Is electric really better?

[Pipcecil]

If you are really comparing apples to apples, the indirect affects of transportation must be taken into account. Lets take oil - most is piped until it needs to meet the end user. The remaining that is not piped is sent by rail, which has a polition concern of itself. Once it gets to its "major destination" its transported via truck to gas stations, independent of time (meaning they can't wait to truck at night, etc.). The additional vehicles on the roadway (especially during peak hours of traffic), not only generate pollution themselves, but contribute to more traffic, thereby causing more idling vehicles (mostly on gas) which only compounds the problem. This is versus the transmission of electricity, which goes by electric lines, a seemingly easier and more efficent (and more enviro friendly). I guess to make things easier, we could argue the maintence of the trains/truck fleet would equal the electrical infrastructure.

For an all coal production, your are using trains to bring the coal to the plant directly (there isn't a single coal plant i know that doesn't receive by rail, it would be too difficult). Coal trains are very long and very slow, probably the largest emission producers of all the train transportation of goods. So that will also factor into the equation.

I honestly think once you add transportation cost (in emissions) in comparison to electricity, the whole comparison favors electricity even more. You can't discount the benefits of the transmission of the "fuel" for EVs versus that of gas.

 

[Reddy]

.....In any event, as I said, capacity requirement is a function of the expected peak system load, and one of the characteristics of the peak load situation (for a summer peaking utility) is that it's a hot day, after a series of hot days, there's no wind blowing. Some authorities think that giving wind generators credit for 20% of their capacity is being quite generous, since wind turbines often are not able to operate at a peak load times.

Well, it's the dog days of summer here in Eastern Washington (90-100 F last week and next) where all the wind turbines are located. Here is the next three day wind power forecast:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/forecast/forecast.aspx
Here is the last 7 days actual numbers:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
Here is the predicted vs actual:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/twndbspt.aspx

So wind is predicted to or has produced around 2000 MW compared to 3522 MW nameplate capacity:
http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/WIND_InstalledCapacity_Plot.pdf
Hmm, 55% capacity is not too bad for the hottest two weeks of the year and for a resource that many people believe is too random or unpredictable to be useable.

I think the real issue is balancing: http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/reserves.aspx
My guess is that historically power folks are used to scheduling far in advance and seeing nice smooth load and production increase/decrease. Wind throws a random curve ball that requires constant watching. I guess we just need to roll up our sleeves and develop the tools (minute-by-minute forecasting, balancing, regulation, etc.) to use this stuff efficiently.

Oh, here's another neat tidbit that I found about having too much power:
http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/report.asp?docid=51
"A consequence of the rapid development of Northwest wind projects to serve regional and California renewable portfolio standards is an increasing surplus of low variable-cost energy generating capability. This surplus appears to be contributing to lower electricity market prices, reduced value of surplus hydropower energy, and an increasing frequency and severity of excess energy events."

Yikes, wind power seems to be driving down the local price of electricity. We need to get more electric cars up here to use it....I'm still.....

Reddy.....and still waiting for my new Nissan Leaf sometime in August.

 

[Yodrak]

Quite a few coal-fired power plants located on major waterways receive their coal by barge. That coal may have made part of its trip from the mine by rail, how much of the trip depending on where the mine is.

Some coal-fired power plants are known as 'mine-mouth' plants for a reason that should be obvious.

But I do agree that the majority of coal transportation is by rail.

For an all coal production, your are using trains to bring the coal to the plant directly (there isn't a single coal plant i know that doesn't receive by rail, it would be too difficult).

 

[LEAFfan]

Yes, everyone will get a different savings driving the LEAF over an ICE. The point of my reply was that the previous poster did a comparison that indicated only a $320.00 savings per year for driving a LEAF for 20,000 miles a year versus an ICE, which is not even close (about 1/10th the typical savings or less, if the average mpg in the US is 22.6mpg as was stated), and indicated that at that minimal savings, it would take 30 years to pay for the $10,000 to $20,000 differential cost of the LEAF over a Honda Civic ICE car.

LOL, 30 years? You can't be serious! Let's look at the facts: MSRP on a loaded 2011 Honda Civic like the LEAF is almost $23,500. MSRP on a 2011 SL-e LEAF is around $35K, but with the $7500 tax credit makes it only $27,500. That's ONLY $4K difference, NOT 10-20K. Besides the fuel cost difference, you also forgot to add in all the maintenance you will have with the ICE vs. the very low maintenance for all electrics. I guarantee you it will not take 5 years let alone 30 to make up the difference in cost. Just in fuel costs alone, the LEAF will save almost $1500 (based on .10/kW h) in a year over a Civic according to the EPA stickers (very few people pay .12), and for me, over $2000 since I use our PVs. Now, you do the math, and tell me how many years it will take to break even? For me, it will be less than TWO years, and for someone without PVs, less than 3 years and that's not even including all the extra maintenance that the Honda Civic will require.

