Is electric really better?

[DaveEV]

You have any links on lithium manganese spinel cycle life?.. from what I have seen life is 1000-1500 cycles.

Try this one which seems to be relevant to Enerdel batteries:

http://www.autonomie.net/docs/6%20-%20Papers/HEVs%20&%20PHEVs/Component%20Technologies/advanced_lithium-ion_batteries.pdf

Have a Lithium-Manganese Spinel/Lithium-Titanate Cell battery there cycled 2300 times at 55*C, 5C charge/discharge, 100% DOD with no apparent capacity loss. Very impressive. Also very efficient at high discharge rates - the battery provided 97% of the energy at a 50C discharge rate when compared to a 1C discharge rate. That would be discharging the battery in just over a minute.

 

[AndyH]

Those NMC cells from Kokam look very interesting with their 3000 100% DOD cycle life, that beats Toshibas lithuym titanate at a high DOD usage.

You have any links on lithium manganese spinel cycle life?.. from what I have seen life is 1000-1500 cycles.

I've posted a link on here somewhere in the early days from a Canadian company...just have to remember what/where/when, give or take.

Ok - the eMoli cells are one option:
http://www.molicel.com/hq/download/DM/DM_IBR26700A.pdf

And EIG: http://www.eigbattery.com/eng/product/3.jpg

Both of these are fairly old-tech and vanilla LiMn2O4. I haven't used either, but the eMoli cells have an excellent reputation in power tools and electric bicycle service. But yes - about 1000 cycles, give or take.

drees' Enerdel info is likely to be more representative of the course automotive cells are taking.

 

[Nekota]

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 don't mind paying for all that stuff.

Well, I do mind paying for all this stuff which basically makes PV cost effective when you use more than a set level of energy determined by some unknown political process for a set KWHr/month from PG&E. Adding the LEAF tips my power consumption so many of those extra 300 KWHr added by the LEAF are from the 0.30 , 0.49 and 0.53 price points which go to pay for those credits.

 

[rwherrick]

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 don't mind paying for all that stuff.

Well, I do mind paying for all this stuff which basically makes PV cost effective when you use more than a set level of energy determined by some unknown political process for a set KWHr/month from PG&E. Adding the LEAF tips my power consumption so many of those extra 300 KWHr added by the LEAF are from the 0.30 , 0.49 and 0.53 price points which go to pay for those credits.

Nekota,
You really need to change over to the E-9 rates that PG&E says are mandatory for EV owners, and stop paying tier 5 rates. http://www.pge.com/about/environment/pge/electricvehicles/fuelrates/index.shtml. While I sent the paperwork in right away, PG&E lost it, and my first month's bill was $30 more than normal. After switching over, my next month's bill was $10 less than normal, since we've shifted a lot of our usage of the drier and all of our charging to the off-peak rate window. You also need to set up the timer to charge from midnight to 7am. My average cost for electricity to charge the car was around 8 cents per kWh in the off-peak slot (which is where most of my car charging takes place.)

In terms of the overall question posed, I have found it very difficult to get information on just how much electricity generated during the small hours of the night would ordinarily go to waste. An employee of Illinois Power once told me that they sent a billion dollars of electricity into the ground at night, because they couldn't ramp coal-fired plants up and down that quickly. I don't know if they're still doing that or not. If they were, the electricity being used by EVs charging at night shouldn't count the same as the electricity being consumed during peak periods. But at least here in California, given the efficiency of electric generation in terms of emission per mile driven, the Leaf is the equivalent of a 105 mpg car. In Indiana, it's said to be more like a Prius. I still would rather use coal - a fuel we have hundreds of years of reserves for - than send $1.5B per day overseas to petro-dictators, as we currently are to fund our oil habit.

- Bob

- Bob

 

[Caracalover]

Call me crazy, but with all the electric vehicle hype these days, has anyone considered that the electricity still has to be produced?

In the Pacific West (which is the only place I can speak of with knowledge) electricity is generated with Hydro power, rivers, dams, turbines.

But from what I understand, that isn't commonplace around North America, let alone the world.

How much CO2 does a coal burning plant, garbage burning plant etc produce while making electricity?

Ok, you are crazy.

Oil refinery is the second biggest source of CO2 gas (Coal is #1). But oil refined still has to be delivered to the local gas station (where the tanks often pollute the ground water), and you can put it into a vehicle gas tank using electricity (From coal fired plants) to power the pump. So without question electric powered vehicles are cleaner than those that use gasoline, diesel, or even natural gas.

Just the carbon footprint of the delivery system for these other products kills the arguments made for them by those that don't want to change the way they do things.

