Never mind, I see where I missed it. You already accounted for the life-cycle with the 10% replacement number of TOTAL storage. Please ignore.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Never mind, I see where I missed it. You already accounted for the life-cycle with the 10% replacement number of TOTAL storage. Please ignore.
No, I am not trying to make any energy displacement equivalence here. The point is that Mtoe consumption is a proximity for energy demand while GWh production capacity is a proxy for supply. So matching supply and demand geographically amounts to assuming that one is in proportion to the other. It is a weird coincidence that the constant of proportionality is close to 1.
At any rate the whole thing comes down to saying that countries which consume more primary energy today are going to need proportionately more batteries in a post fossil fuel world.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
There are no financial incentives for EVs in Mexico.
Mexico City bans ICEv one work day per week based on license plate numbers but BEVs and HEVs are exempted from this ban. Meaning you can drive your ICEv 4 workdays per week while you can drive your BEV or HEV 5 workdays per week.
All ICEv and HEV older than 14 years are banned from being registered in Mexico City but BEV are exempted. Theory being most Mexicans will not replace batteries on old HEVs to keep their pollution low.
Premium cars(not trucks) in Mexico have 4 markets Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Tijuana. You don't need that many stores to service Mexico's addressable market. Once Tesla is selling a Ford F Series competitor it will need much wider distribution in Mexico.
Mexico's elite summer in Merida Yucatan kinda like The Hamptons and Tesla does plan a store there too.
Last edited:
Senior Republican statesmen propose replacing Obama’s climate policies with a carbon tax
Here's more reporting on the carbon tax and dividend scheme. I expect that Musk has been in the background lobbying for this. Perhaps the content of his call with Pence. But this article does not state Musk's role.
I've also been doing some calculations on what price impact a tax of $40 per tonne CO2 would imply for a family of four would get a dividend of about $2000 per year.
Gasoline E10 (blend with 10% ethanol) emits 8 kg/gal. So the tax would be $0.36/gallon. So a family driving two cars 12k miles/year each @ 25 mpg would pay an incremental $345 per year under this tax. If they have a flex fuel vehicle, they could by blends with higher ethanol content and pay only a fraction of thelectric tax.
Electricity. Coal emits about 0.95 kg/kWh and natural gas 0.55 kg/kWh. So the tax would add $0.038 and $0.022 per kWh respectively. About coal is about 30% of generation and natural gas 34%. Assuming all other is carbon neutral or ignorable, the average tax on retail power would be about $0.019/kWh.
So there are several implication here. First a typical family using 12,000 kWh per year would be hit with a $228 tax. Combining the tax from two gas cars and utility power is aboutique $574 per year. So many families will feel as if they are actually coming out ahead with the $2000 dividend. However, much of the impact of the tax will be embedded inflation in all goods and services. For example the cost of shipping food to the grocery market will impact the price of cabbage, but it should be imperceptibly small to the average consumer.
What about EVs? Suppose that family replaces their two cars with two that use 0.3 kWh/mile. The tax on power for the cars would be about $136 per year. So that alone is just a $210 savings per year on taxes, but that only enhances the saving on fuel before tax. Suppose before tax gas is $2.50/gal and electricity $0.12/kWh. So before tax fueling two gas cars runs $2400, and after tax $2746. Before tax powering two EVs runs $864, and after tax $1001. So savings is clear with or without the tax. So I don't see the tax becoming more than a symbolic impetus for buying an EV. If saving $1536 did not get you before adding another $210 probably won't do it either.
But the tax will have much bigger impact on the power markets directly. Consider that coal power starts at $60/MWh, the tax would bump this up $98/MWh. Meanwhile CCNG starts at $48/MWh and the tax takes it to $68/MWh. So under the carbon tax coal will have a much harder time competing with gas. This much spells more rapid decline of coal. On can see how the oil and gas industry might support throwing coal under the bus this way, but natural gas will have a much tougher time holding ground against wind and solar which according to Lazard start at $32/ MWh and $46/MWh respectively. Gas starring at $68/MWh post tax won't be nearly so competive. Moreover, we are seeing stored solar+battery PPAs reach $110/MWh. These compete with gas peakers starting at $165/MWh pre tax and $187/MWh after tax. Stored solar already looks very good pretax but even better after. Indeed stored solar mixed with unstated solar could easily achieve a blended cost around $80/MWh and provide stable around the clock power. This becomes competitive with coal starting at $98/MWh after tax. Other blends of wind, solar and batteries could even beat CCNG as baseload. So this tax seems to be large enough to directly shifting from coal generation to a blend of wind, solar and batteries. Natural gas would also lose market share. Carbon would be routed from the electrical market pretty fast.
