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

From another thread:

Wait, if a plugin owner buys the SREC paper they can claim to charge their car with renewable energy?
Then those paying extra for renewable, should be getting the SREC. Unless the power company is deceitful. So they can claim to be using renewable for the car.
A homeowner with a PV installation in SREC area can claim to be green if they don't sell their SRECs. If they aren't in a market with SREC, they then can't claim to be using renewable energy, even if their system produces more than they use in a given time frame?

 

It's good that the grid issue gets separated out on the one hand. On the other hand, since most plug-in's are in Cali - and since we dont get renewable credits - that whole red hearing kinda becomes a moot point ... which was the point I'd hoped to put to bed.
.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Yes, absolutely. Your solar kWh was used to charge your car before reaching the net meter and go out to the grid.

Your car is powered by solar power and renewable clean when you charge at 1:45pm. However, your home cannot claim the same. Ditto if you charge at night to take advantage of lower price electricity.

Straight from DOE:

Renewable energy certificates (RECs), also known as renewable energy credits, green certificates, green tags, or tradable renewable certificates, represent the environmental attributes of the power produced from renewable energy projects and are sold separate from commodity electricity. Customers can buy green certificates whether or not they have access to green power through their local utility or a competitive electricity marketer. And they can purchase green certificates without having to switch electricity suppliers.
​

If you are buying "green" electricity from utility company and you are not getting SREC, something funny is going on. You are likely getting the grid mix with a little more renewable added to raise the average.

In the state with no SREC, you aren't required to register for SREC. I don't think there is a requirement to install a meter to track kWh solar production.

Without SREC (measurement to verify), your PV system represent a tiny (anonymous) part of the entire regional grid.

You are assuming solar kWh would magically replace fossil kWh. How can fossil power plant shut down if PV system owners consume fossil kWh at night?

Another complication is the renewable power are funded by pretty much everybody. Utility bill has "renewable tax" included for the renewable share in the grid electricity. So, it is not only PV system owner but everyone has their share of "carbon free" electricity.

My solar incentives are pretty much funded by my neighbors without PV systems. I can't take the ownership of carbon free claim unless I have the SREC.

I gave it some thought into this discussion from the other thread.

In term of energy, electricity is fungible but not in term of price or carbon footprint as cleaner electricity worth more.

Therefore, you can claim your car is powered by the sun (energy) without the benefit of carbon-free renewable electricity (just the regional grid average).

 

We aren't talking about the grid, but the individual.

The goal is to reduce carbon emissions, correct?

One of the actions an individual can take to that affect is to install home PV. If their net consumption is zero or less compared to their solar production on a grid tied system, then their house hold electric is carbon free. The grid tied meter is measuring what goes in and what goes out. This includes any plugin miles if they have one. Whether or not they have REC slips for the solar generation.

To say that they are not is removing one of the 'carrots' to get people to install PV. There are still other carrots, but one less could be influence their decision on how much PV capacity to install, or to even install at all. Which means less, or no, GHG emissions reduced for electric generation by the individual. Leaving a greater burden on the utility and government to reduce them.

 

I look at the tunnel vision on the individuals direct carbon use as strictly bragging rights.
If you want to do what is best for society's GHG contribution over the long term, you won't use renewable energy during peak times, even if you can, and will shift your use to off peak, even if it isn't renewable.

This will hold true until all new power production is renewable AND the shutting down fossil fuels plants is not slowed.

This is simply because we don't want to add more power plants to the grid before absolutely necessary.

If I can add my carbon free energy to the grid and help slow down the need for new power plants, that is a win.
And if I added PV specifically as a result of getting a plugin vehicle, I consider that driving on sunshine even if I am not powering it directly off my own solar panels.

 

I am not a big fan of saying EV is a boon for the environment (as per the UCS papers). I still postulate if we knew how much electricity say Volts and Tesla's were actually using in say Northeast's cold winters and hot summers, we would have a lot of CO2 generation. I realize some EV advocates are hyper-miling (not using much heat/AC) to maximize miles per electron, but that's a personal option.

I'm not sure where EV-advocate Chelsea Sexton stands on it today, but she has previously said it's a mistake to try to say EV is greener due to emissions. She says the argument needs to be on quality of drive, and also she seems to support the avoidance of petroleum (energy-choice) argument. In CA we have some special smog issues, I assume CARB is correct in saying gotta have zero emissions cars in smog areas (but cars like Prius are getting so clean I am starting to get skeptical on the smog argument).

 

One dimensional thinking is the issue. There are two dimensions that need to be addressed separately, see my previous post.

Solar energy vs. renewable carbon-free emission. The problem is when EV owners with grid-tied PV system claim their EV miles are carbon-free. That's simply not true because the grid is not carbon free. Carbon-free claim requires SREC.

However, he can claim the energy for those EV miles are from the sun since electrons are fungible.

