Hate the Volt?

Because electricity is fungible, producing electricity from PV in the day for the grid, and then consuming electricity from the grid at night, is equivalent to using your own PV electricity. An electron does not know if it was generated using coal, hydro, PV, or a hamster in a cage turning a generator.

Except that peak shaving, which he is doing with his strategy (increasing the overall supply of electricity at peak demand, and then consuming when demand is off peak) reduces or delays the need to build new power plants.

Thus his own consumption is carbon neutral, and his strategy reduces the need for expenditure (of money and carbon) to build the next power plant.

 

He would be carbon negative if the solar panels contribute to the grid and not use any electricity with the Volt.

But he needs to drive so we'll have to compare his carbon from the night-time electricity with carbon from gasoline. That's why we ended up comparing well-to-wheel instead of just tank-to-wheel.

Electron doesn't know where it comes from but we do. What powers his Volt is mostly coal. The price of cleaner electricity is different than the price of dirty one, so I wouldn't say electricity is fungible.

 

So by your logic, charging the Volt during the day (peak demand) is more environmentally responsible, because I have solar panels?

 

You have shown why usbseawolf is mistaken. By his logic, charging during the day would be good, but charging at night is bad.

In fact, given the present operation of the grid, it's actually the other way around. By charging at night you are shifting some of the grid's demand from peak to off-peak time.

Of course, better yet would be to cover the whole roof in PV, feed it all to the grid, and not use any energy at all. But given that you are going to drive a car (as do most of us, myself included) and that part of that driving is going to be electric, and that your choices are to charge at night or during the day, the best thing you can do is what you are doing.

Charging during the day, according to seawolf, would be better because your electrons would not come from coal. But charging at night is actually better because you are shifting demand. This demonstrates the fungibility of electricity.

Worse yet would be to have no PVs and use night-time (off-peak) electricity, and worst of all would be to have no PVs and use peak (daytime) electricity.

You are producing enough clean electricity to meet your driving needs, thus your electric miles are carbon neutral. By taking coal-fired electricity at night, when the plant has excess capacity, and giving back clean electricity during the day, when the capacity of the coal plant is strained, you are doing MORE good for the environment than if you had no PVs and were not driving a partly-electric car. Seawolf's logic in this case is faulty.

 

Yes, Volt (or any other plugin) would be a clear winner if you recharge directly from your solar panels. However, using average US electricity, it is not a winner at all until the grid is cleaner.

Another seperately issue is the grid load/stability. I believe the technology exist to lower the load of coal power plants but it hurts their efficiency. The solution should be a better technology to solve that root cause rather than using more dirty electricity and justifying it with excuses.

 

But the way he is doing it makes the grid cleaner by taking some coal-fired electricity at off-peak times and replacing it with PV electricity at peak times.

Your claim that his Volt is dirtier if he charges at night rather than in the daytime is just plain absurd.

It is precisely because existing coal-fired plants cannot lower their load that his strategy is cleaner than just charging his car in the daytime from his PV array.

Your last sentence, that the solution should be better technology hints at WHY his system is better: He is using a better technology! He is using his PVs. But rather than just using them directly, he is using them even better by doing what electrical-distribution analysts call "peak-shaving."

Your advice is that he use no coal at all, and instead use his PVs to charge the car during the day. Zero coal use.

What he is doing instead causes LESS coal to be burned, because by shaving the peak demand (giving the grid his clean electricity in the daytime when demand is at a peak) the coal fired plant does not have to INCREASE its output to meet that peak demand.

He is reducing the overall coal use because in the daytime, when demand is high, his contribution means less coal burned, and at night, when he does consume coal-fired electricity, what he uses would be wasted because the coal plant cannot reduce its output to the actual low level of demand.

Electric utilities are desperate for ways to shave the peaks, and this is what Zythryn is doing!!! He is helping make the grid cleaner, and therefore reducing its carbon footprint. This is better than a neutral carbon footprint.

(It occurs to me that I am using the masculine pronoun, although I don't know if Zythryn is a man or a woman. Sorry about that. Without a name or other clue, I go with the standard grammatical convention.)

 

Thank you Daniel, you put it much more concisely than I did.

You are 100% correct, Zythryn is a he

And I agree with your other comments on what would be better or worse. We hope to, sometime in the future, build our 'dream home'. This would be net-zero energy (with the inclusion of 2 fully electric cars). And possibly carbon neutral But that is another story...

 

Daniel, I understand the "collective goodness" concept. I am getting at reducing the coal consumption rather than cancelling out the "guilt" with the "good".

Getting back to initial discussion, Zythryn replaced his Prius with Volt to run it on mostly Coal but installed the solar panels to claim Volt is clearly the winner.

If he kept the Prius and install the solar panels, the difference would just be gas vs. coal electrons.

Since the argument was that solar electrons doesn't need to be used in the vehicle, Prius doesn't have to consume it neither. As long as solar electrons go into the grid, the "peak-shaving" is achieved.

 

As I understand, Zythryn replaced his Prius with a Volt and installed a PV array on his roof - an array which would not have been installed without the Volt.
Why?
My suspicion is that it was done to save him money, which is a good and logical thing to do. But why disguise it by 'reducing his Carbon footprint'?
As usbseawolf pointed out, for reducing carbon footprint he would be better with staying with his Prius (with the new PV).
The chart attached to this post demonstrates it.

