petersen's name in the title. Then I get to flag my own post!

 

[JRP3]

This is terrific background info, thanks.

If you want more background for Petersen we have a long running thread debunking his web of lies. I'm surprised this topic wasn't merged into that existing thread: Nonsense from John Petersen

 

[techmaven]

BTW, not many people have highlighted his bogus base assumptions on battery cell production emissions. He's been throwing FUD at this since at least 2012. I've corrected him on numerous occasions in 2012 and 2013. Now, 7 years later, he's still drawing an audience to gulping down his misinformation. He knows he is peddling misinformation and he knows he's been doing it for many years.

First, he doesn't start with the GREET model. Then, he makes bogus high assumptions on cell production emissions. And his audience on SA gobbles it up.

Ok... to the specific issues. He makes an assumption on the emissions per kWh, using Kim and Ellingsen studies as the basis. He throws a whole bunch of assumptions in there to make it sound like he has a real result. However, the Mercedes B-class electric has a Tesla supplied powertrain. It has the same 18650 cells that are in the original Model S battery packs and Mercedes did a full LCA:

Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive reduces lifecycle CO2 emissions by as much as 64% compared to B 180 gasoline model

The result is that the B-class electric, with a 36 kWh battery pack, had 4.6 metric tons more emissions than the B 180 diesel vehicle. Which means the battery pack contributed no more than 4.6 metric tons assuming an even trade between the engine parts and the rest of the electric drivetrain. That's 128 kg/kWh of GHG emissions. Petersen went with 170 kg/kWh. That's wrong since 2012 for the Model S, much less a Model 3 in 2018/2019. The energy density has further improved, the cobalt usage has been further reduced, and the manufacturing energy input has been substantially reduced as well as a slew of other enhancements in GF1. The real figure now is likely closer to 90 kg per kWh.

He also makes an assumption of 12 years, 150,000 miles before pack replacement. That's absurd. Pack replacement on average likely is at 300,000 to 500,000 miles. But let's just go with 15 years, 200,000 miles. So the per mile amortized emissions is 36 grams per mile, or less than half his 85 grams per mile estimate.

He then makes the leap that all charging is off natural gas peaker plants. Never mind that wind does factor in for many places in the US, as does hydro in some places. Sometimes charging happens during the day with solar. Furthermore, charging efficiency has been shown to be between 85% and 92% depending on the EVSE. Putting charging at 90% efficient, it would be 182 grams of CO2 per mile of electric power generation.

If we went with that worst case scenario with only charging for natural gas peaker plants, the Model 3 LR would have 182 + 36 = 218 grams of CO2 per mile. That's between the two Camry trims at 211.1 and 244.5 grams of CO2 per mile. Add in a bit of wind, solar, and hydro, and the result is much lower, beating the lower Camry trim. For those charging off almost all hydro (WA state) or wind (Texas at night), the amount is dramatically lower.

Now, back to CA. Obviously, charging off solar during the day is best. That can actually help out the duck curve. What is really interesting is the oversupply situation:
California ISO - Managing Oversupply
In other words, there are times when CA has too much renewable supply and has to curtail wind and solar production. Charging your car during 11am and 2pm means CA needs to curtail solar and wind less! That's about as close to zero emissions as possible.