Question about EV Value and environmental impact

[SageBrush]

1) A loser quitter ahole.
2) Hasn't thought through the problem well enough.

If you are #1, we don't need you, you are a detriment to society. if you are #2, think it through a little more -- we need the EVs anyway. Whether we do it first, second, or at the same time as the other parts doesn't matter so much in the long run.

I've been a (3) for years so I'll describe the position: EVs are an appliance, in the general sense that they do not produce or save emissions. So cleaning up the grid first is the priority. To the extent that people buy EVs with their own money -- by all means. But tax money should be spent on grid infrastructure to facilitate wind and PV growth.

I've only really changed my tune because the country cannot see fit to stop the subsidising , and begin the taxing of externalities, of fossil fuels. Meaning I'll take the EV incentive and spend it on PV. Not efficient, but I don't make the rules.

 

[ohmman]

To the extent that people buy EVs with their own money -- by all means. But tax money should be spent on grid infrastructure to facilitate wind and PV growth.

It's maybe an indirect way around, but EV owners are much more vested in clean and efficient grid infrastructure. When one depends on that infrastructure for their transportation needs, they are likely to pay closer attention to the resource. Which goes back to my post earlier in the thread about the correlation between rooftop solar and EVs. So incentivizing EVs can assist in your end goal.

 

[SageBrush]

It's maybe an indirect way around, but EV owners are much more vested in clean and efficient grid infrastructure. When one depends on that infrastructure for their transportation needs, they are likely to pay closer attention to the resource.

Demanding reliability does not imply demanding clean energy.

As I answered before, I know that PV has been much more prevalent with EV owners than the population at large and I am very gratified by it, but as buyers transition from early adopters to more "mainstream," I'm skeptical the trend will continue. I'll be delighted to be wrong. If the EV tax credits were contingent on clean energy buy-in of one sort or another I would endorse them whole-heartedly.

 

[ohmman]

I know that PV has been much more prevalent with EV owners than the population at large and I am very gratified by it, but as buyers transition from early adopters to more "mainstream," I'm skeptical the trend will continue.

Well, I also hope you're wrong. I think one thing you might be discounting is the fact that PV ROI becomes much more appealing once you've got an EV. They're not merely complimentary from a "compelling idea" standpoint - though that's also true - they also make a lot of financial sense.

It's the same reason that out here in California PG&E land, people with resistance heating have PV ROIs of under 4 years. When you're consuming a lot of energy, solar becomes a more economically viable alternative.

 

[ChadS]

EVs are an appliance, in the general sense that they do not produce or save emissions. So cleaning up the grid first is the priority.

I understand your point; and if I HAD to pick one to prioritize, I might start there too. But if we clean up the grid first...we will still be stuck with a bunch of gas-burning cars. Switching from ICE to gas will indeed do comparatively more per vehicle in the future than it does now, but on average it is still an emissions improvement now (and reduces the trade deficit, makes the US more energy independent, reduces groundwater pollution, reduces point-source pollution near people, etc - lots of stuff not reflected in this conversation) and takes advantage of grid improvements just as soon as they come along. The cumulative effects will be greater if we start the vehicle work sooner, and I think that's the most important metric.

I see them as orthogonal problems that both need to be tackled. The world is a better place with one of them solved even if the other is not. It's even better when both are solved. It's best when both are solved as soon as possible.

I've only really changed my tune because the country cannot see fit to stop the subsidising , and begin the taxing of externalities, of fossil fuels.

Full agreement there!

 

[SageBrush]

Well, I also hope you're wrong. I think one thing you might be discounting is the fact that PV ROI becomes much more appealing once you've got an EV. They're not merely complimentary from a "compelling idea" standpoint - though that's also true - they also make a lot of financial sense.

It's the same reason that out here in California PG&E land, people with resistance heating have PV ROIs of under 4 years. When you're consuming a lot of energy, solar becomes a more economically viable alternative.

Agreed.

I'm a (perhaps unexpected) example of your point. Years ago I invested in conservation and dropped my home electricity use down to 100 - 150 kWh a month. The residual use was never enough to push me to overcome the barriers to installing PV at home. Now that heat pumps are becoming reasonable alternatives to NG for home heating and an *EV is anticipated, my electricity use will be more than enough to demand an offset with PV. In my case though the motivation is environmental rather than money.

 

[ohmman]

In my case though the motivation is environmental rather than money.

