STUDY: Electric Cars May Be Twice As Bad For Global Warming As Regular Cars

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/are-electric-cars-bad-for-the-environment-2012-10

A study by engineers based at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology has questioned some common assumptions about the environmental credentials of electric cars.

Published this week in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, the "comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles" begins by stating that "it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting". By this, the authors mean that by solving one problem, do electric cars create another? And, if so, does this environmental harm then outweigh any advantages?

The study highlights in particular the "toxicity" of the electric car's manufacturing process compared to conventional petrol/diesel cars. It concludes that the "global warming potential" of the process used to make electric cars is twice that of conventional cars.

The study also says - as has been noted many times before - that electric cars do not make sense if the electricity they consume is produced predominately by coal-fired power stations. "It is counterproductive to promote [electric vehicles] EVs in regions where electricity is produced from oil, coal, and lignite combustion," it concludes.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/are-electric-cars-bad-for-the-environment-2012-10#ixzz28Rt32yJf

[MADem]

1. We need to be able to hook our electric cars up to our WINDMILLS!!!

That's the ticket!!

[godai]

2. Do you mean wind turbines?

Actually solar and wind turbines will address the 'source of electricity' issue as years go by. In the next 2 years, Tesla will install 100 fast charge stations across the US. These will be solar powered, creating more electricity than used to charge the EVs that use them. All Tesla owners can use these free of charge.

The article is the latest in a serious of publications which doom EVs to the junkpile of history. Not gonna happen this time. If the US backs off, Europe and the far east will lead the way away from gas guzzling, polluting ICE vehicles.

Love my Nissan Leaf.

[Glyn Dwr]

3. it's not just about the electrical source

But how filthy they are to make (and any new car, really) because of all of the plastics and the extremely toxic batteries that will, eventually, have to be dealt with. Lithium is highly recycleable, but how much will, in practice, end up in landfills? They will also require a higher consumption of certain metals-- the refining process is never tidy.

I think that lowering atmospheric pollution is a major step, though.

[godai]

4. When batteries drop to less than 80% capacity, they go to battery farms or are recycled..

This is not going to happen overnight, but it's a mistake to think everything 20 years from now will be just as it is now. Range anxiety will be easy to solve...Tesla already has 300 mile batteries. Costs need to come down and they will as production increases.

Battery farms consist of large numbers of batteries to store electricity say, late at night when oil/gas/coal plants have excess capacity. That electricity is simply wasted now. Lithium batteries can be recycled, as another option.

There is a plan. It will take time but EVs are here to stay.

[2on2u]

53. The Prieto battery is non toxic and we can only hope they will be in the next EV's and then

there is this:

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/02/200000-mile-toyota-prius-still-performs.html

Early adopters of the hybrids took a risk with the new technology. The lifetime of the batteries and the cost to replace them wasn’t clear. After all, when it comes to standard car batteries, most don’t last more than a few years. And anyone who has a laptop that is a few years old is most likely aware how significantly battery life can degrade with age.

Based on data from over 36,000 Toyota Prius hybrids in our annual survey, we find that the Prius has outstanding reliability and low ownership costs. But we wanted to know if the effectiveness of the battery degraded over the long run. So we hooked up a 2002 Toyota Prius with nearly 208,000 miles on the clock to our testing instruments and compared the results to the nearly identical 2001 Prius we tested 10 years ago.

Conclusion: We found very little difference in performance when we tested fuel economy and acceleration.

Our testers were also amazed how much the car drove like the new one we tested 10 years ago. It certainly didn’t seem like a car that had traveled nearly the distance to the Moon. We were also surprised to learn that the engine, transmission, and even shocks were all original.

If the battery ever did need to be replaced, it would run between $2,200 and $2,600 from a Toyota dealer, but it’s doubtful that anyone would purchase a new battery for such an old car. Most will probably choose to buy a low-mileage unit from a salvage yard, just as they would with an engine or transmission. We found many units available for around $500.

So is an old Prius a still a good value? We think so.