Add the extra oil burned to lubricate an ICE, and the numbers just get better for the battery powered car. NOt to mention the belts that are not needed, the heat produced, etc. etc. Do you really think that having several billion heat generators driving around doesn't warm the atmosphere at all? Just the temperature of the operating systems should be a clue. I would say it isn't physics, but it is.

 

[rwherrick]

Call me crazy, but with all the electric vehicle hype these days, has anyone considered that the electricity still has to be produced?

In the Pacific West (which is the only place I can speak of with knowledge) electricity is generated with Hydro power, rivers, dams, turbines.

But from what I understand, that isn't commonplace around North America, let alone the world.

How much CO2 does a coal burning plant, garbage burning plant etc produce while making electricity?

Ok, you are crazy.

Oil refinery is the second biggest source of CO2 gas (Coal is #1). But oil refined still has to be delivered to the local gas station (where the tanks often pollute the ground water), and you can put it into a vehicle gas tank using electricity (From coal fired plants) to power the pump. So without question electric powered vehicles are cleaner than those that use gasoline, diesel, or even natural gas.

Just the carbon footprint of the delivery system for these other products kills the arguments made for them by those that don't want to change the way they do things.

Add the extra oil burned to lubricate an ICE, and the numbers just get better for the battery powered car. NOt to mention the belts that are not needed, the heat produced, etc. etc. Do you really think that having several billion heat generators driving around doesn't warm the atmosphere at all? Just the temperature of the operating systems should be a clue. I would say it isn't physics, but it is.

I think you're onto something valid here. My understanding is that one of the main reasons that the electric car is more efficient is that large powerplants have efficient ways of recovering waste heat, and capturing the energy from it. Cars don't; it just gets thrown away, dispersed out the radiator.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Ok, you are crazy.

Oil refinery is the second biggest source of CO2 gas (Coal is #1).

your statement is as true as it is misleading. Cattle Farming is said to produce more detrimental effects to GCC than both of those combined. it ranks in the "top 3" for GHG emmissions (there is a debate as to what they actually produce but evidence is mounting against the practice) including up to 40% of methane emissions and that is only the beginning.

want to talk efficiency? an Abrams Tank is more efficient that raising Cattle where each calorie produced from Beef needs 54 calories


either way, this is not to steal from your thunder. it is to illustrate that we can not discount options for their seemingly insignificant contribution to our bottom line simply because we are way too far away from our goals and baby steps are better than no steps at all.

it will take decades at our current pace to begin to make a dent. now you can say what you want about the current state of our countries weather issues, but we have not got the time to debate the right thing to do. we need to just start doing it

 

[Yodrak]

Without getting too far into, let alone agreeing on, what the "externalities associated with coal" are, I agree completely that including the externalities will increase the cost of electricity produced by coal fired power plants. That has been happening since the 1960s and continues today as what were originally coal-fired plants are converted to other more expensive fossil fuels, retrofitted with improved combustion processes and stack gas cleanup equipment, or retired because making the aforementioned changes is uneconomic.

As for portfolio standards, setting them is easy for politicians but meeting them is another story. I don't know about California, but in some states that have such standards they are goals, not requirements, and some states have been relaxing their goals as it becomes clear that they are unattainable in the timeframes originally established.

That is why I am so pleased that California has increased the Renewable Portfolio Standard to 33% for 2020. If other states follow suit, those coal plants are going to fall on hard times. The externalities associated with coal would make it uneconomic if the utility had to bear the cost.

True. But a utility cannot make that decision except on the basis of cost. Cost of service is the bottom line with all state utility commission except to the extent that the commission, or state law, imposes additional requirements that force the utility to spend more.

 

[Stoaty]

As for portfolio standards, setting them is easy for politicians but meeting them is another story. I don't know about California, but in some states that have such standards they are goals, not requirements, and some states have been relaxing their goals as it becomes clear that they are unattainable in the timeframes originally established.

The Los Angeles DWP met the 2010 standard of 20% renewables on time. They are planning to meet the 2020 standards, and to be off coal by then as well. I am sure that plenty of people said the standards couldn't be met by 2010.

 

[ERG4ALL]

You might find this interesting. Michael Bloomberg has donated $50 million to help get us off coal.
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=211381.0&dlv_id=181861

 

[Yodrak]

No electricity generated at any time of the day or night goes to waste - not in the sense that I think you are talking about. Electricity must be generated 'on demand' - it's the ultimate 'just in time' production and delivery process. Electricity can be stored for later use, but it cannot be just 'thrown away' because there's no immediate need for it.