 

[Yodrak]

I see from the third of your references that around peak load times on Aug 3 and 4 the wind generation was down to less around 300 MW. It's nice that on some days it was substantially more, but the electrical system needs to have generation that it can count on to be there when it's needed. From these graphs it seems that yes, sometimes wind can be there for 55%, but sometimes it's only going to be there for 10%. It's the 10% that we need to plan for.

.....In any event, as I said, capacity requirement is a function of the expected peak system load, and one of the characteristics of the peak load situation (for a summer peaking utility) is that it's a hot day, after a series of hot days, there's no wind blowing. Some authorities think that giving wind generators credit for 20% of their capacity is being quite generous, since wind turbines often are not able to operate at a peak load times.

Well, it's the dog days of summer here in Eastern Washington (90-100 F last week and next) where all the wind turbines are located. Here is the next three day wind power forecast:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/forecast/forecast.aspx
Here is the last 7 days actual numbers:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
Here is the predicted vs actual:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/twndbspt.aspx

So wind is predicted to or has produced around 2000 MW compared to 3522 MW nameplate capacity:
http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/WIND_InstalledCapacity_Plot.pdf
Hmm, 55% capacity is not too bad for the hottest two weeks of the year and for a resource that many people believe is too random or unpredictable to be useable.

Agreed, balancing is the issue in real-time operations. But not good minute-by-minute forecasting - it's too late to do anything about it to learn that the wind is going to die 5 minutes from now if we didn't know yesterday that we would have to turn on sufficient other backup units and let them idle in anticipation. What's needed is good day-ahead forcasting. System operators need to know if tomorrow the wind is going to be generating 2,000 MW or 300 MW. For planning purposes, the utility needs to have sufficient capacity of other types installed so that it can cover the days when there will only be 300 MW of wind, and in real-time operation the dispatchers need to know how much of that spare capacity they should have on-line and idling - less of it if the day-ahead forecast can predict that for sure there will be enough wind to produce 2000 MW consistently, a lot more of it if there's a chance that the wind might drop off and in a short period of time we're left with only 300 MW.

I think the real issue is balancing: http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/reserves.aspx
My guess is that historically power folks are used to scheduling far in advance and seeing nice smooth load and production increase/decrease. Wind throws a random curve ball that requires constant watching. I guess we just need to roll up our sleeves and develop the tools (minute-by-minute forecasting, balancing, regulation, etc.) to use this stuff efficiently.

Oh, here's another neat tidbit that I found about having too much power:
http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/report.asp?docid=51
"A consequence of the rapid development of Northwest wind projects to serve regional and California renewable portfolio standards is an increasing surplus of low variable-cost energy generating capability. This surplus appears to be contributing to lower electricity market prices, reduced value of surplus hydropower energy, and an increasing frequency and severity of excess energy events."

Yikes, wind power seems to be driving down the local price of electricity. We need to get more electric cars up here to use it....I'm still.....

Reddy.....and still waiting for my new Nissan Leaf sometime in August.

 

[AndyH]

Start at 49:50 for a big-picture look at balancing in general and how it looks on the ERCOT (Texas grid - not well interconnected and not well diversified - in other words 'worst case' ).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_EKZvb7gc8[/youtube]

"We're often told that only the coal and nuclear plants can keep the lights on because they're 24/7 while wind power and photovoltaics are variable and thus unreliable..." "Coal and nuclear plants fail about 10-14% of the time losing a GW in milliseconds, often for weeks or months and without warning. Now, grids routinely handle that intermittence by backing up failed plants with working plants. They can handle solar and wind variability - which is forecastable - in just the same way. So my team has been doing hourly simulations and we've found that very large renewable fractions can deliver highly reliable power when forecasted, integrated, and diversified by both type and location."


edit...removed erroneous quote.

 

[ERG4ALL]

A thought came to mind. We've been told that the electric utilities are interested in using LEAF batteries after they have degraded to 80% of capacity. This crates a market for the batteries and at the same time helps the utilities store energy from wind and solar which will help the intermittent nature of the renewable supply sources.
Amory Lovins makes a good point about decentralizing electrical resources using these battery technologies. We just need to give it time to see this used market created. Then we can see the true ecological benefit of EVs.