What about rooftop solar? Distributed solar is only competitive in certain states. SolarCity found that could be competitive if they offered a PPA which was $0.03/ kWh cheaper than the utility residential rate. So if the tax added $0.019 to the residential rate, that would make rooftop solar competitive in many more states. Additionally, utilities would be able to source imports from distributed systems as free of a carbon tax. That supports a favorable feed in tariff. So the politics around net metering would shift and become more favorable for distributed energy.
To the extent that utilities move more quickly to reduce emissions or distributed energy becomes more favorable, the carbon tax burden on EVs declines. It was not so bad to begin with, but at least in improves over time. But for ICE vehicles the carbon tax burden becomes worse. An older car gets poorer fuel economy and the tax rate on carbon goes up. This could be a critical factor for getting old gas vehicles off the road at a younger age. The operating costs of an older vehicle subtract against the value of the vehicle. So this carbon tax can hasten the time it takes for operating costs to exceed the value of the vehicle, at which point it is no longer used.
Finally the $2000 carbon dividend is a key provision to make this tax anti-regressive and to assure that consumption does not decline as a consequence of the tax. It properly rewards energy efficiency and reduced carbon consumption. It also gives consumers the option to invest their dividends in things like solar systems, EVs, efficiency upgrades and even investing in carbon reducing companies and projects.
Here's more reporting on the carbon tax and dividend scheme. I expect that Musk has been in the background lobbying for this. Perhaps the content of his call with Pence. But this article does not state Musk's role.
I've also been doing some calculations on what price impact a tax of $40 per tonne CO2 would imply for a family of four would get a dividend of about $2000 per year.
Gasoline E10 (blend with 10% ethanol) emits 8 kg/gal. So the tax would be $0.36/gallon. So a family driving two cars 12k miles/year each @ 25 mpg would pay an incremental $345 per year under this tax. If they have a flex fuel vehicle, they could by blends with higher ethanol content and pay only a fraction of thelectric tax.
Electricity. Coal emits about 0.95 kg/kWh and natural gas 0.55 kg/kWh. So the tax would add $0.038 and $0.022 per kWh respectively. About coal is about 30% of generation and natural gas 34%. Assuming all other is carbon neutral or ignorable, the average tax on retail power would be about $0.019/kWh.
So there are several implication here. First a typical family using 12,000 kWh per year would be hit with a $228 tax. Combining the tax from two gas cars and utility power is aboutique $574 per year. So many families will feel as if they are actually coming out ahead with the $2000 dividend. However, much of the impact of the tax will be embedded inflation in all goods and services. For example the cost of shipping food to the grocery market will impact the price of cabbage, but it should be imperceptibly small to the average consumer.
What about EVs? Suppose that family replaces their two cars with two that use 0.3 kWh/mile. The tax on power for the cars would be about $136 per year. So that alone is just a $210 savings per year on taxes, but that only enhances the saving on fuel before tax. Suppose before tax gas is $2.50/gal and electricity $0.12/kWh. So before tax fueling two gas cars runs $2400, and after tax $2746. Before tax powering two EVs runs $864, and after tax $1001. So savings is clear with or without the tax. So I don't see the tax becoming more than a symbolic impetus for buying an EV. If saving $1536 did not get you before adding another $210 probably won't do it either.
