Question about EV Value and environmental impact

[Snowdog]

Calm down ... reading source publications critically is not a crime.

Read the publications of the US national energy labs, get familiar with GREET, understand the underlying methodologies and their differences. Fwiw I am not impugning the scientists at UCS by disagreeing with your conclusions from their data. And since very good science disagrees with their underlying methods when the question is CO2 advantage, I'll just politely suggest that you read more and mumble less. Your advocacy will be the stronger for it.

I do read multiple sources, including the GREET work. In fact the UCS model is based on GREET.

How do you calculate an electric vehicle’s CO2e emissions?

To calculate an EV’s emissions, we first identify where the car is charged. This tool matches a ZIP code with an electric grid region, which in turn is matched with an average emissions number (expressed as CO2e). The average emissions are calculated using data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s eGrid for direct emissions and the GREET model (Argonne National Laboratory) for indirect emissions (such as mining and the delivery of fuels to powerplants).
​

I see little difference between your offhand dismissal of such complex modeling based on your assumptions than I do, when I see AGW deniers dismiss the work of the IPCC by claiming "Sun Cycles" are responsible for GW.

Also the grid getting cleaner is not driven primarily by natural gas, most new capacity is renewable:
Solar and wind comprise 61% of 2015 capacity additions, gas contributes 35%

 

[SageBrush]

This tool matches a ZIP code with an electric grid region, which in turn is matched with an average emissions number (expressed as CO2e).

Kapisch ?

Now, read the Argonne Lab work modeling CO2 emissions from a grid charged EV fleet.
This is a good article to start with. And yes, most of the modeling is PHEV but it is easy to extrapolate to BEV.

And don't worry, I am not an AGW denialist. Unfortunately a lot of the source science is above my head but I follow realclimate.org closely.

 

[Snowdog]

Kapisch ?

Now, read the Argonne Lab work modeling CO2 emissions from a grid charged EV fleet.

And don't worry, I am not an AGW denialist. Unfortunately a lot of the source science is above my head but I follow realclimate.org closely.

My main argument with your post is the claim that Natural Gas really isn't as good as it appears and that GREET (Argonne Lab work modeling emissions) model is not good enough and you know better. Secondary to that is the claim that the grid cleanup is benefiting from that false impression because it is mostly about NG replacing Coal, when in fact most new capacity in recent years has been from Renewable sources, not NG.

As far your argument against averaging over a region not being good enough. I see this as mostly just splitting hairs. Really it is the overall average that matters, not whether one individual falls inside or outside a particular zone based on his postal code.

 

[SageBrush]

My main argument with your post is the claim that Natural Gas really isn't as good as it appears and that GREET (Argonne Lab work modeling emissions) model is not good enough and you know better.

Read my post again. I said that the UCS map is based on under-estimated CO2e emissions from NG extraction.

Read an Oct 2015 study by Elgowainy et al from Argonne for more updated data

Addendum: Regarding Coal displacement: EIA
As a graph:

 

[Snowdog]

Read my post again. I said that the UCS map is based on under-estimated CO2e emissions from NG extraction.
Read an Oct 2015 study by Elgowainy et al from Argonne for more updated data

Not sure what your point is here. Your link doesn't work for me, but it looks like this is just the annual update to Greet model NG extraction overhead. There is an update like this every year for GREET.

IOW, this is already in the GREET model, which is what NCS used.

 

[SageBrush]

Corrected link for the 2015 Wang and Elgowainy study:
http://greet.es.anl.gov/files/fugitive-ch4-2015

 

[SageBrush]

Not sure what your point is here. Your link doesn't work for me, but it looks like this is just the annual update to Greet model NG extraction overhead. There is an update like this every year for GREET.

IOW, this is already in the GREET model, which is what NCS used.

Corrected link above.
Yes, this study updates the LCA of natural gas extraction -- which was my point, if you would please reread my original post that you decided to flame out of ignorance.

Regarding the question of what is displacing coal: I made a pretty graph for you above, I hope you look at it. The graph bars show the net change in source fuel over time. Or you can just look at the raw data numbers in the link to the EIA. Your error in thinking that clean energy sources are larger than NG is due to conflating new capacity coming online and fuel-stocks consumed. The plants already online have tremendous reserve capacity.

