SageBrush
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Grid scale projects in California and net grid demand

Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:04 am

abasile wrote:What bothers me is that this demonstrates the ease with which FUD or "alternative facts" can be spread, quite often unintentionally. Clearly, I'm not immune. I will have to say that I've read more than a few articles in purportedly credible publications, such as IEEE Spectrum, that have seemed pretty dubious when addressing areas that I know relatively well, such as electric vehicles.

None of us are immune, and if I was a bit hard on you, it is only because I know you to be a thoughtful person through your years of internet posts. As for Wierman, I presume this is a simple case of misunderstanding. It did take a vast leap of uncritical reading to take it at face value but I'm done beating that bush.

It is my habit (and tendency anyway) to apply sanity/reality checks to whatever I read. Besides the exercise in arithmetic, it helps me spot inadvertent errors, unlikely conclusions, and well disguised propaganda. It is true and sad that the large majority of Americans lack the High School competency needed to do the same, so they are extremely vulnerable to trumpism. This discussion between us was a good example: I wonder how many readers will realize that this was never about Google's CO2 emissions (which are net zero, but that is never clarified in the Prof Wierman related information) ?
2013 Model 'S' with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California with 63.9 Ahr after 22k miles
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado

User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4188
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Boca Raton FL

Re: Grid scale projects in California and net grid demand

Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:46 pm

Sounds like one thing we could all do to reduce carbon emissions is to take that extra second to actually enter proper domain names in the browser address field instead of carelessly typing a word in the search box (assuming DNS is more efficient than a search)
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue

SageBrush
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Grid scale projects in California and net grid demand

Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:46 pm

LTLFTcomposite wrote:Sounds like one thing we could all do to reduce carbon emissions is to take that extra second to actually enter proper domain names in the browser address field instead of carelessly typing a word in the search box (assuming DNS is more efficient than a search)

See Abasile. Along comes proof (my bold) of my earlier statement.
2013 Model 'S' with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California with 63.9 Ahr after 22k miles
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado

User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4188
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Boca Raton FL

Re: Grid scale projects in California and net grid demand

Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:46 pm

SageBrush wrote:
LTLFTcomposite wrote:Sounds like one thing we could all do to reduce carbon emissions is to take that extra second to actually enter proper domain names in the browser address field instead of carelessly typing a word in the search box (assuming DNS is more efficient than a search)

See Abasile. Along comes proof (my bold) of my earlier statement.

Huh? Sorry too many indirect references
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue

GRA
Posts: 7104
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Grid scale projects in California and net grid demand

Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:48 pm

To get a rough estimate of the amount of energy needed for a flight from LAX-LAS, I used the round numbers from Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air's calc of the rough energy cost per pax of a fully-loaded 747 on a round-trip intercontinental (8,800 mile) flight, 12,000 kWh x (235 miles one-way LAX-LAS / 8,800 miles) = 320.5 kWh: https://www.withouthotair.com/c5/page_35.shtml. Please feel free to check my math. As the flight profile, a/c type etc. all differ, this is nothing more than a very rough ballpark estimate.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

SageBrush
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Grid scale projects in California and net grid demand

Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:00 pm

GRA wrote:To get a rough estimate of the amount of energy needed for a flight from LAX-LAS, I used the round numbers from Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air's calc of the rough energy cost per pax of a fully-loaded 747 on a round-trip intercontinental (8,800 mile) flight, 12,000 kWh x (235 miles one-way LAX-LAS / 8,800 miles) = 320.5 kWh: https://www.withouthotair.com/c5/page_35.shtml. Please feel free to check my math. As the flight profile, a/c type etc. all differ, this is nothing more than a very rough ballpark estimate.

The value of 12,000 kWh per passenger is per r/t.

You want 6000 kWh * 235/8,800 = 160 kWh for the LAX to LAS flight. I've read in multiple places that a fully loaded modern aircraft works out to ~ 43 mpg per passenger. The flight path is 234 miles, so 234/43 = 5.44 gallons per passenger. At 33.7 kWh per gallon (aircraft fuel is a little different and more like diesel but I'm being lazy and using EPA auto fuel), that works out to 183 kWh per passenger for the trip. I'll guess though that the short haul aircraft are less efficient so I'll stick with 200 kWh per trip.