But the tax will have much bigger impact on the power markets directly. Consider that coal power starts at $60/MWh, the tax would bump this up $98/MWh. Meanwhile CCNG starts at $48/MWh and the tax takes it to $68/MWh. So under the carbon tax coal will have a much harder time competing with gas. This much spells more rapid decline of coal. On can see how the oil and gas industry might support throwing coal under the bus this way, but natural gas will have a much tougher time holding ground against wind and solar which according to Lazard start at $32/ MWh and $46/MWh respectively. Gas starring at $68/MWh post tax won't be nearly so competive. Moreover, we are seeing stored solar+battery PPAs reach $110/MWh. These compete with gas peakers starting at $165/MWh pre tax and $187/MWh after tax. Stored solar already looks very good pretax but even better after. Indeed stored solar mixed with unstated solar could easily achieve a blended cost around $80/MWh and provide stable around the clock power. This becomes competitive with coal starting at $98/MWh after tax. Other blends of wind, solar and batteries could even beat CCNG as baseload. So this tax seems to be large enough to directly shifting from coal generation to a blend of wind, solar and batteries. Natural gas would also lose market share. Carbon would be routed from the electrical market pretty fast.
What about rooftop solar? Distributed solar is only competitive in certain states. SolarCity found that could be competitive if they offered a PPA which was $0.03/ kWh cheaper than the utility residential rate. So if the tax added $0.019 to the residential rate, that would make rooftop solar competitive in many more states. Additionally, utilities would be able to source imports from distributed systems as free of a carbon tax. That supports a favorable feed in tariff. So the politics around net metering would shift and become more favorable for distributed energy.
To the extent that utilities move more quickly to reduce emissions or distributed energy becomes more favorable, the carbon tax burden on EVs declines. It was not so bad to begin with, but at least in improves over time. But for ICE vehicles the carbon tax burden becomes worse. An older car gets poorer fuel economy and the tax rate on carbon goes up. This could be a critical factor for getting old gas vehicles off the road at a younger age. The operating costs of an older vehicle subtract against the value of the vehicle. So this carbon tax can hasten the time it takes for operating costs to exceed the value of the vehicle, at which point it is no longer used.
Finally the $2000 carbon dividend is a key provision to make this tax anti-regressive and to assure that consumption does not decline as a consequence of the tax. It properly rewards energy efficiency and reduced carbon consumption. It also gives consumers the option to invest their dividends in things like solar systems, EVs, efficiency upgrades and even investing in carbon reducing companies and projects.
Well, there seems to be a discrepancy with this admin as they think "clean coal" is clean and want to revitalize the industry.......hahahaha.
Sean Spicer just said that coal would be 'one of the cleanest technologies we have'
"
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that the US would produce "clean coal" and that rolling back regulations from coal plants would be done in a way that was "environmentally friendly".
He added: "And the President’s point, is that as we bring back this industry is that we can do it in a way that is environmentally friendly and it becomes a great and greater energy source."
"
It'll take a lot of miners to put all that coal back
Spicer has zero credibility. That said, the only way, I can think of, to rollback regulations on coal while cleaning it up is to tax the hell out of it. Looking just at emission, if the carbon tax is high enough, it becomes cost effective to retrofit plant with CCS. This cuts emission by 90%.
So what we need to know is the of CCS per MWh. Once the carbon tax exceeds this cost of CCS, then things shift around between natural gas and coal. Anybody got info on this?
So what we need to know is the of CCS per MWh. Once the carbon tax exceeds this cost of CCS, then things shift around between natural gas and coal. Anybody got info on this?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41325.pdf
This provides some useful background on CCS. The cost of CO2 avoidance using CCS is in range of $60/t. So a tax of $40/t may be inadequate to spur use of CCS.
Note that carbon capture use a lot of energy for compression, cooling, etc. So 25% to 40% more energy must be produced from fossil fuel per net energy produced. Net energy is what is available to the grid to distribute. Also consider that making coal plants less efficient means more mining and transport of coal per net generation. So all the environmental impacts upstream of carbon emission become intensified.
So here is the basic tradeoff. If Congress mandated that all fossil fuel plants had to use CCS is would be comparable to adding some $60 per CO2 tonne in cost. OTOH, a tax of $40/t without CCS mandate is a lower cost of compliance. This allows fossil generators to keep competing with renewables. Either way, renewables gain market share against fossils. Clearly, the carbon tax is preferable to a CCS mandate. It is cheaper to begin with and allows for more flexible alternatives. But will it be enough to actually accelerate transition to zero emissions?
This provides some useful background on CCS. The cost of CO2 avoidance using CCS is in range of $60/t. So a tax of $40/t may be inadequate to spur use of CCS.