Listen, I'm with you. I run a large financial credit (which I must forfeit) from net metering with PG&E, but since my actual energy consumption remains positive, I am installing another array to zero out my net consumption. And that includes retrofitting my NG cooktop to induction, my hot water heater to electric, and potentially installing a heat pump.

 

[SageBrush]

I see them as orthogonal problems that both need to be tackled. The world is a better place with one of them solved even if the other is not. It's even better when both are solved. It's best when both are solved as soon as possible.

Understood. I didn't make clear that until the grid is cleaned up (for grid users, anyway,) an EV is not much better than an ICE and often worse than a hybrid so much of the money spent on EVs now is not improving the pollution scene. In terms of needed R&D, I agree with your point.

 

[SageBrush]

Listen, I'm with you. I run a large financial credit (which I must forfeit) from net metering with PG&E, but since my actual energy consumption remains positive, I am installing another array to zero out my net consumption. And that includes retrofitting my NG cooktop to induction, my hot water heater to electric, and potentially installing a heat pump.

Cheers!

Domestic hot water is such a PITA. Have you considered a two tank setup to facilitate heat pump use ?

 

[ohmman]

Domestic hot water is such a PITA. Have you considered a two tank setup to facilitate heat pump use ?

The heat pump will actually be for whole house heating. My climate is friendly enough for that endeavor. Domestic hot water is on-demand electric hot water heaters - annoying and very high draws (110A/240!) but when you look at overall consumption they're still ahead of tanks.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I think we are pretty close to agreement on the values to use for the LCA comparison of an ECO Prius and a BMW i3, so here are the calcs:

Prius
LCA CO2 for petrol is 24 lbs/US_gallon, equal to 40 kWh source energy
That works out to 24/56, = 0.429 lbs CO2 per mile or 195 grams per mile.


i3
Using the 2011 GREET publication by Wang et al,
I eyeball the 20 year NGCC Conventional gas at 825 grams/kWh
0.27 of that per mile in an i3, thus 222 grams CO2 per mile.
Shale gas is lower, and IIRC is about 15 - 20% of NG stock
I'm feeling lazy, so I'll guesstimate 800 grams/kWh weighted --
then 800*0.27 = 216 grams CO2/mile,
but divide by 0.94 to account for T&D losses, so 230 grams/mile

View attachment 172235

To some degree. I don't think we would use any peaking plants to charge EVs, and so on, but 45% versus 48% isn't a huge difference at the end of the day.

The interesting thing is that the GHG emissions are largely a function of the time frame/Methane's GWP. At 20-years, a Prius Eco/i3 are pretty close, but at 100 years the i3 is better, and difference approaches the ratio of Carbon emissions after a few hundred years. Since fugitive methane emissions are what gets the i3 close to the Prius, I wonder how much lower the 20-year GHG emissions would be if electricity was generated on site.

The fueleconomy.gov figures for Prius Carbon emissions per mile are correct, and apparently unrelated to the two (33.7kWh/gallon and 36.6kWh/gallon) energy figures we're seeing for gasoline. The EPA and other sources use 33.7kWh/gallon, the lower heating value of gasoline, because ICEs dump any vaporized water out the exhaust, and can't capture any of that energy to do work. The HHV of gasoline is 36.6kWh and represents the total energy available if all the combustion products return to pre-combustion temperatures, which is what we need to use for a net energy comparison. As far as I understand it, measurement of utility scale FF electricity generation uses the HHV, not the LHV. ICEs only use LHV because it's impossible for them to capture the energy that went into vaporizing water.

Combined cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure why EPA estimates upstream GHG emissions as ~20% while CMU estimates ~25%. It's not going to influence the net much, since that's ~13 miles instead of ~16 miles. It could be some differences between GREET 1.7 and 1.8, or some differences in the assumptions. Without the specifics of both models, I'm not sure which one is more accurate.

Anyhow, the basic idea is that any claims about not being able to handle the generation requirements of EVs are just attempts to spread FUD. An EV that displaces a gallon of HC fuel frees up enough natural gas to generate some and maybe in some case all of the energy required to power it.

I've been a (3) for years so I'll describe the position: EVs are an appliance, in the general sense that they do not produce or save emissions. So cleaning up the grid first is the priority. To the extent that people buy EVs with their own money -- by all means. But tax money should be spent on grid infrastructure to facilitate wind and PV growth.

I've only really changed my tune because the country cannot see fit to stop the subsidising , and begin the taxing of externalities, of fossil fuels. Meaning I'll take the EV incentive and spend it on PV. Not efficient, but I don't make the rules.