Now let me summarize the main points of my earlier post, that you can see are based on National Energy Lab publications that you say that you read but are ignorant of, and the US EIA:

1. Coal displacement has overwhelmingly been by NG
2. NG has a considerably higher CO2e than the UCS maps take into account
3. The National Labs use marginal rather than average emissions in modeling EV CO2.

 

[Snowdog]

Corrected link above.
Yes, this study updates the LCA of natural gas extraction -- which was my point, if you would please reread my original post that you decided to flame out of ignorance.

Still not making sense. You claimed that the UCS map made the grid cleanup look too good.

Because NG is has worse impacts than they were taking into account.

Your evidence, is updates to GREET, which UCS is taking into account, since they are based on GREET.

 

[SageBrush]

Still not making sense. You claimed that the UCS map made the grid cleanup look too good.
Because NG is has worse impacts than they were taking into account.
Your evidence, is updates to GREET, which UCS is taking into account, since they are based on GREET.

The 2015 UCS map is based on 2012 EPA eGRID and 2014 GREET.

READ THE 2015 GREET UPDATE.

Then read Appendix D of the source UCS article that discusses analysis by marginal emissions.

Do I take it that you have come to realize that most of the coal displacement in recent years is by NG ?

 

[Topher]

Good thing Tesla didn't design their charging system like that. It starts at zero and slowly ramps it up. (Probably less than a minute, but certainly not all at once causing a spike.)

The problem isn't a single Tesla causing a spike but rather 1000's of them all coming on, and driving up demand. 1) Currently the grid is oversupplied at the time when charging is done, so we are currently making the grid better by charging at night. 2) Eventually, it is possible that all that nightime surplus will go away, and we will need to adjust our charging habits. But really that isn't going to be hard. Especially when Tesla can just send out a patch.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Topher]

I really like this idea, especially as someone for whom solar is not a viable option.

People who don't think solar is an option for them should look into Community Solar Farms. We had one put in, a couple of miles from me, the first publicly owned solar farm in Maine. It produces enough power for 9 households on a barn and field. It has almost all the advantages of rooftop solar, but is usable even if you move (within the electric company service area). It is a great solution for renters, people who plan to move, and others. Look it up, to see if you can do it in your area.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Lon12]

I found this article interesting:
Electrical grid could handle millions of plug-in cars — but maybe not all at once
"One study by the University of Victoria's Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions found that even in winter, when electricity demand is highest, B.C. had the unused capacity on its grid to charge nearly 2.4 million light-duty vehicles — almost all the 2.8 million registered vehicles in the province."

 

[Snowdog]

The 2015 UCS map is based on 2012 EPA eGRID and 2014 GREET.

READ THE 2015 GREET UPDATE.

Then read Appendix D of the source UCS article that discusses analysis by marginal emissions.

Do I take it that you have come to realize that most of the coal displacement in recent years is by NG ?

Yes, while new generating capacity is mostly Renewable, bigger swings appear to be from usage changes in existing capacity. Though new renewable capacity will come into play more as it continues to shift in this direction.

The 2015 GREET update, only shows TOTAL 1% more emissions for Shale gas, and 4% more for conventional gas (Summary Table 3).

You really seem to be trying to make mountains out of molehills here. There is GREET update like this every year, there will be some lag in the UCS model picking up that data. This is no big deal, unless it was missing a large correction. But 1% to 4%?

The Grid is getting cleaner over time, EVs do have lower CO2 emission in all but few locations, and even in those few locations, you would pretty much need a hybrid to match an EV.

 

[SageBrush]

The 2015 GREET update, only shows TOTAL 1% more emissions for Shale gas, and 4% more for conventional gas (Summary Table 3).

That is because GREET 2015 continues to use the EPA values for methane escape. I'm glad you looked at the table, but you missed this

The EPA’s estimates of NG system CH4 emissions have decreased significantly since its 2011 inventory, while top-down analyses suggest these CH4 emissions should be higher. The recent bottom-up studies developed through a collaboration of the Environmental Defense Fund, universities, research institutions, and companies (Allen et al. 2015a; Allen et al. 2015b, Marchese et al. 2015, Zimmerle et al. 2015, Lamb et al. 2015) show some in leakage rate by stage as compared to the most recent EPA GHGI (2015); however in total, the results are similar. We will continue to update GREET as more research is pursued to reduce the discrepancies between bottom-up and top-down analyses of CH4 emissions in the NG system.