Now, let's say that you have taken advantage of the very low cost (energy wise) Google service to learn efficient gambling and you are ready to take on Vegas. Environmentally aware as you are, is it best to fly or take the EV ? Presume for the EV 3.6 miles per kWh and grid electricity from fossil fuels burned at power plants with 33% efficiency. Ignore CO2 intensity for now, I'm only asking about source energy consumption.
2013 Model 'S' with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California with 63.9 Ahr after 22k miles
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado

User avatar
abasile
Forum Supporter
Posts: 1854
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:49 am
Delivery Date: 20 Apr 2011
Location: Arrowbear Lake, CA

Re: Grid scale projects in California and net grid demand

Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:06 am

SageBrush wrote:Now, let's say that you have taken advantage of the very low cost (energy wise) Google service to learn efficient gambling and you are ready to take on Vegas. Environmentally aware as you are, is it best to fly or take the EV ? Presume for the EV 3.6 miles per kWh and grid electricity from fossil fuels burned at power plants with 33% efficiency. Ignore CO2 intensity for now, I'm only asking about source energy consumption.

200 or 300 kWh to fly from LAX to LAS probably isn't horribly off; of course, there are many variables! The true figure may be on the upper end of that range, given that take-offs are very energy intensive and this is a short flight.

We've driven through Vegas in our Model S 85, so I'm somewhat acquainted with this. Better not, why not try EVTripPlanner.com? Their estimates have proven to be reasonably good. According to that site, our Model S would consume 101.5 kWh, so a stop at the Barstow Supercharger would be needed. Even if one were to assume 130 kWh, to account for driving above the posted speed limit, some unhelpful desert winds, use of climate control and battery cooling, and charging inefficiencies, that's still significantly below the energy usage for a single airline passenger. Take a family of four off the plane and put them in a Model S, and the energy savings are huge, 130 kWh for the Model S versus on the order of 800+ kWh for the plane.

That said, you seem to be calling for some especially dirty (perhaps coal-derived?) grid electricity rather than, say, charging the car using on-site solar power. If you triple the energy usage of the Model S to account for power plants burning fuel at only 33% efficiency, that's roughly 390 kWh worth of source fuel, which is very likely above the plane's fuel usage. Not great, unless at least two people are riding in the Model S. Of course, we know that California's grid is better than that.

Back to the topic of this thread, such comparisons do underscore the need for more low-carbon power on the grid. Residential solar is great, but it's not enough. As the grid gets cleaner, we as a society will, in order to continue reducing emissions, need to transition more and more of our energy usage to electricity. This will include heating, hot water, cooking, and industrial uses.

Energy storage is going to be key in enabling all of this. Pertaining to California (specifically SDG&E), here's an article that I noticed yesterday: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/sdge-co ... mw/440904/
2011 LEAF at 69K miles, pre-owned 2012 Tesla S 85 at 89K miles
LEAF battery: 9/12 bars and < 49 Ah (-28% vs. new)
Tesla battery: 250+ miles of range (-5% vs. new)

SageBrush
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Grid scale projects in California and net grid demand

Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:31 am

abasile wrote:
SageBrush wrote:Now, let's say that you have taken advantage of the very low cost (energy wise) Google service to learn efficient gambling and you are ready to take on Vegas. Environmentally aware as you are, is it best to fly or take the EV ? Presume for the EV 3.6 miles per kWh and grid electricity from fossil fuels burned at power plants with 33% efficiency. Ignore CO2 intensity for now, I'm only asking about source energy consumption.

200 or 300 kWh to fly from LAX to LAS probably isn't horribly off; of course, there are many variables! The true figure may be on the upper end of that range, given that take-offs are very energy intensive and this is a short flight.

We've driven through Vegas in our Model S 85, so I'm somewhat acquainted with this. Better not, why not try EVTripPlanner.com? Their estimates have proven to be reasonably good. According to that site, our Model S would consume 101.5 kWh, so a stop at the Barstow Supercharger would be needed. Even if one were to assume 130 kWh, to account for driving above the posted speed limit, some unhelpful desert winds, use of climate control and battery cooling, and charging inefficiencies, that's still significantly below the energy usage for a single airline passenger. Take a family of four off the plane and put them in a Model S, and the energy savings are huge, 130 kWh for the Model S versus on the order of 800+ kWh for the plane.

That said, you seem to be calling for some especially dirty (perhaps coal-derived?) grid electricity rather than, say, charging the car using on-site solar power. If you triple the energy usage of the Model S to account for power plants burning fuel at only 33% efficiency, that's roughly 390 kWh worth of source fuel, which is very likely above the plane's fuel usage. Not great, unless at least two people are riding in the Model S. Of course, we know that California's grid is better than that.