Note that carbon capture use a lot of energy for compression, cooling, etc. So 25% to 40% more energy must be produced from fossil fuel per net energy produced. Net energy is what is available to the grid to distribute. Also consider that making coal plants less efficient means more mining and transport of coal per net generation. So all the environmental impacts upstream of carbon emission become intensified.
So here is the basic tradeoff. If Congress mandated that all fossil fuel plants had to use CCS is would be comparable to adding some $60 per CO2 tonne in cost. OTOH, a tax of $40/t without CCS mandate is a lower cost of compliance. This allows fossil generators to keep competing with renewables. Either way, renewables gain market share against fossils. Clearly, the carbon tax is preferable to a CCS mandate. It is cheaper to begin with and allows for more flexible alternatives. But will it be enough to actually accelerate transition to zero emissions?
Bangor Bob
Member
California Utilities Propose Spending $1 Billion To Electrify Transportation Sector
California utilities want to get in on energizing commercial transportation. I'm not so sure that residential ratepayers should be billed for this, but it is good for the utilities to try to expanding into transportation.
BTW, I do suspect that the economics of CCS are a hopeless case. It is just so much cheaper both in terms of dollars and units of energy to generated renewable energy than to run CCS. The really scary thing is how do we pay for negative emissions to clean up this mess?
California utilities want to get in on energizing commercial transportation. I'm not so sure that residential ratepayers should be billed for this, but it is good for the utilities to try to expanding into transportation.
Not sure, whether it stays down there would seem to depend on the geology. The bigger issue, however, is demand for crude. A carbon tax can help curb demand for crude, while mandated CCS does nothing to halt crude.
BTW, I do suspect that the economics of CCS are a hopeless case. It is just so much cheaper both in terms of dollars and units of energy to generated renewable energy than to run CCS. The really scary thing is how do we pay for negative emissions to clean up this mess?
adiggs
Well-Known Member
One way we pay for negative emissions will be the future energy economy, where instead of producing approximately exactly as much energy as we need, we are overproducing (solar, wind, renewables) at some times of the day / year, in really large quantities. We'll need to overproduce on the really good days, so we have enough on the moderately bad days.
It only works when the cost of solar and wind gets really cheap compared to now, but in that new economy with periodic and huge surpluses of power, an obvious thing to do with the surplus is to run energy intensive industrial processes that have a reasonable ability to be stopped and started.
The two that come to mind for me are water desalinization, and carbon capture and sequestration.
The key mental model about energy that I expect to change before 2100, is that our economy's energy system needs to produce moment to moment, day to day, approximately as much energy as we use. Instead, we'll start having, more and more, a system that is adequate all the time, and in achieving adequacy all of the time, we will have gargantuan surpluses some of the time (I'm thinking afternoons on a sunny day with a lot of solar installed).
What do we do with free energy?
CCS might not be hopeless economically, but it might be decades away instead of years
(And yes, I also see that it might always be hopeless).
It only works when the cost of solar and wind gets really cheap compared to now, but in that new economy with periodic and huge surpluses of power, an obvious thing to do with the surplus is to run energy intensive industrial processes that have a reasonable ability to be stopped and started.
The two that come to mind for me are water desalinization, and carbon capture and sequestration.
The key mental model about energy that I expect to change before 2100, is that our economy's energy system needs to produce moment to moment, day to day, approximately as much energy as we use. Instead, we'll start having, more and more, a system that is adequate all the time, and in achieving adequacy all of the time, we will have gargantuan surpluses some of the time (I'm thinking afternoons on a sunny day with a lot of solar installed).
What do we do with free energy?
CCS might not be hopeless economically, but it might be decades away instead of years
(And yes, I also see that it might always be hopeless).Solarplaza Top 25 US utility-scale PV project owners
2016, saw 8.5 GW dc of utility solar added in USA a 70% increase
half of that 4.7 GWdc was to be added in the final quarter (q4)
this trend has several implications for natural gas and rooftop solar.
natural gas will be pressured, unless coal is penalized, gas power will be phased out (due to export value), so it is in the oil and gas industry benefit to support a carbon tax. (just enough to put coal power more expensive than gas)
rooftop solar will be pressured, just as my double off peak rate has moved to midday, USA off peak will also slide to midday, can anyone say that 5 cents is a fair price for solar? because it is when utility solar co-ordinates the electricity system.