I'm not sure what the Illinois Power person meant by what you say he told you, but electricity cannot be "sent ... into the ground". Correct, coal-fired power plants cannot be ramped up and down very quickly, and many of them can't be ramped down very far. (Nuclear plants can't be ramped at all, and always operate at or very near full output.) As a result, there are times when utilities are faced with what they call 'minimum generation emergencies'. The electricity has to be used, so some generator has to reduce output or be shut down, and it may be a generator that is producing less expensive electricity than the generator that cannot be ramped down any further or shut off. Thus the cost of producing electricity at those times is more expensive than it otherwise could be. (But not "a billion dollars" worth).

Definitely, overnight charging of large numbers of EVs will be a fantastic new business opportunity for utilities - it will allow them to utilize equipment that they already have and is going un-utilized at night.

Charging those same EVs during the day while their owners are at work may be a whole different story, unless the charging stations are interruptible load and can be shut off at peak times. (I have such an arrangement with my utility company for my home's air conditioner - I get a credit on my bill whenever the utility shuts off my air conditioner.)

In terms of the overall question posed, I have found it very difficult to get information on just how much electricity generated during the small hours of the night would ordinarily go to waste. An employee of Illinois Power once told me that they sent a billion dollars of electricity into the ground at night, because they couldn't ramp coal-fired plants up and down that quickly. I don't know if they're still doing that or not.

Agreed.

I still would rather use coal - a fuel we have hundreds of years of reserves for - than send $1.5B per day overseas to petro-dictators, as we currently are to fund our oil habit.

 

[Herm]

The issue is the variability of wind, you can increase it to as high as you want but you still need 100% backup generators on standby, usually spinning reserve driven by gas turbines (they are on standby but you still have to build them and pay for them). You start having serious issues once wind power goes above 25% of the mix. People are unreasonable when it comes to rolling blackouts.

Solar thermal should be more reliable, plus they can store heat for several hours.

Did they meet their goals by just buying credits for power generated far away from California?.. power that will never be used by California residents..

 

[Herm]

Electricity can be stored for later use, but it cannot be just 'thrown away' because there's no immediate need for it.

Electricity can be dumped, but its a crude and primitive thing to do.. like you mentioned there are better alternatives.

Micro nukes that are being proposed can be made to follow the load, a big advantage over big conventional nukes.

 

[Yodrak]

A nuclear power plant is ~33% efficient - 1/3 of the energy consumed from the fuel becomes electricity, 2/3 is discharged as waste heat, usually into the air via a parabolic 'wet' cooling tower. (such cooling towers consume large amounts of water due to evaporation)

A modern coal-fired steam plant can be as good as 42-45% efficient. Some of the waste heat is discharged into the air up the stack, the rest is discharged either into a river, lake, or ocean or into the air via a cooling tower, usually a parabolic 'wet' cooling tower.

A modern gas-fired combined-cycle plant can be 50-60% efficient. As with a coal-fired steam plant, some of the waste heat goes up the stack and the rest goes into a river or into the air via a cooling tower. (combined cycle plants will often use 'dry' cooling towers that do not lose water to evaporation)

In some, but relatively few, places the waste heat is used to provide 'district heating' for buildings, a nice synergy in places where it makes sense. But for the most part, nuclear and fossil-fueled power plants have 'radiators' same as a car - they radiators just look a lot different.

My understanding is that one of the main reasons that the electric car is more efficient is that large powerplants have efficient ways of recovering waste heat, and capturing the energy from it. Cars don't; it just gets thrown away, dispersed out the radiator.

 

[Yodrak]

Yeah - feed it into a big resistor and turn it into heat, effectively a gi-normous toaster. It's not something that is or can be done at utility scale by a utility that has a minimum generation (more generation than load) problem.

Electricity can be dumped, but its a crude and primitive thing to do..

Electricity can be stored for later use, but it cannot be just 'thrown away' because there's no immediate need for it.

 

[padamson1]

Yodrak said

No electricity generated at any time of the day or night goes to waste...

Electricity may not go to waste, but lots of energy does. In the case of nuclear reactors they can't slow down & continue to generate heat, so the electrical turbines are turned off to keep electricity out of the grid and energy is just vented into the atmosphere. That is 65plus nuclear reactors in the US wasting a lot of juice. Coal and natural gas plants mostly spin down to load level, but still need to put a surplus out to cover load variations, so they waste energy too (as well as electricity), just not nearly as much.

