1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Net effects of green energy and old coal on new electrical demand

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by austingreen, Mar 30, 2015.

  1. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    I don't agree with one-dimensional thinking either. I agree with the importance of the factors you listed.

    Where we differ is perhaps the priorities. I believe we should roll out EVs in stages, cleaner states first. The cleaner emission results justifies the $7,500 tax incentives given to buy the vehicles.

    For the states with dirty grid, spend the $7,500 to clean up the grid first, else we are promoting increase of emission.

    Doing it in stages is not delaying deployment. That's doing it right with tax payer money to get the most social benefits.

    Here are my order of priorities:
    1) Increase well-to-wheel efficiency (inverse of below)
    1) Decrease well-to-wheel emission (inverse of above)
    3) Keep the vehicle practical - midsize 5 seater with a good cargo space with reasonable refuel speed
    4) Affordable price
    5) Decrease oil import - switch to different fuel only if well-to-wheel emission does not increase
    6) Acceleration and handling (luxury want, rather than need)
    7) Everything else are minor, not worth ordering.

    Regarding smog emission and shifting to another location, 50 MPG gas Prius is very clean already to be smog problem in the cities. Diminishing of return. I am not a fan of shifting emission to another place (perhaps 3rd world countries - I was born in one). Emission is a global issue and shifting it is not a solution but a selfish act.

    Electric motor is also quiet and no maintenance.

    The issue is the production of electricity. Currently it is 33% efficient. Hydrogen production is 67% and FCVs runs on electric motors too.

    Electricity efficiency can be improved with newer combined cycle power plants but renewable energy gaining ratio in the mix is dragging it down. They need to balance the demand (start/stop hurts efficiency) as renewables are not reliable.

    Your guess is as good as mine. It could be one of the criteria in the methodology. Perhaps, the ZEV credits is why Toyota can afford to discount $4,000 off PiP.

    Keep in mind PiP was not rolled out in all the CARB states.
     
    #41 usbseawolf2000, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015
  2. 3PriusMike

    3PriusMike Prius owner since 2000, Tesla M3 2018

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    2,933
    2,286
    0
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    So how do you drive from one clean state to another clean state if the dirty state inbetween has no EV charging stations? Staging the rollout like you suggest prevents any state (other than big ones like CA or TX) from reaching a critical mass needed.
    And what about the importance of giving priority to the next power plant built, not all the existing ones?
    A few EVs aren't changing much in terms of GHG. It only matters when there are a lot of them. A lot of them require a new power plant. The delta in GHG is what matters -- on the electrical power generation side, as compared to business-as-usual with a typical 25 mpg ICE car.

    Mike

    Your numbers might be right, but are VERY misleading.
    1. You cannot compare efficiency values of two different processes and get a valuable result
    2. Your numbers for electricity are for coal and nuclear. But of course nuclear produces ~no GHG.
    3. Your hydrogen number only counts the production of H2 (not the usage).

    See the EIA numbers for heat output here: SAS Output
    (Divide 3412 by these numbers to get percent). You'll see that coal is 33%, but NG is now up to 43%.
    Nuclear is 33%. But this just shows the thermal efficiency and has nothing to do with CO2 production.
    Again this is why efficiency, by itself, is a misleading statistic.
    Also, NG emits about half as much CO2 per unit of heat produced compared to coal.

    When using NG to produce H2 you are only talking about half the story. Actually less than half.
    To use H2 in a FC car you need to get the H2, then liquefy and compress it. Then once in the car you have to use the FC to produce electricity. You didn't count the losses in liquefying it and compressing it. Nor did you count the fact that the fuel cell itself is only going to be ~60% efficient. Multiplying out all these efficiencies is going to net you about 20-30%. (for example 0.6 * 0.75 * 0.6 = .27)

    source: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen_gas_compression.pdf

    Meanwhile, in an EV you have to consider than charging and discharging a battery is about 85-90% efficient each way.
    (For example: 0.43 * 0.9 * 0.85 = 0.32).