[Viking12]

5. Bullshit headline. But what do expect from Business Insider

The actual study says nothing of the sort:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Well, now you’ve gone a bit too far in the other direction

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles[/font]

Troy R. Hawkins,
Bhawna Singh,
Guillaume Majeau-Bettez,
Anders Hammer Strømman

Article first published online: 4 OCT 2012

DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x

© 2012 by Yale University

[font size=4]Summary[/font]

[font size=3]Electric vehicles (EVs) coupled with low-carbon electricity sources offer the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions from personal transportation. In considering these benefits, it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting. In addition, while many studies have focused on the use phase in comparing transportation options, vehicle production is also significant when comparing conventional and EVs. We develop and provide a transparent life cycle inventory of conventional and electric vehicles and apply our inventory to assess conventional and EVs over a range of impact categories. We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle. Improving the environmental profile of EVs requires engagement around reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure.

…[/font][/font]

So, assuming a lifespan of 100,000 km, the Global Warming benefits of an electric vehicle (compared to a diesel vehicle) are negligible.

[Viking12]

10. A neglible benefit is almost twice as bad?

how, exactly, do I go in the other direction? The headline is FALSE! Business Insider cherry-picks the GWP of the production cycle out of the life cycle assessment and runs with that as the supposed conclusion of the study. That's pure bullshit.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. They certainly got the story wrong. (We’re all used to this by now.

However, you said, "The actual study says nothing of the sort."

Well, what does the study say then? In essence, it says that the global warming benefits of electric vehicles aren’t that great, while, at the same time, there are a number of environmental drawbacks specific to battery powered vehicles.

[font face=Serif]…

[font size=4]Global Warming Potential[/font]
[font size=3]For all scenarios analyzed, the use phase is responsible for the majority of the GWP impact, either directly through fuel combustion or indirectly during electricity production. When powered by average European electricity, EVs are found to reduce GWP by 20% to 24% compared to gasoline ICEVs and by 10% to 14% relative to diesel ICEVs under the base case assumption of a 150,000 km vehicle lifetime. When powered by electricity from natural gas, we estimate LiNCM EVs offer a reduction in GHG emissions of 12% compared to gasoline ICEVs, and break even with diesel ICEVs. EVs powered by coal electricity are expected to cause an increase in GWP of 17% to 27% compared with diesel and gasoline ICEVs.

…[/font][/font]

[Viking12]

14. The study does not say anything close to "Electric Cars May Be Twice As Bad For Global Warming"

I pretty clearly was referring only to the headline of the article. I'm not sure how you missed that. You know, the part where I said "Bullshit Headline".

"the sort" = Twice As Bad For Global Warming.

I made no comments regarding any other element of the study. They're useful findings, but not exactly anything new.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Yes, the headline was worst of all

Too often, headlines are not written by the story authors, but by… well… “Headline Writers.”

I agree that the study doesn’t say much new, and certainly doesn’t say that EV’s produce twice as much warming as conventional cars.

What I objected to in your posting was that you simply called the story bullshit (which to my mind implies that EV’s are totally innocuous.)

[Viking12]

17. Maybe you should read more carefully and respond to what was actually written, then.

Because it appears you agree with me and objected to something I did not write but to something in your own mind.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. So, I went back and re-read your posting just to be sure

I still have the same reaction. (I want a more nuanced response.)

i.e. Don’t just say the headline or the story is bullshit, what does the study actually say?

The great sin of most headlines is oversimplification. I’d say that happened in this case as well.

(According to the study) sometimes (particularly when the primary source of electricity is coal) EV’s can be worse than ICEV’s in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, there are other considerations. (I suspect this is where the “twice” came from.)

[Viking12]

19. That's your problem not mine.

[louis-t]

6. Jeez, who did the study, Glenn Beck?

[Viking12]

12. The study is fine, the reporting SUCKS.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Does the study acknowledge that the Gen 1 prius batteries are still mostly on the road

and the original battery packs are working well?

[tinrobot]

7. When was the last time we had a battery spill in the Gulf?

Oh that's right, they only spill crude oil in the Gulf.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. There’s never any environmental harm from batteries

(Please note, EPA press release. Copyright concerns are nil.)

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/91cfb40ee983f88f85257a8b0060d638!OpenDocument

[font face=Serif][font size=5] U.S. EPA Settles with Lead Acid Battery Manufacturer in Corona for Air Violations[/font]

Release Date: 10/01/2012
Contact Information: Nahal Mogharabi, [email protected]

[font size=4]Company to Pay More Than $167,000, Install Additional Air Filters to Capture Lead Particles[/font]

[font size=3]Los Angeles -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today that U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company has agreed to pay $167,300 to resolve federal Clean Air Act violations. U.S. Battery, located in Corona, Calif., failed to comply with federal emissions monitoring and reporting requirements, including performance testing requirements for its lead emission control devices. In addition to paying the penalty, the company will install secondary high efficiency air filters to capture additional lead particles.

