Is electric really better?

[LindsayNB]

Thanks for the link Eniac, that was interesting reading. The conclusion seemed to be that inefficiencies in refining resulted in 7.5kWh of energy being lost but the actual electricity used was less than 1kWh.

I don't know what method they use to calculate the energy of the crude going into the refinery, it would be an interesting number to know how much electricity you could generate if you ran an electrical generation plant with crude as the input.

And thanks Adrian for that link, those tables are informative. The tables base their electricity numbers on California's mix of fuel sources for generation, are those not better than the national average wrt coal?

Another aspect of the question that perhaps someone has some data for is whether the mix differs significantly for peak and off-peak generation. If the amount of fossil fuel generated electricity is significantly lower non-peak then the numbers might be even better when recharging overnight.

 

[DaveEV]

Another aspect of the question that perhaps someone has some data for is whether the mix differs significantly for peak and off-peak generation. If the amount of fossil fuel generated electricity is significantly lower non-peak then the numbers might be even better when recharging overnight.

Carbon intensity in CA definitely goes down during off-peak.

Have a look at the CAISO status page: http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

Specifically the last day's Renewables Watch PDF: http://www.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf

You can see that during off-peak times, thermal plants (primarily natural gas in CA) and imports (not sure the makeup, but I know it's a decent amount of coal from out-of-state) are up while nuclear, renewables and hydro are more or less steady. They do tend to ramp up hydro a bit during peak times, but nuclear is steady state and renewables are mostly steady state (with wind and solar being intermittent but run at 100%).

Note that the Renewables Watch doesn't include a lot of solar PV. There is about 800 MW of PV installed, but this isn't reflected on the renewables watch as it isn't metered in real time.

 

[hill]

Another aspect of the question that perhaps someone has some data for is whether the mix differs significantly for peak and off-peak generation. If the amount of fossil fuel generated electricity is significantly lower non-peak then the numbers might be even better when recharging overnight.

Carbon intensity in CA definitely goes down during off-peak.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . snip

don't wana sound like devil's advocate here, but yes, CA has numerous clean(er) sources of generation here. But don't forget, a good hunk of our power is imported (hypocritically) from other states too. I remember AZ building another COAL powered electric plant, knowing they'll make good money on our green/fake/smugness. Don't know what % it'll provide or if it's completed, but it's something to consider. Coal furnaces belch their carbon 24hrs a day ... regardless of draw. I'm not worried about the carbon anyway ... because the topic of carbon gets too divisive. It's the "acknowledged by all" toxins that bother me.

Maybe he missed the thread that showed about 45% of people on this forum will be charging with photovoltaic, and a significant other percentage paying their utility (if it isn't already provided) for renewable energy. Also, the cost per watt of PV continues to drop.

Nope. I ignored it. It's meaningless. Just because a % of the people who POST more (NOT the total folks registered here) more frequently on mnl, does NOT equate to the other 75 - 90% of people getting a leaf having PV. Wish it were true though.

 

[DaveEV]

I remember AZ building another COAL powered electric plant, knowing they'll make good money on our green/fake/smugness.

Actually - the latest news I've heard is that LADWP and SCE for example are divesting their interest in coal plants. Not investing.

I find it hard to believe that any utilities are investing in coal as SB 1368 prohibits California utilities from making new long-term commitments to generating facilities that do not meet legal emissions performance standards.

 

[Stoaty]

Actually - the latest news I've heard is that LADWP and SCE for example are divesting their interest in coal plants. Not investing.

Yup. Here is info for LA DWP for 2010:

--Coal is down to 39% of power
--DWP achieved the goal of 20% renewable energy (technically, they got to 19.7%)
--Half of the renewable energy is wind; 30% is small hydroelectric
--DWP will divest itself of power from the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona by 2014, which will reduce carbon emissions by an additional 26%

Here is the link:

http://www.globe-net.com/articles/2011/january/22/los-angeles-achieves-20-percent-renewable-energy-target.aspx?sub=

I believe they still have a goal to get off coal by 2020, and to increase renewable energy to 35% by that date.

 

[hill]

--Coal is down to 39% of power
--DWP achieved the goal of 20% renewable energy (technically, they got to 19.7%)
--Half of the renewable energy is wind; 30% is small hydroelectric
--DWP will divest itself of power from the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona by 2014, which will reduce carbon emissions by an additional 26%

Here is the link:

http://www.globe-net.com/articles/2011/january/22/los-angeles-achieves-20-percent-renewable-energy-target.aspx?sub=

I believe they still have a goal to get off coal by 2020, and to increase renewable energy to 35% by that date.