    The overall net efficiencies are very similar (unlike your 2x difference). But of course these numbers are interesting but close to meaningless as a direct comparison. In the case of the FC this is the best result and uses NG. Using solar and electrolysis the efficiency number will plummet (solar is ~15%), costs rise and the GHG goes to near zero. For the EV case we have the whole grid with a mix of efficiencies and GHG generation. You can substitute wind/solar/hydro/nuclear (with who-cares-what-the-efficiency-is) and get near zero GHG at any time. The whole US is already about 1/3 wind/solar/hydro/nuclear. Coal is 39% and dropping. NG is 27% and rising (but of course GHG per kwh is ~half of coal)

    source: What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    Part II

    Here are some calculations that start with NG for both a FC (steam reformation to generate the H2) and electriicty for an EV. They come up with these results of grams CO2 per mile:
    ICE 176 g/mile (Prius)
    FC 161 g/mile (Toyota FCV 70m/kg-H2)
    EV 134 g/mile (2.8m/kwh)

    source: ev-versus-fcv-calculating-co2-emissions-volumetric-energy-density

    I assume that they have come close to normalizing everything. Of course regular ICE cars will be about double the Prius. But they are using NG for both the EV and FC cars. We know that EVs can easily be powered by near-zero GHG from solar/wind/hydro/nuclear and we already have 1/3 of the grid with that.

    Mike
     
    #42 3PriusMike, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2015
    Jeff N and Trollbait like this.
  3. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,593
    11,212
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Not all CARB states have adopted CARB policies 100%. Pennsylvania hasn't, and it doesn't get the PPI. Perhaps selling it in partial CARB states doesn't get Toyota a credit with CARB itself.

    In Hawaii(96706 zip) the PPI emits 240g/mi CO2. In Texas(73344 zip), it would emit 220g/mi. It is sold in a dirty state. So let's drop the "only sold in states with clean grids" bit. It is a flimsy reason when the PPI emits less GHG than a Corolla even in a dirty state, and even less than the average vehicle sold. Want to lower GHG from private transportation. Offer more low GHG choices. Hybrid sales got a boost when the new Fords and Hyundai models came out; same principle.

    Toyota limiting the states it is sold in is short sighted. When it comes to major purchase items, the public doesn't adopt new tech quickly. The few PPI's sold in dirty states will not be the tipping point in carbon emissions to doom. It would give the car more exposure, so the adoption lag for the car will shorter when the grid cleans up.

    Short sighted is the best way to call it. Foolish is the worst, because Toyota is ignoring a new, growing market, and allowing competitors to dominate it. It is old GM with hybrids and high efficiency cars.
     
    Jeff N and Zythryn like this.
  4. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    They'll have SuperChargers. Tesla could be sold in all states since it is clean for it's class (performance).

    You wouldn't want to drive from coast to coast with a Leaf or any other sub 100 miles EV, even if there are charging stations. L1, L2 and CHaDEMO are out of the question, they are too slow. EVs may become vacation vehicle that can drive across the coasts but I wouldn't expect it to reach that level from the beginning of the roll out stage.

    The only thing preventing would be the dirty grid. Horse before the cart and not the other way around. A clean grid would not only clean up EV emission but also EVERYTHING that uses electricity. Let the grid pull in EVs, not push it.
    What does it has to do with rolling out in stages? It can be (actually, should be) done independence of plugins. The old inefficient ones should be decommissioned first.
    It matters because $7,500 tax dollars are given back to the EV owners that achieve the same emission as a 34 MPG gas car. While 50 MPG gas Prius gets zero incentive.

    There was a similar case before. Hummer SUV got more tax incentive than the Prius. Volt is now the electric Hummer but a midget one.
    If you want to discuss well-to-wheel, this sums it up. This takes account of transmission loss, everything, which I do not think you did.

    [​IMG]

    Except that, PiP was designed to take advantage of short trips, hence short EV range, where 50 MPG gas engine would emit more due to cold warm up. It is sold in Hawaii for a reason. The reason is, it is what the car was designed for.
    Foolish would be after developing a clean efficient green car, the end result is higher emission after overnight charging, reversing almost two decades of work and discrediting what Prius stands for.