“By failing to monitor and test its pollution controls, the company increased the health risks for employees and the nearby community,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. "EPA will remain vigilant in enforcing the Clean Air Act."

EPA discovered the violations after the company failed to provide a thorough response to an information request sent by the agency in February 2010. After further review, federal investigators found that U.S. Battery failed to perform semi-annual inspection and maintenance to ensure proper performance of its equipment, failed to submit performance reports and failed to conduct performance testing of its air pollution control devices.

In addition to the fine, U.S. Battery has agreed to improve its work practices by voluntarily installing High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters to further reduce lead emissions. These HEPA filters will serve as secondary filters that will be used to capture remaining lead emissions that pass through the existing air pollution control equipment. HEPA filters can capture more than 99.9% of particles.

The facility has been operating as a lead acid battery manufacturing plant in Corona since 1991 and is located within a mile of several schools and a residential neighborhood.

Lead is a major environmental health hazard for young children and pregnant women. Exposure to lead can result in lowered intelligence, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, and hyperactivity.

For more information about the Clean Air Act, visit: http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/aboutus.html[/font][/font]

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/johnsoncontrols-shanghaiplant-idINL4E8KO69C20120924

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Johnson Controls to stop lead battery production at Shanghai plant[/font]

Sept 24 | Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:54pm IST

[font size=4] (Reuters) - Johnson Controls Inc, which makes batteries and interiors for automobiles, said it would stop manufacturing lead-acid batteries at its Kangqiao plant in China, eight months after the Shanghai municipal government ordered it to suspend production at the unit on alleged contamination-related issues.[/font]

[font size=3]The government had ordered the unit in February to halt the production of lead-acid batteries after the plant was linked to incidents of contamination in Shanghai that sickened some children.

The company said in a statement that it will shift lead-acid battery manufacturing to other Johnson Controls facilities in China, and that customers would not be impacted.

Storage, labeling, prepping, and shipping of batteries manufactured in other facilities will continue, it said.

…[/font][/font]

[CRH]

9. Yes until the power source is clean, ...

the benefits of electric cars are greatly diminished. Even beyond, is an informed discussion of the wisdom in continuing to pursue a society and economy around individual transportation vehicles.

I wish as much energy was put into mass transit and planning for a limited mobil society, rather than continuing to pursue expanded human consumption.

[godai]

20. Not exactly...

There's often excess, unused capacity, like late at night. That power is basically wasted. They don't crank up a coal fired power plant to provide power for my Leaf. A lot of current EV charging is utilizing power that might other be wasted, especially if charging is done late at night.

[CRH]

21. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, ...

I assume you are plugging into the grid. The grid is under a constant load, though a load some times diminished when people sleep. At these times generation is powered down to minimums saving whatever power input (fuel) is used in generation. This I understand. But because you plug in at non peak times in no way means you don't add to the grid load, especially if EVs become a major part of personal transportation and millions are plugging in at night. Beyond that, how is energy wasted if it is not used? Because someone doesn't have to turn a dial up at a generation plant to service your added load does not mean you waste that energy if it not used. If you use grid electricity, in the process you have used the fuel it took to generate that electricity. Ultimately the question becomes, is the source for your grid clean, green and renewable, or from the use of fossil fuels. In most every location grid electricity will be at least 80% fossil fuel generated. What am I missing?

[Viking12]

22. Generating plants are powered down, but to a point well above load

I believe the point he's making is that it's too much of a burden on the system to shut generation off at night. They have to keep the fire burning 24/7 even if demand is not there -- carbon is released regardless of demand. Overnight there is excess generation that can meet some charging demand without creating any new emissions. Of course, if the plug-in EV market were to explode, that equation would change.

[CRH]

23. OK, just for my information, ...

It was always my understanding, electricity in in constant motion. If there is excess generation without increased load, where does the electricity go? I understand a generation station doesn't simply shut off the lights and go home at night, but isn't actual generation in constant fluctuation with increasing or decreasing load? And, as the load increases doesn't the generation need to increase as well or risk fluctuation in current, and brown out conditions? If generation fluctuates with demand do the peaks use more fuel to generate then the troughs?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm trying to understand the concept of excess generation in a load based grid that must constantly stay in motion, that it is inferred, somehow bleeds off potential when loads are decreased. Grids are a closed system, right?