Well good !! Very glad to hear it.

 

[LEAFfan]

Nope. I ignored it. It's meaningless. Just because a % of the people who POST more (NOT the total folks registered here) more frequently on mnl, does NOT equate to the other 75 - 90% of people getting a leaf having PV. Wish it were true though.

Then perhaps the title of this thread should be changed because the way it is worded now, the question is just plain silly since I'll be charging during the DAY during off-peak times. Maybe change it to: Is Electric Really Better in CA? My LEAF will have direct solar energy. :mrgreen: All the discussion about 'coal plants', etc. is moot for me and many others. With the utility rebates shrinking, more people will be purchasing PVs. But in CA, I realize they don't have the super utility and state rebates we have. My system cost me less than $5K out of pocket with a payoff in less than five years.

 

[rainnw]

from the Caiso link above, i see that 2.44MW of solar have been generated at midnight. Is this moon power?

 

[DaveEV]

from the Caiso link above, i see that 2.44MW of solar have been generated at midnight. Is this moon power?

Good question. It's either a result of thermal storage or the plant has some small amount of gas pumped in to keep the plant humming... Hard to know for sure...

 

[Yodrak]

--DWP will divest itself of power from the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona by 2014, which will reduce carbon emissions by an additional 26%.

No, the divestiture won't reduce carbon emissions by any amount. It will reduce the carbon emissions attributable to the LADWP, but the plant will keep generating selling LADWP's former share of the power to someone else. The carbon will continue to come out of the stacks as long as the plant operates, regardless of who owns it.

 

[TomT]

Exactly! All it does is raise the cost of power for LADWP customers... The plant (as with all plants) will continue to operate until it is no longer economically feasible regardless of who it is selling its power to...

--DWP will divest itself of power from the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona by 2014, which will reduce carbon emissions by an additional 26%.

No, the divestiture won't reduce carbon emissions by any amount. It will reduce the carbon emissions attributable to the LADWP, but the plant will keep generating selling LADWP's former share of the power to someone else. The carbon will continue to come out of the stacks as long as the plant operates, regardless of who owns it.

 

[davewill]

--DWP will divest itself of power from the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona by 2014, which will reduce carbon emissions by an additional 26%.

No, the divestiture won't reduce carbon emissions by any amount. It will reduce the carbon emissions attributable to the LADWP, but the plant will keep generating selling LADWP's former share of the power to someone else. The carbon will continue to come out of the stacks as long as the plant operates, regardless of who owns it.

Very, very shortsighted way to look at it. This is the kind of thinking that is making the planet more unlivable all the time. Getting utilities to divest these dirty plants helps keep more from being built. Eventually, they get retired. This is the way to do it. There is no way to simply close them. It's a process.

 

[Yodrak]

Not short sighted - realistic. This is what happens, change of ownership is not change of operation. Southern California's air, the southwest regions air, will not be one bit cleaner just because LADWP no longer owns a piece of an operating power plant.

True, the plants will eventually be retired, to be replaced by something else. Whatever that something else is, it will be cleaner. Already many of the oldest, smallest, coal-fired plants around the country are being lined up for retirement because it's not economic to make newly required pollution control upgrades. And plans for new coal-fired plants around the country are being scaled back. So things are moving in the right direction.

But making false claims does not make anything better.

--DWP will divest itself of power from the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona by 2014, which will reduce carbon emissions by an additional 26%.

No, the divestiture won't reduce carbon emissions by any amount. It will reduce the carbon emissions attributable to the LADWP, but the plant will keep generating selling LADWP's former share of the power to someone else. The carbon will continue to come out of the stacks as long as the plant operates, regardless of who owns it.

Very, very shortsighted way to look at it. This is the kind of thinking that is making the planet more unlivable all the time. Getting utilities to divest these dirty plants helps keep more from being built. Eventually, they get retired. This is the way to do it. There is no way to simply close them. It's a process.

 

[davewill]

Not short sighted - realistic. This is what happens, change of ownership is not change of operation...

Short-sighted. Your "realism" would have every utility continue to buy the cheapest power available regardless of source...lengthening the lifespan of dirty plants. No thanks.

 

[DaveEV]

Exactly! All it does is raise the cost of power for LADWP customers... The plant (as with all plants) will continue to operate until it is no longer economically feasible regardless of who it is selling its power to...

Wait - so this shiny new LEAF in my garage doesn't do anything but raise the cost of driving for me since my old Subaru continues to be driven on San Diego streets? After all - it will operate (as will all our old gas-burners) until it's no longer economically feasible...