    What's wrong with rolling out in stages, methodologically? Let the clean grid pull in clean plugin cars.
     
    #44 usbseawolf2000, Apr 9, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2015
  5. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,593
    11,212
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Could you please stop bringing up the tax credit in every plugin thread. We get it. You don't agree with the law writers' goals. But they are valid goals in their own right, and continue harping on the perceived injustice of it won't do anything to change it.
    It isn't similar. That incentive was written up to help businesses, contractors, farmers, etc. buy delivery and work trucks. Real estate agents and others that did a lot of business travel by regular car abusing it was an unintended consequence. The super big SUV may not have been popular, or the Hummer2 even exist, at the time of its passing.

    This incentive was written for plugin cars in order to support battery development and manufacture during its initial stages. Remember, the advances in performance and cost will also apply to the batteries in hybrids and FCVs.

    You have been posting that chart for awhile, and it is out of date. It does mention that compressing hydrogen to 70MPa, the current standard, drops the well-to-tank efficiency by 2%. That ends up reducing the well to wheel value to around 38%.
    Using 3PriusMike's value for NG power plant efficiency of 41% bumps the EV WtW value up to 35%. Some working plants get over 50%, and may even hit 60%. That would increase the EV's efficiency to 42% and 51%.
    We don't know what the well to tank value of gasoline is in reference to; light, sweet crude, tar sand, japan's average, etc.
    The tank to wheel is based off the old, very easy Japanese 10-15 test cycle. It could have biases between technologies like EPA does between diesel and gasoline. There is also a larger difference between the Leaf's JC08 and EPA rating than for the Prius.
    I am unaware of any radical difference between Hawaiian and mainland urban development that would make for a greater than average short commutes there. In fact, Honolulu is in the top ten of metro areas with the highest mean commute distance. That is a megacommute of 50 miles or more. The NJ and NY tristate area and California are two areas with a high percent of megacommutes also. Both are places where the PPI is sold.
    https://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/files/2012/Paper-Poster_Megacommuting%20in%20the%20US.pdf

    And really, how much more does a PPI or Prius emit on a cold start off? If it is enough to be a real concern, why even make a low EV range blended hybrid?
    First, the Prius is a high efficiency car with clean emissions. Emissions that is, besides carbon dioxide. CO2 is low due to the efficiency. People can get Prius like efficiency, and thus CO2 emissions, out of 1992 federal, lean burning Civic VX. I don't think anyone here would call it clean though.

    Second, and more importantly, Toyota is a car and truck company. It's job is to sell them. There is no evidence of it being more concerned with efficiency and emissions than required of it in its home country. It is an older company that built single head light trucks for the Japanese Army during WWII, sewing machines and other consumer goods during the reconstruction years, and now the thirstiest pick up truck in the US. On the other hand, Honda started after war making engines for bicycles. He focused on efficiency because of the shortages and rationing at the time. The company doesn't make a V8, and refused even to make a V6 for awhile.

    In a good year, the Prius sold around 150k in the US. Combined, the Corolla and Camry sell more than 700k. Both of those models emit more carbon than the PPI in a 'dirty' state. That doesn't seem to concern Toyota, or they would phase out the Camry ICE like they did in Japan.
    Two reasons.
    1. Except perhaps for the failed Coda, plugin cars emit less CO2 than the majority of ICE cars. Even on dirty grids. While they may not emit less than a high efficiency hybrid, each one sold will be a net decrease overall. More choices increases the chances of someone doing so.
    2. The competition isn't rolling out as slowly. So when the grid is finally clean enough, the PPI will appear on the scene where people have heard more about, perhaps even seen, and maybe even know someone who owns one of those competitors. Toyota hasn't even expanded beyond the initial states, and there are states that don't have a dirty grid and have plugin incentives.
     
    3PriusMike, Zythryn and austingreen like this.
  6. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    As discussed on the first post electric efficiency is not one number. Let's break it down further.