[Viking12]

24. I don't have much time, but briefly

The capacitance of the grid is significant (the grid actually stores a certain amount of energy) and the system absorbs (loses) through resistance.

[CRH]

30. Ok thanks that gives me enough to google the rest, n/t

[happyslug]

44. But some of that excess generation is used to store energy for later use

The classic situation is to use the excess power to pump water uphill, to behind a hydro-electric plant. Hydro-electric is the fastest method to get more power into the grid, and by shutting down the turbine, the quickest to shut down. For this reason Hydro-electric plants tend to be kept back for use during peak periods, with other slower to shut down and start up (Coal and Nuclear) plants are used to provide "Base" Power. "Base Power" is the power that is used 100 % of the time, middle of the night or in the middle of the day.

When Nuclear, Natural Gas or Coal is used as the base power source, excess power is what these plants produce over and above what is being used at any one time. For example at 2:00 am on a cool night (Not a Cold or Warm night). Furnaces are not working, Air Conditioning are not working, most TVs, Radios and Computers are NOT being used etc. At these time you will run into situation where the plants are producing more power then is being used. In places where a Hydro Plant is available, what this excess power is used for is to pump water behind the hydro plant. If the power is NOT used for that purpose it would be "lost" or "wasted". The Next day, when people are using their TVs, Radios, Computers, Furnaces and/or Air Conditioners, if the demand for power exceeds what the base producers can produce, the hydro plants are released to provide additional energy.

More on Pump Energy Storage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

Also remember how much energy is used for transportation in the US. Oil provides almost all of the power for transportation, can we expand the production of electrical power to provide the power needed? I have my doubts.

Major Sources of Energy Used in the US:
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/major_energy_sources_and_users.cfm


http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/diagram1.cfm

Please note, the term "Renewables" includes Hydro Electric generations and the burning of wood for heat, in addition to wind and Solar power. At the present time Hydro electric is the biggest source of "Renewable" energy.


http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pecss_diagram.cfm

As you can see, 40% of energy used in the US is the generation of electricity, 27% of all energy is used in transportation. 93 % of all energy for transportation is still Oil (Natural Gas and electricity make up the remaining 7%, 3% for Natural Gas, 4% for electricity and much of that is electric LRV/Streetcars or Amtrak on the East Coast lines)

17% of all energy are renewables or Nuclear, 39% of all energy is oil based.

The above is to give you some ideas what to look for and where. The Energy Information Agency, EIA is a good place to start when you look for information on energy.

[CRH]

45. Thank you very much for your post, Happyslug; ...

With your initial explanation of the use of excess generation explains the confusion I was having with the theory. Your additional links provide the additional food to grow by. Thank you for the enlightenment. hrh

[happyslug]

47. I should also point out, a lot of Industry use this "Excess power" at night

A lot of Aluminum and Steel makers (and other manufacturers) set up their plants to draw the electricity they need at night. For this they get lower rates (and the first to have their power shut off when it is needed elsewhere). So a lot of the nighttime excess capacity of today's electrical generation ability is used by these manufacturers (This seems to be big in the North West where a lot of Aluminum is refined at night using the cheaper electricity available at night). Steel does the same thing in Pittsburgh (but the electrical base in Pittsburgh is Coal and Nuclear not Hydro as is the main power source in the North West).

An Interesting concept is the use of moving waters in a River instead of a Dam. Technology today can permit such a system even of a slow moving river like the Mississippi. Such an electrical source has been proposed but not built. It could provide the power needed to replace Coal and Nuclear electrical generation, but I am looking at a 20-50 year time scale, i.e. the first plant will NOT be built for another 10 or so years, and NOT come on line for 20 or so years in the Future. It would provide a solid base of power that we could build on and use wind and Solar as additional power when needed during daylight hours.

More on this concept:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/421558/turbines-could-tap-the-mississippis-power/

My point is that most of the "Excess power" does not really exists, it is used today by industry at reduced rates (Through some does exist, but in limited areas and for limited duration). One of the problem with oil over the last 5 or so years is the excess production over consumption has dropped to below 5%, thus it is easy to find oneself in an oil shortage without any quick solution (and the chief reason oil price is up). The same with electricity, you will always need excess production capacity as a safety net, it exists to be used as needed, but NOT something you can for day to day use (i.e. can rely on for safety reasons, but can NOT be relied on for actual energy use). Engineers cal this a "Margin of Error" i.e. if something goes wrong, the system can handle it, IF you use power to include that margin, if something goes wrong the system collapses.