Well, part of what's limiting grid penetration of renewables is their inability to strictly substitute for dispatchable generation. One of the ways to get around that is through less expensive, longer lasting batteries to store inexpensive renewable generation. And one of the ways to get less expensive, longer lasting batteries is to subsidize EVs.

We can dump all existing incentives into whatever the least expensive Carbon cutting measure there is, which at this point probably isn't EVs or renewable generation (I'm thinking tax credits for insulation?), but if we only extend tax credits to the least expensive Carbon cutting measure, then there likely will be little to no improvement in other Carbon cutting measures. My WAG is that subsidies are designed to minimize overall Carbon emissions by investing in many different technologies that can benefit from additional research/testing/mass production. We could only provide tax credits for the most effective form of reducing Carbon emissions, but that's minimizing the cost of cutting emissions, not maximizing the cut in emissions.

 

[SageBrush]

Well, part of what's limiting grid penetration of renewables is their inability to strictly substitute for dispatchable generation.

I accept that argument for the last say 20% of NGas in areas that do not have hydro on demand, but not for oil or coal.

I periodically feel like adding a sig to my posts that encapsulates the silliness:
"PV ? Not good, because we need energy at night."
"Wind ? Not good, because it blows at night when we don't need it."

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

It depends on the region. A bunch of solar won't help much in places that have peak heating loads and insufficient wind. But that'll be a moot point as we create large grid interconnects and can shift demand/minimize consumption.

Will the U.S. Finally Get a Unified Power Grid? - IEEE Spectrum

At the individual level, it's my opinion that an enterprising DIY'er can make the grid is obsolete for everything except nighttime EV charging.

 

[Saghost]

Tesla has the potential to manage charging in cooperation with utilities. They could start and stop charging of large numbers of cars to help manage the grid. Owners could even get free electricity in exchange for the service.

The wonderful thing about an always internet connected, over the air updateable electric car is that it's always connected and OTA updateable. This has the potential to be a huge boon to power companies.

What if Tesla brokered a deal for you with the power company - they'd give you the energy to charge your car for half price, and promise to already reach the charge target set in the car by some specified time every morning - and in return you'd give them total control of the charge timing (through a firmware update, Tesla would give the company server and your car a connection.)

With a real time network connection, the car can start to balance not just the grid, but actually at your neighborhood level.

They can ramp the charge rate up to maximum at 6:32, when your neighbor turns off his oven, then cut it back to minimum at 9:12 when the other neighbor's hot tub heater kicks in. If they have enough information coming from their transformers, they can mange the load in real time.

Note that this is all with the existing hardware - and applicable to all 70k? cars that Tesla has already built. (Not sure about the Roadsters, but every S, X, and 3 could do it.)

Once EVs become a significant piece of the energy needs for a neighborhood, power companies and regulators may be able to use systems like this to reduce the spinning reserve requirements (the amount of excess generation capacity the power company has to keep online, wasting energy, in case all of your neighborhood AC units kick on together.)

Actually supplying grid power from the car requires additional hardware and a lot of control/oversight for safety reasons, but the power company can get huge benefits from simply managing the flow to all the cars dynamically.
Walter

 

[dhrivnak]

We need both PV and electric vehicles to reach a cleaner future. But for me moving to EV's had a bigger impact. We save 12 tons of CO2/year by moving to plug ins. We save another 8 tons by producing our own electricity. Both are needed and can compliment each other.

 

[Topher]

We can dump all existing incentives into whatever the least expensive Carbon cutting measure there is, which at this point probably isn't EVs or renewable generation (I'm thinking tax credits for insulation?), but if we only extend tax credits to the least expensive Carbon cutting measure, then there likely will be little to no improvement in other Carbon cutting measures. My WAG is that subsidies are designed to minimize overall Carbon emissions by investing in many different technologies that can benefit from additional research/testing/mass production. We could only provide tax credits for the most effective form of reducing Carbon emissions, but that's minimizing the cost of cutting emissions, not maximizing the cut in emissions.

Sounds to me like doing it backwards. Tax carbon, reduce other taxes, get rid of all subsidies (except R&D). Let each individual case determine what works best for them. Yes, it will probably start with insulation and air sealing...

Thank you kindly.

 

[SageBrush]

Sounds to me like doing it backwards. Tax carbon, reduce other taxes, get rid of all subsidies (except R&D). Let each individual case determine what works best for them. Yes, it will probably start with insulation and air sealing...

Music to my ears.