 

[jwatte]

A *lot* of oil and coal goes into the production of oil and coal these days. Canadian tar sands may require as much as a barrel of oil's worth of input to generate a barrel and a half's worth of output. Thus, the amount of gas that goes into a gas car is a lot more than the MPG would indicate.

Electric cars are significantly more energy efficient than gas cars. Building a super-efficient turbine to power/charge a battery rather than drive the wheels would give you a car with twice the mileage of the equivalent gas-only car (* IIRC, heard from a guy who formerly did engineering at Tesla).

Then we get to alternative energy. We can generate electricity from waves, solar, wind and hydro. Each kWh generated this way saves up to 3 kWh of burning coal/oil, because of the above inefficiencies (comparing to Canadian tar sands -- but even light/sweet/crude on a tanker has significant overhead -- and then there's cracking overhead in the refineries). Solar is now at the point where it's largely cost effective across the country, from California through Florida. Not so much in Washington State or North Dakota, perhaps. We really are at a tipping point, and going electric now is not only more efficient and (for many) cheaper, but also helps cross the tipping point sooner, which for some of us is worth something, too!

 

[Stoaty]

Not short sighted - realistic. This is what happens, change of ownership is not change of operation. Southern California's air, the southwest regions air, will not be one bit cleaner just because LADWP no longer owns a piece of an operating power plant.

The DWP can only determine who they contract with, not whether a plant will be shut down or be retired early. Still, if all utilities decide that they don't want to purchase coal-fired electricity, that plant will be out of business... or will have to convert to natural gas, which probably isn't any better from a climate standpoint, but is a lot better in terms of other pollutants like mercury. Of course it is going to take decades to make this change. So, will it make an immediate difference? Of course not. Will it influence the building of new power plants and utilization of current ones? To some degree, but likely slowly over time.

 

[Herm]

California is doing a lot of weird things to meet its renewable power goals, last I heard they were buying wind power from BC, Canada and not actually taking delivery because its too far away.. but they take the credits and claim a certain percentage of the power is from renewable sources.. apparently you guys dont mind paying for all that stuff.

 

[Bassman]

I'd like to see a CO2 comparison, a gallon of gas burned in the average American car vs. CO2 emmisions from power plants, equal to producing an electric charge that will propel the car as far as an average gallon of gas.

Let's talk about cost:

The cost per gallon equivalent of an electric charge in America, on average, is about $1.50 Given an average driving distance of about 20 K miles a year, that represents a $320 fuel savings per year, at current gas prices. That's not a huge savings.... especially when this car could cost $10-$20K more than a Honda Civic. Take that $10K extra, divide by $320 savings a year, and you'd have to drive the car for 30 years to make your money back.

Yes, we all love earth, but with numbers like that it's real tough to get buy-in from consumers, and ultimately, it's consumers that will decide whether or not the Nissan Leaf thrives or dies.

Where are you getting your costs? If you are going to do a comparison do it correctly. At 20,000 miles per year, the cost to operate a LEAF is 20,000/80miles/charge(at highway speed of 55 mph) X $1.50 = Annual cost of $375.00

Now gas at 30 mpg = 20000/30 X $3.80/gallon (California Price) = An annual cost of $2,533.33 Therefore the savings is $2,158.33 per year, which means a payback in less than 5 years not 30 years. And this doesn't take into consideration virtually no maintenance costs. No oil changes, no tune ups and no transmission service. I save even more, as I commute 24,000 miles per year, charge free at work and my monthly bill for electricity is about $20.00 using the PG&E EV-9B rate, which averages about $0.07/KWh (Chargeing during Super Off Peak).

What about battery replacement you say? If your leasing there isn't one. If you bought, like I did, estimates for the battery cost in 8 years (the warranty timeframe) suggest about $5000 to $6000 with an exchange and assuming a significant reduction in cost due to scaling, which would add another roughly $750/year cost, which is pretty close to the cost for annual maintenance for an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) car (oil changes, air filters, tune ups and transmission services). EVs are very inexpensive to operate compared to an ICE car.

 

[AndyH]

California is doing a lot of weird things to meet its renewable power goals, last I heard they were buying wind power from BC, Canada and not actually taking delivery because its too far away.. but they take the credits and claim a certain percentage of the power is from renewable sources.. apparently you guys dont mind paying for all that stuff.

I'm not sure buying renewable energy credits is the same as buying wind. Help me out please?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ifornia-supports-wind-projects-in-canada.html