One last comment, one concept that is constantly being rejected is the concept of reduced capability, i.e. why drive a car that can go 105 mph, when your normal drive rarely gets up to 50 mph? The Prius is capable of 105 mph (that is what Al Gore's son's Prius was doing when he was being chased by police a few years ago). Do you really need that speed, when the expressway you go on is barely doing 20 mph due to gridlock? Volkswagen (VW) has looked into this technology extensively. It has also been constantly rejected by auto buyers (Look up the VW Lupo 3L for details). The SMART car is the only car sold in America with this policy, permitting a 1,0 liter engine that gets 47 mpg (and that is revving it up to be able to do 50 mph which is the speed the EPA test for mileage uses when mileage is tested).

More on the Lupo (including the 3L):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

The 3L was the first production car capable of going 100 kilometers on 3 liters of gasoline, outdoing the Prius (i.e. 78 mph) but it was NEVER sold in the US (VW said it was to small for American tastes AND to expensive to make given that the American Market for small cars is the most price sensitive sector of the car market, i.e. a person will go down the street to buy a different make and model to save $50).

Now VW also has had a one liter per 100 kilometer concept car (235 mpg). The first two concepts were just that, built to show it could be done, the third one is presently set for production in 2013, but it includes a hybrid concept which the earlier concepts did NOT:

VW IL Concept car:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

I recently purchased a 2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco. The Cruze and the Volt were developed at the same time to share a lot of body parts. The reason for this is simple, GM plans to sell 20-40,000 Volts a years, and 220,-300,000 Cruzes a year. The cost involved with developing the body, frame, windows and other parts of a Car can NOT be justified over a 20,000 car production expectancy. For this reason Honda and Ford used existing models for their Hybrids (And Toyota received a Japanese Government grant to develop the Prius). Things the Volt an Cruze have in common include, the body, the frame, windows, interior, steering wheels, front end etc. In the Eco Version, the Cruze uses the same 1.4 liter engine (but it is turbo charged in the Eco). The Eco has more trunk room then the Cruze (No Battery back iin the trunk, thus more room). With the six speed standard transmission the Cruze Eco gets 42 mpg, which I have been getting in the mountains of Pennsylvania. Most drivers of Hybrids tend to get much lower numbers in actual driving conditions (Much worse then is normal for drivers when they compare they mileage rate to the EPA mileage rate). The Volt gets over 94 mpg (through only 37 if gasoline is only used, only 40 mpg highway, it does better at stop and go traffic then the Eco), the Cruze Eco gets 33 mpg (42 highway, it does better on long drives with little Stop and Go Driving).

EPA for the Volt:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31618

Volt vs Cruze vs Cruze Eco:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31618&id=31372&id=31377

[CRH]

56. My, you are a fountain of information. I shall study, Thank You, n/t

[FogerRox]

59. The US has about 24 gigawatts of pumped hydro capacity.

Mostly built in the 70's thru the early 90's.

Average electrical generation capacity in the US is about 500 gigs, take an initial goal of 20% from wind and 20% from solar, thats 100 gigs of each. Building about 100 - 130 gigs of pumped hydro would make those renewables deliver 24/7.

We can integrate about 20% renewables into the grid without any serious storage capacity, according to the National Renewables Labratory, NREL. After that grid work, HVDC smartgrid and supergrid projects combines with storage plants will necessary.

With a large build-out of solar thermal and pumped hydro there is no reason we cant do better than 80% renewables.

Spain is building commercial scale wind powered pumped hydro plants, they are more serious than the US. Heres a great article with stunning pictures.

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-17/issue-3/Articles/wind-hydro-integration-pumped-storage-to-support-wind.html



The other comment does indeed have a wealth of info, some of us are very familiar with the topic of energy and the science and tech. Other comments in this thread demonstrate a blatant lack of scientific aptitude.

[CRH]

62. Thanks for the info, ...

... so the hydro capacity also becomes the much needed stepping stone to realizing the potential from wind and solar. For renewable to grow, growth in hydro must proceed. As well in one of your posts you also mentioned the use of wind to pump the water to higher elevations. I have often wondered why this technology has not been more vigorously pursued. People have used the wind for pumping for many years. Before the use of hydrocarbons, the diversion of small amounts of water into a penstock then routed through a ram has raised water up hill sides for centuries. Some of these methods are simplicity illustrated, and could use a fresh look an perhaps enhancement, in preparation for 21st century energy generation and use.

