Scientific American article about EV's and Plug-Ins

I wonder if the article factors in the various efficiencies in generation of power (upwards of 80% vs 25% in conventional cars), as well as the fact that most of the charging will occur at night- during periods where excess electricity would have otherwise been grounded (aka thrown away)...

 

I see, thanks. It makes sense, and I have a vague memory of the same. This 'efficiency' gain is a dilution of kwh/btu penalty for low power use coal plant, but I think goes back to what I have been posting: folding EV demand into baseload increases coal use.

I doubt the article tried to specify *which* coal plant was being used, or how much of the coal was brown or black, but took an average kwh/btu number for coal based generation.

 

Bob, it does go into great detail regarding efficiencies. I recommend you read it, it is very informative.

Do you have a reference for 'discarding' electricity with quantifiable amounts ?

 

Oh I wouldn't expect that much detail. Just that the took into account an average gain in efficiency from eliminating the overnight inefficiencies. This may actually be taken into account in figure 12, but I could find no reference to it.
As for EV use, your own reference shows a decrease in CO2 emissions up to 50% maker penetration. There may be an increase in coal use, but it results in a net decrease in CO2 emissions.

And again, it will take us quite some time to reach 50% market share, or even 25%. Giving us plenty of time to continue to update the grid.

 

I would agree with the agenda angle, which is why I figured bad research or editing.
If it were a free article I would certainly go read it. Once it hits the library perhaps.
But based on what you have mentioned of it, it has some inconsistencies and poorly relayed information.

 

I'll emphasize that the reference I linked we are discussing is *only* California; that market mostly covers additional demand mostly with NG which is the best fossil fuel case scenario; and even then the GHG emissions reductions are a modest 13%.

I don't sneeze at a 13% reduction, but put in the context of the price of EV, we are not getting much green for our green. Certainly alternatives like upgrading the home, installing solar thermal, or even installing PV in good locales gives a much greater GHG reduction/$ return.

 

Your comment is not directed at me, but I am curious. What inconsistencies ?

 

Alrighty then, having looked at the slides The Dirty Truth about Plug-in Hybrids, Made Interactive: Scientific American

I find that the numbers do go in the right direction, I'm sure you originally just had a typo. But I severely doubt the scientists fact checked 67% of new yorks electric power for plug in hybrids coming from oil in 2020. Perhaps they forgot to model future needs correctly. New York miraculously gets rid of all this petroleum generated power in 2030, but Texas portrayed as a clean state decides in 2030 to add petroleum power plants and coal while no renewable. A quick look at the texas utilities find that diesel generators are only used at installations for blackout power but someone thinks between 2020 and 2030 texas will back away from wind and natural gas generation and move toward oil. The biggest problem I have is the speed that this is taking place. It seems to ramp quickly to a high penetration value, and but most models have 4-10% penetration for 2020. If ev and phev's do have as high penetration it will reduce electrical rates and help provide money to green up the grid. So don't be scared at the data, just make sure the assumptions seem reasonable.

 

Thank you for the links! Very interesting paper.

Again, no argument that how clean your EV is depends on how clean your fuel source is.

After reading the first half of it, and scanning the rest, they have made some assumptions which are simply wrong, and others brought into question due to the erroneous assumption.

1) Their auto sales volumes are way off. >15 Million a year may have been reasonable in 2007, but obviously that number needs to be recalculated.

2) If PHEV sales were as a percentage of total vehicle sales, since total vehicle sales are much lower, so would PHEVs.

3) 20% market penetration by 2020, given the above, seems overly optimistic. While the start point, 0% in 2010, is spot on, I think the adoption of PHEVs will not be that rapid. Don't get me wrong, I would like it if it were

That said, there is some excellent work done in the paper. Our grid definitely needs updating.

While the estimated increase of demand for PHEVs is 1-2% (by 2020), the overall estimated increase in demand is about 4% (EIA).
So we need to clean up our grid for many reasons other than PHEV/EVs.

 

Two misspellings in just one paragraph. I'm highly suspicious...

 

Good paper by ORNL. Thanks for the link.

They spent a little time explaining their modeling, NY's high oil usage came from using 7% of their power from oil, but not building new power plants. They used NEMS and explained that it likely would not correctly build the right number of new power plants. Their model had them build combined cycle gas later when needed, this timing would likely be before those oil plants were major uses of power.

PHEVs were split 30% compact, 30% midsize, 20% medium SUV, 20%, large SUV. HEV were compact or midsize averaging 40 mpg. That is why CO2 emissions are higher in some areas using PHEVs because they are comparing different classes of cars. They do provide breakdown of marginal power source for 2020 which is close to today, so you can plug in the kwh/mi and mpg for your vehicle choice and find out how much more or less CO2 you would be producing.

ORNL took a very optimistic projection on PHEV growing to 25% vehicle sales in 2020. It then kept sales at that level because they did not want to model new power plants (model may break at larger penetration). SA should have adjusted vehicle sales to 2010 levels which are much lower than projected in 2007.

ORNL gives a good snapshot of power usage and clearly points cheaper energy for cars with PHEV and EVs, but a grid that is relatively high in CO2 with new power sources if no penalty is given for producing CO2. Many states have already put policy in place to change this but there is nothing at the national level (SO2 and NOX cap and trade limits these though). The report does emphasize problems with the energy mix of the grid even without PHEVs and .EVs

I don't really like the term biggest polluters, but china and india will have the largest green house, SO2, and NOX increases.

Simply removing coal plants in the US while building them in China and India will not remove net polutants. That is one reason why absolute demonizing of coal may be counterproductive. Cleaner coal especially with sequestration in out years helps global reduction. Stopping new coal plants while grandfathering in the least efficient plants is poor public policy.

 

How about building new coal plants, AND keeping the old ones ? Absent a carbon tax in one form or another, there is no mechanism to shut down the old plants.

 

BALOONEY !!!! Its not how energy sources are made, its about how little is used. The gasoline car system in metropolitan traffic is lucky to convert 10 % of that energy into motion, and then 1/2 of it is wasted in brakes, rather than overcoming air friction and tire friction..


I have not read this article, but it if concentrates on how electricity is made - its just another case of Scientists playing Engineer....And being quite ignorant.....

 

How about burning COAL to make electricity to make gasoline and then burning the gasoline ? Most oil reserves do not have sufficient hydrogen to make gasoline, and then the oil companies burn off the Natural gas at the well, rather than transport it the refinery to make the gasoline. So, they then use electricity to make the hydrogen, to make the gasoline!

This is what we do now!!!!!!!!