 

[Snowdog]

That is because GREET 2015 continues to use the EPA values for methane escape. I'm glad you looked at the table, but you missed this

however in total, the results are similar. We will continue to update GREET as more research is pursued to reduce the discrepancies between bottom-up and top-down analyses of CH4 emissions in the NG system.​

It isn't necessary the case that they are using the wrong set of data, just there is a small discrepancy between them (which is being worked on).

It really looks like you are nit picking and trying to make mountains out of molehills.

 

[mspohr]

however in total, the results are similar. We will continue to update GREET as more research is pursued to reduce the discrepancies between bottom-up and top-down analyses of CH4 emissions in the NG system.​

It isn't necessary the case that they are using the wrong set of data, just there is a small discrepancy between them (which is being worked on).

It really looks like you are nit picking and trying to make mountains out of molehills.

This is a classic denier tactic. Nit pick data to cast doubt on the big picture. Time to abandon this thread.

 

[Electric700]

I drive a Model S, have a Model 3 on order, got my adult sons to order Model 3s.
My electricity is rather coal dependent, so I have put up 7.6kW of solar.
I will never (I hope, you never know) buy an ICE car again, EVs (like Tesla makes) are so much safer, quieter, faster, tech-filled, etc.
As others have said, as my power company gets better (they are reducing coal and increasing wind power) my car (and home) get better.
My EV gets better every year about emissions, which is not happen in quite the same way as ICE vehicles.
We are, IMHO, getting near the tipping point, when BEVs are the future in enough people's minds that they will move towards dominance and the ICE will be in decline.
Remember, OP, that most of the driving is around the home, so we are charging mostly at home.
And as Tesla adds solar power to more and more superchargers (remember Elon is Chairman of the Board, I think it is, for Solar City which his cousin runs) the long distance driving will be more and more from renewables. We are moving toward sustainable, but not there yet. If we don't start, it won't happen. But enough are starting (over 325,000 reservations for Model 3s) and it is, I hope, happening.

Excellent points and it's awesome that you have a solar array . Also I think Tesla is adding both solar and wind power to the grid for the Superchargers and the new factory. Who knows, they might add hydro power in the future too.

 

[ohmman]

Third,and perhaps most important from an unbiased environmental perspective, this map ignores opportunity cost. For example, a person who buys an inexpensive, efficient ICE car and plows the money saved into PV is way, way ahead in an environmental sense compared to a person who buys a Tesla and relies on the grid for energy.

I think you're drawing a conclusion that favors your bias - not looking at it from an unbiased environmental perspective. If everyone chose an ICE and solar, there would be no market for EVs. Some studies have shown a relatively high correlation between rooftop solar and EVs. Once you've got an EV, the ROI on solar drops due to your increased electric use. So while in your example the ICE driver takes the extra money and installs PV, the reality is that the EV driver is more likely to do so.

The best thing you can do if you live in a total vacuum is probably to keep your existing ICE vehicle as long as possible and only replace it when necessary. I don't think that gets us anywhere, though. My purchase of a Tesla was an investment in the technology. I may have wound up personally being responsible for more CO2 emissions vs. keeping my Acura. But again, if everyone thought that way, we'd all be driving old ICE vehicles forever, and living in a modern day Havana.

 

[xmetal]

EVs are the only vehicles which will get cleaner over time. End of story.

As the grid itself gets cleaner so will EVs, and if you are already lucky to have power from solar or wind then your car is as clean as it could be.

 

[SageBrush]

My purchase of a Tesla was an investment in the technology.

Yup, that is my perspective and motivation as well.

So while in your example the ICE driver takes the extra money and installs PV, the reality is that the EV driver is more likely to do so.

Yes, this seems to be the case, at least for early adopters. But I don't think it changes my point that for a person looking to lessen their enviro footprint with funds that are not enough to cover both PV and EV, PV + ICE is much smarter than EV+grid. As for bias, that is why I prefaced my remarks by saying this is only with regards to AGW related carbon counting.

Other things matter too, e.g. less OPEC petroleum use, less export of money out of the country, and encouraging domestic production. It is for these other reasons (and others!) that I think Tesla is great.