[FogerRox]

67. Yes, wind powered pumped hydro is off the shelf technology

No R&D needed.

Like HVDC transmission. Its off the shelf hardware, and is way more efficient than AC, and HVDC is far more suitable for long distance transmission, 1500- 2500 miles.

[FogerRox]

60. sigh, CRH you have it right, Utilities are always balancing load and demand.

They know AC transmission loss is 7%. In fact they know as the temp rises ohmic resistance can increase the loss. Basic stuf really.

Nat gas peakers are always in play, they can be fired up rather quickly compared to a nuke plant.

Thats why if you put a meter on a typical 110V AC outlet, it will vary over time, as low as 106 or up to 112 is common.

The simplest example is if you plug in an electric heater at your house, it may cause the lights to dim. Regionally a grid can do the same. With increased demand and load stable, impedance can drop, as does voltage if the impedance of demand and load are close.

These voltage fluctuations are bad for some industrial equipment, much is done to filter out spikes and to regulate the voltage coming into a plant, from what is referred to as dirty power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownout_%28electricity%29

[CRH]

63. Yep, much of this post, ...

is what I had thought was the process before reading this thread. Though I haven't worked in the field, I have been familiar with the basic concepts for a while.

The night time industrial use of non peak electricity mentioned in another post has been used to buffer over generation during non peak times, for several decades. What surprises me a bit, is with the talk of up grading to a smart grid, I had figured with the use of NG powered plants there would be a much better control and finer tuning of load balancing. In my mind, I had this vision of a device that monitored the grid voltage, and like a thermostat for a furnace increased the generation as needed to keep the grid within permissible variations of voltage and resistance. Apparently the technology in generation plants has not been improved as much as I had presumed. Just as well, I like the use of recycling excess generation through hydro pumping much more than further dependence on technologies that make CO2 plants more efficient and harder to do without.

The leap forward will occur, when hydro is expanded through greater use of wind and solar, without reliance on thermal sources. The future needs more means of utilizing hydro without over dependence on, and utilization of, dams. The one concern that I can't ignore, is the changing climate patterns and the predictability of future hydro potential in a constantly evolving environment.

Another area of load balancing I am surprised I haven't seen much progress, is in a grid based control of priority distribution. An example is the incredible energy used for lighting our cities in the night. Everything from street lights to neon advertisements, could be an optional distribution when current fluctuations near maximums. A tremendous amount of lighting used today, is wasteful in the face of a planet suffocating from CO2.

Thanks again for your posts. hrh

[wtmusic]

64. Load balancing with modern CCGT plants is quite sophisticated

and in and in tests where CCGT output was modulated up to 25%, the efficiency losses are in single digits.

In contrast, PSH loses about 25% efficiency.

[CRH]

69. I'm sorry as said in earlier post, I haven't worked in the industry, ...

The nomenclature I can google but the abbreviations I don't grok. CCGT and PSH???

[wtmusic]

70. Sorry

CCGT = Combined Cycle Gas Turbine, PSH = Pumped Storage Hydro

CCGT is useful for renewables because it can spring into action when the wind dies, or a cloud moves in front of the sun, with extra watts to balance the load.

[FogerRox]

66. smart grid

using sensors on meters, that give real time use data to utility operators.

Lighting - good point. Astronomers tell us much lighting points up. Wholly unnecessary.

[godai]

25. Yes, you can't turn power plants on and off with a switch.

If a coal fired plant has less demand, like at night, they can cut back generation to an extent, but the coal will still be burned. It's not possible to increase and decrease supply by turning a dial.

I believe that gas plants are easier to turn off an on.

You explained this very well.

[FogerRox]

27. wasted?

Utilities go to great lengths to match demand and supply.

So where does this wasted electricity go to?

Come on...... wasted..... my foot.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Even if that premise is correct

it won't be for long as night-time-recharging electric vehicles proliferate.

[godai]

32. Tesla will put in place, in 2 years, a nationwide network of solar powered charging stations.

These stations will put more electricity into the grid than EVs will use for charging. The point is, things will evolve, less coal more wind and solar (Thanks to Obama).