2016, saw 8.5 GW dc of utility solar added in USA a 70% increase
half of that 4.7 GWdc was to be added in the final quarter (q4)
this trend has several implications for natural gas and rooftop solar.
natural gas will be pressured, unless coal is penalized, gas power will be phased out (due to export value), so it is in the oil and gas industry benefit to support a carbon tax. (just enough to put coal power more expensive than gas)
rooftop solar will be pressured, just as my double off peak rate has moved to midday, USA off peak will also slide to midday, can anyone say that 5 cents is a fair price for solar? because it is when utility solar co-ordinates the electricity system.
Even if you have surplus power at no cost, it still takes capital to to do CCS. I'm afraid that ultimately the costs of clean up will fall on the taxpayers of the world. In that way, so-called carbon dividend is just a form of national debt that future taxpayers will have to repay. Oh, well, what's new?One way we pay for negative emissions will be the future energy economy, where instead of producing approximately exactly as much energy as we need, we are overproducing (solar, wind, renewables) at some times of the day / year, in really large quantities. We'll need to overproduce on the really good days, so we have enough on the moderately bad days.
It only works when the cost of solar and wind gets really cheap compared to now, but in that new economy with periodic and huge surpluses of power, an obvious thing to do with the surplus is to run energy intensive industrial processes that have a reasonable ability to be stopped and started.
The two that come to mind for me are water desalinization, and carbon capture and sequestration.
The key mental model about energy that I expect to change before 2100, is that our economy's energy system needs to produce moment to moment, day to day, approximately as much energy as we use. Instead, we'll start having, more and more, a system that is adequate all the time, and in achieving adequacy all of the time, we will have gargantuan surpluses some of the time (I'm thinking afternoons on a sunny day with a lot of solar installed).
What do we do with free energy?
CCS might not be hopeless economically, but it might be decades away instead of years
I do think that the concept of surplus renewable energy is curious. It seems to me that it is symptomatic of a lack of storage.
There was also 8.2 GW of wind, most of which went online in Q4. One wonders if this could be a surprise to gas producers. This is enough to offset 44 TWh/year of thermal generation. The US generates about 4000TWh per year. So we are talking about 1.1% market share shifting to renewables.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
I will freely admit to a book, Ecotopica, I read many decades ago influencing my thinking. Lots about that book that doesn't really apply, but the idea of energy production that is outsized relative to currently identified need, is something that I do see coming into being (though for different reasons). In the book, solar comes to a portion of the world in the form of an invention that is 'open sourced' (modern term - given away, book term), in a recipe that anybody can make at home, and is wildly more efficient than what we have available today. So cheap, you paint the walls of your house and roof with it, cuz - why not?
Callenbach [the author] said of the story, in relation to Americans: “It is so hard to imagine anything fundamentally different from what we have now. But without these alternate visions, we get stuck on dead center. And we’d better get ready. We need to know where we’d like to go.”[2]
Awesome book if you can find a copy - unlike most utopian stories, it's got a plot and some drama, and quite enjoyable
Anyway, the fundamental difference I see coming in my lifetime (between now and 2100 - I'm unlikely to get to 2100
), are renewables with a low enough capital cost to install (think solar roofing cheap enough that the energy produced is free, relative to putting a roof on your house), that we've got it everywhere.Further, we have a new mental model where as long as solar can't produce everything we need for about 10 months of the year (cloudy days, shorter days, etc.. - even I have a hard time imagining enough solar in Portland, OR to get through the shortest and rainiest days of the year
), then there's room for more solar. The marginal value is nearly 0, but the cost is even lower, so why not?And in that new mental model of energy, we have plenty of energy for what we think of today as our economy and activity. And we have lots more, on an intermittent basis, to do new 'stuff' (windy days, long sunny days).
What i saw in the article about CCS is that the pilots and research are focused on reducing the cost, not improving the efficiency, of the process. It's a high energy process and it's highly efficient. I couldn't tell if that high cost was because of high energy, but if it's high energy cost.
Clearly there is also a lot of storage. But relative to the volume of sunshine hitting the planet's surface, I'm expecting the existing duck curve to get more and more dramatic until we have periods in the day where all power sources except solar can be crowded out FASTER than storage can be built up.