    50+ year old coal plants are approximately 30% efficient. These are what are leaving the grid, and being closed down. With the new epa rules, it is unlikely anything this inefficient will be built in the US again without CCS.
    new ccgt natural gas plants are about 60% efficient at above 40% load and can replace ocgt for fast cycling applications. These are the fossil plants being built. This is the only type of new fossil plant california allows.
    new ocgt natural gas are about 35% efficient but have low utilization (are not on most of the time) and start stops drop them to around 30%. These are used to fill in energy gaps. They are inexpensive to build, so utilities use these for peak demand and to fill in for quick changes in renewables. They would not be used for night charging, but would be used for peak of day charging.

    You can find the efficiency of the overall mix here. Petroleum is used mainly in hawaii
    SAS Output
    SAS Output

    Here are the 2013 figures divided out from that source
    petroleum 32% (mainly hawaii)
    coal 33%
    Natural gas 43%

    We can break down natural gas between the three types of plants
    steam 33% (old plants that should be replaced over time with ccgt, these can't cycle like coal)
    ccgt 45%
    ocgt 30%

    We use a mix of energy large hydro, nuclear, small hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, other renewables as well as the above fossil sources. These are less efficient, but really who cares about efficiency for these sources? It is more about cost per kwh, as the first 2, large hydro and nuclear are not really being built, and the rest are renewable. For many we give these sources 100% efficiency since we are not using up a fuel.

    Plug-in vehicles on the margin are not building any new coal, nuclear, large hydro, or steam natural gas turbine plants. They may use a little of this energy. For the most part they are powered by natural gas and new renewables. Lots of assumptions to be made, but 43% national average would not be a bad one, but likely a little high. In texas or california they would run almost complete without coal, but would use petroleum in hawaii, and coal in west virginia. Each regional grid will give you quite a different answer for marginal or average electricity.

    Let's use california as an example, and average electricity (using things that probably go to older uses. Unspecified sources are used as natural gas in my calculation, and I used 43%.
    Total Electricity System Power
    Efficiency should be 62.3% on fossil fuels boosted by the 35.37 non fossil. I like the 43% for marginal better though.

    I'm not quite sure where the 67% came from for fuel cell vehicles, but 10,000 psi hydrogen uses elecctricity to get compressed or liquified, then more electricity to be pumped. Lets use the figure though

    Ok 70 mpge hydrogen vehicle x 67% efficiency = 47 mpge (natural gas)
    117 mpge plug in (i3-rex or leaf) x 62.3%x93% grid efficiency = 68 mpge (average fossil fuel California grid)
    117 mpge plug-in x 43% natural gas x 93% grid efficiency = 47 mpge (average natural gas power US)

    I guess if efficiency is the key, and you shouldn't sell an alternative fueled car in a state where it increases ghg, then you shouldn't sell fcv in California. I did pick the most efficient phev on grid power, and a comperable bev to the 2016 clarity and mirai, and used a fcv epa value higher than we expect. Still its a technology test in california. I don't think the goal is lower ghg than a plug-in ;-)
     
    #46 austingreen, Apr 9, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2015
    Zythryn and Trollbait like this.
  7. Jeff N

    Jeff N The answer is 0042

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    2,382
    1,304
    0
    Location:
    California, USA
    Vehicle:
    2011 Chevy Volt
    Actually, 100 kW CHAdeMO is in the very earliest stages of rolling out and the Kia Soul EV can apparently use them to speed charging. There will also be 90 kW CCS quick charge stations rolled out within the next 2-3 years as the new generation of 200-mile EVs from GM etc begin to appear.
     
  8. 3PriusMike

    3PriusMike Prius owner since 2000, Tesla M3 2018

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    2,933
    2,286
    0
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    Great for Tesla owners. But within a year or two there will be multiple EV with 150-200 mile range. So are we to wait until after they are for sale to prepare the infrastructure? You are being silly.

    Second, who are you to say that someone with a 100 mile EV shouldn't drive, say 125 miles, into or through a "dirty" state, stopping for a short time to get those last few miles? Seriously, YOU are the one who gets to decide that? You'd rather have then drive a big SUV built by Toyota getting 20-25 mpg, if that is there other choice?