[AtheistCrusader]

34. I doubt it would scale.

But if Tesla puts together a consortium of other companies to do it, then there might be enough deployed.

PV is pretty underpowered, as renewable energy goes. Wind is better. Concentrating Solar is better.

I suppose I shouldn't assume you meant Photovoltaic, I suppose you could mean concentrating solar.

[godai]

35. Tesla owner Musk also owns SolarCity.

It's a great opportunity to combine these 2 resources. I do believe that Tesla needs to partner with a larger car company. They only have 1 model to sell.

BTW, Musk also owns Space X, which just launched cargo to the Space Station.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Elon Musk is a badass.

I didn't actually know he co-founded Tesla.

[godai]

38. A real job creator, with US made products. Rockets, EVs and solar installs. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

40. Two models with a third on the way.

And teaming with a big company would be the kiss of death.

[godai]

41. Only Model S is being sold now.

I hope Tesla can survive independently but I don't see enough income from 100s of car sales. Maybe they'll sell batteries to eg Toyota and others.

[FogerRox]

49. More likely the lower price points of wind, cuurently

The cheapest form of new generation that can built. 3.3 to 6.5 cents per kwhr

[FogerRox]

48. Demand and supply must closly match or grid failure can result.

regardless of how many cars are charging or when they are charging.

[godai]

31. So, you believe that when you turn on your TV, power company adjusts?

There always has to be more supply than demand or else there are brownouts, blackouts. This excess supply, if not used (by your TV for example) is wasted.

Why so negative? You seem to be buying the oil company propaganda. EVs are here to stay and they are not causing MORE pollution due to extra electricity generation. They cause zero pollution.

Maybe you can explain what you think happens at your power plant when you turn on your TV, or electric dryer etc. The answer is, nothing.

[Throckmorton]

33. Well, mine does adjust slightly,

up and down a few 0.1s of a percent, and it is a base loaded nuke.

[FogerRox]

58. wasted? Hardly. Thermodynamics tells us there is no wasted electricity

There is transmission loss, ohmic resistance etc.

IF you had better scientific aptitude you might understand.

If you had checked out what I have written you might understand. After all my journal is open to the public.

But you havent, instead you have put your foot in your mouth.

Good day. And good luck.

[godai]

61. Thermodynamics tells us the opposite.

As you admit, there are losses from source to endpoint. Beyond that, is what I'm referring to. For example, a coal fired power plant cannot be turned on and off easily. I think that you'd agree with that. There's no way that just the right amount of coal can be used to exactly meet demand. Hence there is wasted energy. My EV being charged has zero effect on the operation of that power plant.

Read some of the other posts, which understand, a lot better than you, what I'm saying. And, they aren't nearly as defensive as you seem to be. Believe it or not, very few people know about your journal.

I'm here to have discussions, not arguments, but name calling needs a proper response.

[FogerRox]

73. lets include voltage fluctuations in the grid

Check your home outlets..... as demand increases- if supply is constant, voltage and impedance drops. SO put a meter on an 110 V outlet... it might be 102 volts or it might be 120.

Very low voltage is a brown out condition.

Thermodynamics tells us energy cant change levels unless work is done, electrons moving thru a cable is an example of work, raising the temperature of the cable caused by ohmic resistance, another. Turning an electric motor etc.

All of that is quantifiable.

SO if enough people plug in their cars to charge, voltage drops. Utilities will start up a nat gas peaker if the voltage drops enough.

[CRH]

46. As per the information in post 44, Your grid probably doesn't waste that energy, ...

Following the link in Post 44 (Happyslug), the flattening out of load variations during times of excess generation is accomplished through hydro electric plants within the same grid, by the use of pumped storage systems. If your particular grid uses this particular system, then you are recharging your vehicle with energy that would normally be 75%+ recoverable and the potential stored for later peak use. To say your energy is CO2 free because it would otherwise be wasted, ignores that 75%+ of that energy is now not available to supplement peak demand when CO2 producing thermal plants need higher production as a result. As well, the supplemental storage from pumped storage systems is CO2 free, and this potential of green generation has been removed in the wee hours the night before. In this situation the claim of wasted energy is not supported, and the energy used for last night's charging results in the same CO2 production of the grid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

~ snip ~

This system may be economical because it flattens out load variations on the power grid, permitting thermal power stations such as coal-fired plants and nuclear power plants and renewable energy power plants that provide base-load electricity to continue operating at peak efficiency (Base load power plants), while reducing the need for "peaking" power plants that use the same fuels as many baseload thermal plants, gas and oil, but have been designed for flexibility rather than maximal thermal efficiency. However, capital costs for purpose-built hydrostorage are relatively high.