Part of this - storage can be built up quickly for time shifting solar production at the scale of days. Storage at a scale necessary to time shift solar on the scale of seasons is multiple of orders of magnitude more expensive to do.
Doesn't make me right. And it's not really a thought that leads to a change in behavior today of any kind. But may lead to new behaviors down the line.
I suppose there are four potential things to with surplus solar: use it with demand response, transmit it to another market, store it, and curtail it. The first three generally require some sort of investment. Using it requires some really flexible need so CCS could apply here so long as idling when power is costly does not entail poor utilization of capital. But also little things like a defrost cycle in refrigerator could be kicked off at times of surplus. Transmission is the option utilities seem most fond of, but they are capital intensive which makes poor utilization a problem. Also when one region has too much sun, the neighboring region likely does too. Storage also has high capital and utilization issues. But seeking out cheapest power per day puts a pretty good floor on prices. Charging EVs is a nice low capital option. To deal with seasonal oversupply and under supply, we need some sort of storage that is extremely cheap per kWh capacity, but may be more costly per cycle, something that can be cost effective just cycling once per year. Syngas and hydrogen come to mind. And finally there is the low capital solution of simply curtailing power. It will be interesting how this all plays out. I suspect there is a lot of room for creativity. Indeed a fifth option is just to play with it.I will freely admit to a book, Ecotopica, I read many decades ago influencing my thinking. Lots about that book that doesn't really apply, but the idea of energy production that is outsized relative to currently identified need, is something that I do see coming into being (though for different reasons). In the book, solar comes to a portion of the world in the form of an invention that is 'open sourced' (modern term - given away, book term), in a recipe that anybody can make at home, and is wildly more efficient than what we have available today. So cheap, you paint the walls of your house and roof with it, cuz - why not?
Callenbach [the author] said of the story, in relation to Americans: “It is so hard to imagine anything fundamentally different from what we have now. But without these alternate visions, we get stuck on dead center. And we’d better get ready. We need to know where we’d like to go.”[2]
Awesome book if you can find a copy - unlike most utopian stories, it's got a plot and some drama, and quite enjoyable
Anyway, the fundamental difference I see coming in my lifetime (between now and 2100 - I'm unlikely to get to 2100
Further, we have a new mental model where as long as solar can't produce everything we need for about 10 months of the year (cloudy days, shorter days, etc.. - even I have a hard time imagining enough solar in Portland, OR to get through the shortest and rainiest days of the year
And in that new mental model of energy, we have plenty of energy for what we think of today as our economy and activity. And we have lots more, on an intermittent basis, to do new 'stuff' (windy days, long sunny days).
What i saw in the article about CCS is that the pilots and research are focused on reducing the cost, not improving the efficiency, of the process. It's a high energy process and it's highly efficient. I couldn't tell if that high cost was because of high energy, but if it's high energy cost.
Clearly there is also a lot of storage. But relative to the volume of sunshine hitting the planet's surface, I'm expecting the existing duck curve to get more and more dramatic until we have periods in the day where all power sources except solar can be crowded out FASTER than storage can be built up.
Part of this - storage can be built up quickly for time shifting solar production at the scale of days. Storage at a scale necessary to time shift solar on the scale of seasons is multiple of orders of magnitude more expensive to do.
Doesn't make me right. And it's not really a thought that leads to a change in behavior today of any kind. But may lead to new behaviors down the line.
Oh, yeah, there's also bitcoin mining. Come to think of it, block chain mining creates a market for the lowest cost power anywhere in the world at a particular time. I guess this would fall under the use it category, but this use is pretty special because it links up with competitive markets that create cryptocurrency. One literally transforms cheap power into money through the Internet.
"My Powerwalls are full. Come over and I'll turn on the Jacob's Ladder spark machine!"
'It's in the paint' - a motto of mine for a long time; Note: not just house paint- cars are painted too
Awesome book if you can find a copy - unlike most utopian stories, it's got a plot and some drama, and quite enjoyable
Amazon.com: Ecotopia (9780553348477): Ernest Callenbach: Books
Anyway, the fundamental difference I see coming in my lifetime (between now and 2100 - I'm unlikely to get to 2100
gonna happen and faster than current thinking imo - a number of lab technologies forming in the wings; including super-cap
great post - thanks
Similar threads