    Again, your dogmatic view of the dirty grid is ridiculous. We want people to buy EVs and replace 20-25 mpg ICE cars for as many miles as they can reasonably drive them. Comparing the best ICE cars to all EVs makes no sense.
    Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

    This is what happened with EV-1.

    Your constant description of Toyota not selling the PIP in "dirty" states makes no sense. Why is Toyota selling Tundras anywhere? Answer: to make a profit. If I was a lawyer I'd say you are arguing facts not in evidence. We don't know why they aren't selling PIPs everywhere.
    Hydrogen fuel cell cars might be a winner someday. But the facts, today, are that it doesn't win against an EV in terms of GHG. And it isn't even close on costs or fuel costs. And near-zero GHG electricity will beat near-zero GHG FCV on cost and cost per mile for a long time.

    Mike
     
    Trollbait likes this.
  9. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    Affordable because you are not getting 100% renewable emission-free electricity. Buying green energy does not mean you get 100% renewable. You increase a tiny fraction of percent into the grid. You get the grid mix like everyone else. You increase renewable percentage for everyone but that's totally different from what you are getting.

    When you choose to buy renewable energy, you are telling your electric company that you want a certain percentage of your power to come from renewable resources. That percentage of renewable power is then produced and placed onto the power grid. The actual electricity that finds its way to your home or business represents the mix of all generators connected to the grid, but by choosing renewable power you help increase the amount of renewable energy produced statewide.
    Source

    The only way you can claim you are powered by renewable energy and emission free is to go grid-less and get a battery storage, like what Tesla introduced. However, that adds about 12 cents per kWh. Renewable emission-free energy that is reliable is not cheap.
     
  10. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    ^^ I don't agree with that analysis, since I do not think it matters one whit who the person using the energy is.
    A much more difficult question to answer though is whether paying for clean energy actually increases the production and displaces dirty energy.

    As an example: Let us say that a community produces 100 kWh a month of clean energy and uses 1000 kWh a month. The community already has people subscribed to clean energy who pay more for 50 kWh a month. That other 50 kWh is still in the grid mix and is being used, but no-one is paying extra for it. I come along and agree to pay for 50 kWh a month.

    What does the community do ?
    Generate 50 kWh a month extra, so that the grid now has 150 kWh a month,
    Or use the 50 kWh a month reserve of clean energy it already has to satisfy the obligation to me, in which case the amount of grid energy that is clean remains at 100 kWh a month despite my extra payment.
     
    #50 SageBrush, May 5, 2015
    Last edited: May 5, 2015
  11. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    I don't decide for everyone. If I have to decide, I'll drive 50 MPG Prius or PiP instead.

    There are hundred of thousands (perhaps millions) of outlet in the US. Why do we need more charging stations for EVs? ;) You can drive across the country with a Leaf on existing infrastructure, right?
    I think many EV owners come from Prius. It'll be interesting to see what percentage actually replace a regular ICE cars, skipping hybrids.

    I am critical of the amount of incentive given for the social benefit we would get. I am not again EVs. It is good if it is rolled out in clean states.
     
  12. Zythryn

    Zythryn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    6,154
    4,146
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    N/A
    I thought so to, which is why I created this thread: Efficient car market growth and trends | PriusChat
    So far, it looks like about 80% of ev owners replaced a non-hybrid car.
    The percentages vary a bit from brand to brand.
    Note, more people may have previously had a hybrid, as the majority of hybrid owners (65% in 2012) don't get another hybrid. So even though the car they replaced wasn't a hybrid, they may have, in the past, tried one.
     