Back to the topic of this thread, such comparisons do underscore the need for more low-carbon power on the grid. Residential solar is great, but it's not enough. As the grid gets cleaner, we as a society will, in order to continue reducing emissions, need to transition more and more of our energy usage to electricity. This will include heating, hot water, cooking, and industrial uses.

Energy storage is going to be key in enabling all of this. Pertaining to California (specifically SDG&E), here's an article that I noticed yesterday: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/sdge-co ... mw/440904/


You are quite right in the arithmetic, and right again in my underlying message: EVs are only as clean as the source electricity. I am a huge fan of residential PV for a host of reasons but a clean grid would work too ;-)

Cheers!
2013 Model 'S' with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California with 63.9 Ahr after 22k miles
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado

GRA
Posts: 7104
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Grid scale projects in California and net grid demand

Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:31 pm

SageBrush wrote:
GRA wrote:To get a rough estimate of the amount of energy needed for a flight from LAX-LAS, I used the round numbers from Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air's calc of the rough energy cost per pax of a fully-loaded 747 on a round-trip intercontinental (8,800 mile) flight, 12,000 kWh x (235 miles one-way LAX-LAS / 8,800 miles) = 320.5 kWh: https://www.withouthotair.com/c5/page_35.shtml. Please feel free to check my math. As the flight profile, a/c type etc. all differ, this is nothing more than a very rough ballpark estimate.

The value of 12,000 kWh per passenger is per r/t.

Yes, you're right. I knew the 12,000 kWh was the round trip total, but I was using the 8,800 miles as the total distance, not one-way as it should have been (or else using 6,000 kWh for half of it).

SageBrush wrote:You want 6000 kWh * 235/8,800 = 160 kWh for the LAX to LAS flight. I've read in multiple places that a fully loaded modern aircraft works out to ~ 43 mpg per passenger. The flight path is 234 miles, so 234/43 = 5.44 gallons per passenger. At 33.7 kWh per gallon (aircraft fuel is a little different and more like diesel but I'm being lazy and using EPA auto fuel), that works out to 183 kWh per passenger for the trip. I'll guess though that the short haul aircraft are less efficient so I'll stick with 200 kWh per trip.
In real life, while the flight profile is less efficient, the smaller a/c will use a lot less fuel on the ground, maneuvering etc., and is also more efficient fuelwise, but that's far more detailed than this back-of-the-envelope estimate justifies. FWIW, down the page Mackay does the same calc for the Bombardier Q400 (formerly the de Havilland Canada Dash 8), which is a modern twin-turboprop.

SageBrush wrote:Now, let's say that you have taken advantage of the very low cost (energy wise) Google service to learn efficient gambling and you are ready to take on Vegas. Environmentally aware as you are, is it best to fly or take the EV ? Presume for the EV 3.6 miles per kWh and grid electricity from fossil fuels burned at power plants with 33% efficiency. Ignore CO2 intensity for now, I'm only asking about source energy consumption.

As I don't gamble, it's a moot point!
Last edited by GRA on Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

tbleakne
Gold Member
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:05 pm
Delivery Date: 03 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 2400
Location: Claremont, CA

Re: Grid scale projects in California and net grid demand

Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:40 pm

Wow I had no idea my post on pg 3 of this thread regarding "How Green is the Cloud" would generate so much argument.

I am grateful that Abasile looked up Adam Wierman's credentials.
The Watson Lecture Series of which this talk is a part has been the main public outreach lecture series for Caltech for many decades. He was introduced by the Division Chair. Wierman gave every indication that he has been working for some time to improve the efficiency of the Cloud, with direct access to many of the major players, and has visited their data centers.

I am absolutely sure that I have quoted him accurately regarding the carbon footprint from one person on a flight from LAX to Las Vegas vs 1000 characters in Google search. I recall him saying that each character you type into Google triggers a new response. I know it sounds hard to believe but that is what I heard. I have no basis for questioning the calculations submitted in above posts.

Does the other claim in my post, that "The data centers in total generate more emissions than the entire Airline Industry" seem more credible? I heard the 2% number electricity number many years ago, so 7% now seems very reasonable. 7% of the electric consumption vs the airline industry also seems reasonable to me. Of course the Cloud does many more things than Google Search.
LEAF Ocean Blue SL, "100 % Electric" decals, Delivered June 3, 2011
Sold June 2014 27K miles, 18% capacity loss, 1 bar, 5.0 mi/kWh.
Solar 4.6 KW DC with both string and micro-inverters.

Return to “Utilities”