See http://www.torquenews.com/397/senator-alexander-unused-electricity-our-greatest-national-resource, depending on whose numbers you believe there is enough to power 50-75million EVs (Senator Lamar believes > 100million but I just don't buy that). The problem is getting that electricity from the nuke to where the new demand will be.

There is a similar problem in the Pacific NW where windmills are getting turned off b/c the hydro system can't spill enough water and is generating too much power. All that wind power is going to waste. If the grid can be fixed to get surplus energy where its needed, there will be no additional coal emissions for the first 50-75 million EV's as long as they charge off-peak.

 

[Yodrak]

Agreed.

The issue is the variability of wind, you can increase it to as high as you want but you still need 100% backup generators on standby, usually spinning reserve driven by gas turbines (they are on standby but you still have to build them and pay for them). You start having serious issues once wind power goes above 25% of the mix. People are unreasonable when it comes to rolling blackouts.

Solar thermal should be more reliable, plus they can store heat for several hours.

 

[Yodrak]

You cut off an important part of my statement, which in full was:
"No electricity generated at any time of the day or night goes to waste - not in the sense that I think you are talking about."

Without doubt a lot of electricity goes to wasteful purposes, like all sorts of modern electronics that are not really off when turned off (and the light in my bedroom closet that my wife always forgets to turn off).

Yodrak said

No electricity generated at any time of the day or night goes to waste...

 

[DaveEV]

The issue is the variability of wind, you can increase it to as high as you want but you still need 100% backup generators on standby, usually spinning reserve driven by gas turbines (they are on standby but you still have to build them and pay for them).

It doesn't matter what kind of generation you have - you need to have backup generators on standby. Look at the CAISO outlook for today. Current demand is about 32 GW. But there is about 48 GW of available resources.

Electricity may not go to waste, but lots of energy does. In the case of nuclear reactors they can't slow down & continue to generate heat, so the electrical turbines are turned off to keep electricity out of the grid and energy is just vented into the atmosphere. That is 65plus nuclear reactors in the US wasting a lot of juice. Coal and natural gas plants mostly spin down to load level, but still need to put a surplus out to cover load variations, so they waste energy too (as well as electricity), just not nearly as much.

I think you're taking that quote out of context - he is only saying that there is enough night-time excess generation capacity to charge 50+ million EVs - not that there is 65+ nuclear power plants throwing energy away.

Adding more EVs to the mix doesn't necessarily address the variability issue that prevents power plants from running at maximum efficiency.

But adding grid storage does - battery based grid storage could be used to balance the grid a lot more efficiently than thermal plants allowing those thermal plants to run at higher efficiency levels.

There is a similar problem in the Pacific NW where windmills are getting turned off b/c the hydro system can't spill enough water and is generating too much power. All that wind power is going to waste. If the grid can be fixed to get surplus energy where its needed, there will be no additional coal emissions for the first 50-75 million EV's as long as they charge off-peak.

I read it was about 8% of wind capacity was lost (water flows are low enough now that they don't have to curtail wind power). I also wonder how much hydro power was lost as well to water going over spillways instead of through turbines. Certainly need more transmission lines to get that hydro power out of the north west into other areas!

 

[Yodrak]

True. However, having significant amounts of wind generation increases the amount of backup capacity required because wind is more 'fickle' than other types of generation.

It doesn't matter what kind of generation you have - you need to have backup generators on standby. Look at the CAISO outlook for today. Current demand is about 32 GW. But there is about 48 GW of available resources.

The issue is the variability of wind, you can increase it to as high as you want but you still need 100% backup generators on standby, usually spinning reserve driven by gas turbines (they are on standby but you still have to build them and pay for them).

The problem this year was due to very unusual weather conditions, unusually heavy snow over the winter that led to unusually heavy runoff in the spring. The same thing that caused heavy flooding along the Missouri, Mississippi, and other rivers in the midwest this spring and early summer. If this kind of weather becomes the norm instead of the exception, or as the amount of wind generation in the northwest increases, then additional transmission capacity out of the area will be required and will be justifiable. But one does not spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build transmission that will only be needed only rarely.

I read it was about 8% of wind capacity was lost (water flows are low enough now that they don't have to curtail wind power). I also wonder how much hydro power was lost as well to water going over spillways instead of through turbines. Certainly need more transmission lines to get that hydro power out of the north west into other areas!

There is a similar problem in the Pacific NW where windmills are getting turned off b/c the hydro system can't spill enough water and is generating too much power. All that wind power is going to waste. If the grid can be fixed to get surplus energy where its needed, there will be no additional coal emissions for the first 50-75 million EV's as long as they charge off-peak.

!