    3PriusMike and austingreen like this.
  13. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Well this is a theory, that giving customers choice for green energy, will not build much green energy. And certainly there are bad programs out there. But good programs actually build all the energy that is purchased.

    but sure electricity is fungable. What matters is net built. That is measurable. For example in 2000 ERCOT produced about 0.5 Twh of wind electricity. Through choice programs in 2014, 36.1 Twh of wind electricity were generated (10.6% of electricity produced and consumed on the ercot grid). Palo Alto, Ca also has one of the best choice progams. Many programs don't work, as there are political considerations to fake the building (some of the Other power imported to california, has renewables sold to someone else, and california does not properly account for the power.

    well that is your opinion, and it would produce less renewable power. Think about it. In the ercot choice system, individuals of any size (large business to efficiency renters) can ask for renewables to be built for them. In the least expensive case this is often wind, that is physically remote form the individuals and businesses. The utilities and the grid operator enhance the grid infrastructure and add the wind farms. My utility and grid operator say its 100% renewable, and that is a net issue. ERCOT is also experimenting with some batteries at the wind farms to buffer peaks so that we can get to over 30% wind. Some gross power of course comes from the nuclear plants, or gas turbines, and other users end up getting my wind, but if more wind is built, and no net fuel is consumed who cares about the accounting.

    If you require each individual to add batteries and cables and back up generators, not only is it much more expensive, less will get built because it requires a lot more resources red tape, permitting, etc, adding a great deal of waste of materials and labor. Why not build efficiently and account for the net resources used. Its like saying you need to barter pigs and goats instead of using credit cards to buy things.
     
    #53 austingreen, May 5, 2015
    Last edited: May 5, 2015
    Jeff N, Trollbait and Zythryn like this.
  14. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    I think we would agree if we were to ignore the "reliability of energy" factor.

    I have the "receiver-centric" view because that takes account of energy availability/reliability. Renewable energy is not reliable therefore need battery, hydrogen or some other mean to store it to increase it's availability and become usable at all times.

    Ignoring that reliability factor is the reason why we are seeing backlashes from some of the utility companies. They are forced to trade between the two for the same price, with the power plant shutdown/restart on their shoulders.
    As pointed out above, pumping unreliable electricity into the grid does not justify consuming reliable carbon electricity at night. Yes, you built green energy but you are not getting all of it but shared upon.
    It is fungible from energy point of view but NOT from emission, reliability or cost point of view.
    Simplify it. There is a lot of room for it. I am going through the process with my 7.8kW PV panels.

    Renewable energy needs to be stored in order to be usable when we need to rely on it. Bait and switch method to get more people to buy "clean electricity" and giving them a grid-mix is not honest and misleading. In my opinion, it is not the right way to go about.

    There is even simpler way. Don't claim you are getting emission free renewable electricity. Just say you paid for it and you are powered (energy is fungible) by it. Just DON'T say it is emission free.

    You can be powered by renewable energy but with grid emission.
    Are you pretending you don't know about SREC? SREC would guarantee you are getting emission free renewable electricity.
     
    #54 usbseawolf2000, May 6, 2015
    Last edited: May 6, 2015
  15. Zythryn

    Zythryn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    6,154
    4,146
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    N/A
    If someone is paying for 100kWh of renewable energy, be that PV panels on their roof or paying extra for wind energy from their utility, they are lowering emissions by the full amount.
    In the strictest sense, not all of that reduction goes to them. However, the amount of CO2 produced by the utility drops.
    I frankly don't care if my neighbors CO2 footprint drops because my panels produced excess energy during daylight. The CO2 emissions overall dropped, and I have done my share to help hold off the need to build more energy plants.
     
  16. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    Is that true in the case where the 100 kWh is present on the grid and consumed, regardless of whether a consumer pays extra for it ?
     
  17. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    I think I am following your argument now, which is that clean energy generated and sent to the grid, may not be consumed by an end user and therefore wasted.

    Correct?
     
  18. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,593
    11,212
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Wind energy is available at night; though from personal observation it more likely peaks in the evening and early morning.
    It just faces more hurdles for residential installation than PV.
     
  19. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    You reminded me. I laugh every time I read
    "PV ? NO GOOD, since not available at night!"
    "Wind ? NO GOOD, since a lot of it is at night!"
     
    Zythryn likes this.
  20. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,593
    11,212
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    For the absurd we can add, "Tidal? No good because of slack tides!"

    I think people's brains can get fixated on a single solution or concept, and it overlooks other options.
     
    Zythryn likes this.