 

Are you being purposefully dense?

A person can buy a gas powered car, like the Prius, today, and drive it for 5 to 10 years. During that time, it will emit the same level of emissions from gasoline that is getting more energy instensive to produce.

Or they can get some type of plug in car, either PHV or EV. With the grid currently shifting away from coal, the emissions produced to power these cars will be lessening over the same 5 to 10 year period.

Unlike gasoline, electricity can be cleanly made at home to power the car. Yes, the gas car can do the same for his home use of electricity, but his gas powered Prius will still never decrease the level pollutants it emits, and they will likely increase with need of refining dirtier crude over time.

In the future, we can't move away from electricity, but we can move from gasoline.

 

A) Why do you attribute motivation when you don't know what that motivation is.
B) Why in the world would you think I bought the Volt "to run it on mostly Coal"? This is incorrect.
You again are making emotionally laden points in your posts which do not add anything to your position.

Again, the motivation to add the panels was to offset the additional power required by EV or PHEVs. Regardless if it is a Tesla, Volt, or PiP.

So the differnce is using 15,000kwH and 200 gallons of gas (rough numbers) with no solar panels vs 19000kwH and 20 gallons of gas with 4000kwH produced by PVs (again, rough numbers).

But again, the panels would not exist if it were not for the EV and PHEV.

 

So, its a matter of reducing running costs isn't it? Nothing to do with 'cleaning the grid'.

 

Your suspicion is incorrect. I am not sure why you would come to that conclusion as the Volt is an expensive car and adding PV panels certainly is not a money saving measure (at least for 10-20 years).

Reducing our carbon footprint is the number one reason. Not contributing to the need for foreign oil (for both national fiscal and security reasons) is the next reason.

Yes, however the added panels were install explicitly to offset the increased electric requirement of the EV and PHEV. In addition, even if it were not, reason number 2 still applies. And as Trollbait pointed out, as Gas gets dirtier and the grid gets cleaner, the vehicles will contine to automatically get cleaner.

I found it an interesting chart. However, it applies to an average case, not mine. I would like to see an entry in there for Volt 95 instead of just the Volt 67%. A Volt 40% would be nice too.
A big aspect of PHEVs for people should be how their driving 'fits' with particular vehicles. We took quite some time to considere and compare the alternatives available to us. More information like that will help quite a few people.

 

Yes, it purposely applies to the average driver.
As for the CO2 intensity of the grid - you should find out where your local grid is.
In this thread Volt 90%, 70% and 50% are plotted.

 

No, it has nothing to do with lowering the running costs.
That is a benefit of EVs which I am happy to discuss. But for us that was not part of the reason in making the purchase.

 

Then why did you use data showing the average and apply it to my specific case?

This is why we installed the PV panels, to offset the energy used by the EV and PHEV. I don't like the CO2 intensity of the grid
I also try to contribute to cleaning our grid in other ways.

 

You may not like it but I am afraid you cannot run away from it...
Installing PV panels is certainly a good move to help cleaning your grid (hope I could do it).
No matter what car you drive, I am sure you have other appliances in your house that could use this clean energy (or your neighbour can, through the grid).

 

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It has nothing to do with "collective goodness" or "guilt" (though I cannot speak to Zythryn's guilt feelings or lack thereof).

It has to do with the way the grid and coal-fired plants work. By taking electricity at night and putting it back during the day, you are reducing the total amount of coal burned.

Now, it is true that putting clean electricity onto the grid and using none in return would be even better, but even a clean car like the Prius pollutes more than a coal-fired electrical plant, so by switching from a gas car to a partly-electric car he is reducing his pollution; and by using his PV capacity to shave the peaks rather than just using it directly, he is reducing pollution even more.

Think of it this way:

If you were to install a bank of batteries in your basement and charge them from the grid at night, and feed the power back to the grid during the day, you'd be shaving peaks and reducing coal consumption. By your logic, you'd be "using" coal-fired electrons and therefore increasing your carbon footprint. But it's obvious in this example that you have zero net usage. But by installing this battery system you are actually reducing total coal burned.

This is essentially what Zythryn is doing as far as the grid can see: The grid does not know whether he is using electrons or not. The grid just sees him taking off-peak electrons and giving them back at peak time. Because he is producing as many electrons as he is consuming, his net consumption from the grid is zero and his actual consumption is what is produced by his PV panels. Again, this is because electricity is fungible.

Prius may be the cleanest gas car, but an EV is even cleaner, and by switching to a partial-EV and solar panels, Zythryn is reducing his carbon footprint. He is burning only a fraction of the gasoline he was previously, and his NET consumption from the grid is no greater than it was before.

 

I am really surprised how some people on this thread have turned the installation of solar panels, and switching to a partly-electric car, and employing a peak-shaving strategy, into a bad thing!

So that I, who hate GM, and consider the Volt a mediocre car, have to defend a Volt driver from an onslaught of illogic.

 

Why attribute an emotion (fear) to me installing PV panels. Your argument would be much more persausive if you simply stick to the facts. I planned this very carefully and intentionally.

This is true, and I am sure I could install more panels to help offset the energy used by others on my block. However, that doesn't change the fact that I would not have purchased the panels if I had not been planning on powering EVs with them.