Along with energy management, pumped storage systems help control electrical network frequency and provide reserve generation. Thermal plants are much less able to respond to sudden changes in electrical demand, potentially causing frequency and voltage instability. Pumped storage plants, like other hydroelectric plants, can respond to load changes within seconds.

~ End ~

The second paragraph above alludes as well to my statements in the post below regarding frequency and voltage instability. So though power plants function during non peak hours at an excess of capacity, that excess is often bled off into storage allowing a stable grid. That energy serves a purpose, and is not wasted.

Another informative source on grid energy storage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage

edited: to fix a dead link

[FogerRox]

50. Excedllent explaination

[wtmusic]

15. Yeah, or somebody at the Northeast Bumblefuck Stripmall Technical University is on the take nt

[aandegoons]

26. The study is just an early snap shot of climbing the decarbonizing hill.

Since the technology for electric cars is relatively new the process of production is surely skewed at this point.

Picture two men walking up a hill one near the top and one near the bottom. Fossil fuel cars are near the top of the hill. Certainly they can get better in their impact on the environment, but they just don't have much hill left. On the other hand the electric car is nearly at the bottom of the hill. As the decarbonization of electric production and manufacturing become more common the impact of the electric car on the environment will drastically improve.

Cars are one of the most recycled products. It only makes sense that in early development that the impact of battery construction which is not as recycled at this point as the other parts of cars to be one of the factors which impact the environmental study.

Electric cars will be part of the future and will only get better in their environmental impact. Just having them as an option has caused a good number of people to view their own impact on the environment differently.

Electric cars have a much more environmental friendly future than gasoline or diesel. I would guess in another 30 years we will look back on our some of our thoughts that we now have regarding the electric vehicle with as much disdain as those who warned against penicillin.

[godai]

36. 'decarbonization of electric production'...great description. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

39. I dismiss this without even reading the details.

Propaganda headline indicates bullshit fake study.

[wtmusic]

42. How about, "Some Say Electric Cars May Be Twice as Bad..."

Actually, the data appears correct, but he implication is that overall they may be twice as bad...that's false.

[NYC_SKP]

43. Better.

This way we can lump it in with creation science and flat Earth claims!

[Politicalboi]

51. I would rather see an alternative fuel

Than electric cars. Hemp oil would be a good one to start.

[NYC_SKP]

57. Can this "hemp oil" be grown, watered, fertilized, harvested, processed, purified, distibuted...

....without energy input and using existing infrastructure?

[FogerRox]

68. I would rather see Polywell fusion genrate electricity combined with renewables.

liquid fuels will niche in 50 years.

[robinlynne]

52. wonder who funded that study?

[still_one]

54. The initial cost is too high also

[veganlush]

55. stupid comparison

I haven't read the whole thing, but the premise seems to be based on a silly comparison. To be even close to fair, they should compare the first internal combustion engine cars to the electrics. Electric cars are still in their infancy at least on a mass production/wide distribution sense. The infrastructure is set up for gas cars. In my area of michigan, you can opt in to buy "green currents" for some or all of your electricity. It's wind produced. The cars of the future will be some kind of electric. the first cars seemed very stupid compared to horses back in the day. There were no gas stations on every corner, they were slower than horses, noisey and they belched out noxious fumes. Individuals investing in electric cars will create a market and the improvements will be fast and far reaching. The power grid will catch up too as demand increases.

[wtmusic]

65. STUDY: Burning Electric Cars Release More Toxic Emissions than a Shut-Down Coal Plant

Cat got your tongue, treehuggers?

[NoOneMan]

71. How many barrels of oil must a CEO sell to afford a EV?

Yet another aspect of the problem isn't merely the cost of the EV, but the tangential production required to amass the capital it requires to buy one. And while this wealth can be gained through clean, green employment, that production in itself is being subsidized by the wealth of dirty civilization. Ultimately, thats the rub with the Cornucopiasts. While technology may provide solutions in an isolated context, we don't live in a vacuum. We live in a world of rampant exploitation, bent on infinite growth; it is this world that develops these "solutions" on its path of destruction.

[CRH]

72. Bingo. n/t