 

[evnow]

And as long as we get enough wind, solar, and storage to cover our 24/7 needs, do we really care about ultimate efficiency? Especially as land-based wind generation becomes less expensive than electricity generated by coal?

With all renewables (and even Nukes) the costs are frontloaded and are thus higly capital intensive. Storage makes the equation worse.

I think the solution will have to involve some rational costs tagged on to dirty fuels. They had to finally ban lead paint & asbestos too. They weren't going away on their own. We have to finally make coal plants too costly to operate (or coal too expensive to produce). If environmental degradation costs nothing, it will make coal plants cheap.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

And as long as we get enough wind, solar, and storage to cover our 24/7 needs, do we really care about ultimate efficiency? Especially as land-based wind generation becomes less expensive than electricity generated by coal?

With all renewables (and even Nukes) the costs are frontloaded and are thus higly capital intensive. Storage makes the equation worse.

I think the solution will have to involve some rational costs tagged on to dirty fuels. They had to finally ban lead paint & asbestos too. They weren't going away on their own. We have to finally make coal plants too costly to operate (or coal too expensive to produce). If environmental degradation costs nothing, it will make coal plants cheap.

you got it EXACTLY right. we are already suffering from the effects of wind power that is already cheaper than coal. E. WA wind is generating 55-65% of its capacity right now and its oversupplying the grid causing a glut of power that we are unable to use right now which is also creating downward pressure on resale price of other renewables. this will affect the future incentives for solar for individual homeowners which would be disastrous

right now we need a large influx of capital for grid leveling technology and that requires large amounts of storage as well. used EV packs would fit the bill nicely but would need 100's of thousands of them and that could be done with a greater push on EVs now.

Nissan's lease program should provide several lightly used packs available for this purpose at the end of the 3 years. i am guessing that Nissan will pull the old packs, install the upgraded packs that might be available to increase resale value of the car. ok, maybe that is a hope more so than guessing.

i guess the real test will be the battery technology coming out of TN next year

 

[ERG4ALL]

i guess the real test will be the battery technology coming out of TN next year

Interesting statement. Do you believe there is a chance for improved batteries to come out of TN at start up? Mr. Ghosn indicated "in 4 or 5 years" the capacity would double. My guess would be that Nissan would stick with its current battery production that they know well and have in a mass produced mode before they introduce any improvements.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i guess the real test will be the battery technology coming out of TN next year

Interesting statement. Do you believe there is a chance for improved batteries to come out of TN at start up? Mr. Ghosn indicated "in 4 or 5 years" the capacity would double. My guess would be that Nissan would stick with its current battery production that they know well and have in a mass produced mode before they introduce any improvements.

not for 2013 which would be first full year in TN but any product that will be released in 2014 (which is when i do expect something) would be prototyped at least a year in advance. i am guessing Nissan will be making the announcement to generate excitement over the "CLN" (certified like new) vehicles that will be available. i am guessing current lessees would return vehicles at greater that 50-60% and may move to another manufacturer to buy their next EV.

now, provide them with "prefered" price on the CLN car with upgraded Batt pack and i think Nissan will see a lot more staying. i am guessing the odds might be greater than upper 80's which would be a huge win for them.

remember, in 3 years everyone will have something to offer

 

[Caracalover]

Do you really think that having a 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.

This is what happens every time you burn something - heat is generated.

So yes, electric is better for many reasons, this is just one of the simple ones that is overlooked.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Do you believe there is a chance for improved batteries to come out of TN at start up? Mr. Ghosn indicated "in 4 or 5 years" the capacity would double.

Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide Cathode by 2015

"Nissan is raising capacity by improving the positive electrode, specifically, using nickel and cobalt, not only manganese. The new battery can store about twice as much electricity as batteries with positive electrodes made only from manganese. It is robust enough for practical use, able to withstand 1,000 or so charge cycles.

Nissan estimates that the battery will cost about the same as conventional lithium ion ones to produce, as it contains only a small amount of cobalt, a relatively expensive metal."

 

[Yodrak]

Being pedantic, you've got that backwards. The electric utility industry is highly capital intensive, especially nukes, but wind turbines as well, thus the costs of the business are front-loaded. (And beause the facilities have a long lifespan it can take decades to recover the upfront costs, which is one reason why the industry is slow to replace aging equipment with the latest and greatest compared to some other businesses.)

Carry on!

With all renewables (and even Nukes) the costs are frontloaded and are thus higly capital intensive. Storage makes the equation worse.