I agree, California electricity is pretty clean. So is NY and NJ but there are spots where it is not, for example Long Island.

It doesn't mean we should roll out EVs and PHEV nationwide if the result is higher emission with the cost of $7,500 tax incentive.

UCS chart said 60% of the population lives in location where the electric miles are cleaner than 50 MPG gas Prius. However, that is a bit misleading because not everybody in the household would buy a car. In the dense cities, it is less likely due to the mass transit availability.

 

EV alone, no. The discussion is about those that get an EV, and take additional steps to use cleaner electric. Either by installing home PV or wind, or simply buying renewable energy from the utility.

A business requires the REC if they are using the carbon free claim for advertising or possibly tax or other incentive purposes. By why the individual with a grid tied system?

If the sun electrons are fungible, why aren't carbon free ones?

There are national and individual reasons beyond emissions for doing so.

 

One dimensional thinking is exactly what I am trying to get you out of.
Someone else said it better than I, so I will try again.

If someone produces 1 ton of CO2 each year, and then gets an EV and solar panels and produces 1 ton of CO2 each year, their driving adds no CO2 to the atmosphere.

Now, you can get nit picky and say that because they plug in at night and the grid is generating CO2 their car therefore produces CO2. However, that is glossing over the full story, which is that annually, their lifestyle with an EV adds no more CO2 to the atmosphere.

And if steps are taken, such as adding PV or buying renewable energy, it is lower.

 

Because the grid is not carbon free. If it is, I would agree. Carbon free kWh goes in and carbon free kWh comes out.

Sure, there are many other reasons but the point is, not surely emission reason. Can other reasons balance out and justify the social benefit for $7,500?

Because their system is not probably certified to generate carbon free certificate. Grid infrastructure and maintenance is funded by many others. Individual can't claim all the credit for the collective effort. Having SREC ensure that you are not "stepping on other toes".

The set up won't work without the reliability of fossil fuel. Renewable energy is unreliable. That someone is taking advantage of reliable fossil fuel (and publicly funded infrastructure) in order to make that solar system work. Individual cannot claim the group collective effort.

Your self-centered thinking denies effort of others and take away their credit.

 

Pretty much
The difficulty in assigning value to PV production sent to the grid is that the source energy displaced is a moving target that changes with locale, time of day, pricing signals, supply and demand.

In general, PV reduces NG because that is the most expensive for the utility.
OTOH, PV that prevents fossil fuel growth may be offsetting coal because that may have been the utility base load choice.

Complicated, eh?

 

With EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan (to be finalized Summer 2015) EPA is asking for 30% CO2 reduction by 2030 (interim 2020) from 2005 BASE, and we are already down about 15% so really easy, just a little ways to go, right? No way, however. When you consider population growth about +20% between 2005 and 2030, its more like a 50-60% CO2 reduction per person EPA is asking for from 2005. For Virginia, EPA wants to ask us for 40% CO2 reduction between now and 2030 (2020 interim - harder yet). We only have 20% coal use to play with.

In other words, yes we are cleaning up the grid. But we'd pretty much have to shut down coal just to break even on CO2 emissons growth by 2030. And EPA is not asking to just hold CO2 even, they are asking to reduce it. So we see how it works out.

 

You may be mixing things up here. Can we distinguish between a reduction in absolute coal use, and reduction in the fractional use of coal ?

The latter may simply require that new capacity not be coal.

Addendum: I looked up the EPA proposal. A 30% reduction in carbon emissions from a 2005 baseline by 2030 is proposed. Imagine If a 1990 baseline had been used, as it should have.

Since 15% reduction has occurred from fuel substitution, the proposal is in effect saying that all new capacity had best be clean, and another 15% reduction of 2005 level emissions by a combination of fuel substitution and clean fuels.

All told, that sounds like a call to pollute in 2030 at 1990 levels.
You think the South is whining now? Wait until they are told to reduce emissions to circa 1680 levels.

 

That is an interesting way of looking at it, I hope I didn't give anyone else that impression.
I in no way want to ignore or lessen the incredible value of the grid, nor anyone's efferots in maintaining it.

The marvels of the grid are why it works so much better than an off grid setup if you want to help society rather than just focus on your own personal GHG emissions.

By contributing to the grid, I clean up my own home and transportation energy, and in addition, share some renewable energy with my neighbors.
It is the same reason that we not only are designing our yard to absorb and filter all rainwater that falls on it, but are also designing curb cuts to absorb additional water from the streets.

Being green isn't just about you, it is about society.

 

Yes. Even if the carbon emissions aren't reduced, the emissions toxic to human health are shifted away from human population centers and possible smog basins. Shifting from petroleum to a domestic fuel could reduce national security expenditures and threats. It does lessen the economic impact of petroleum price swings.

Sun generated electricity is carbon free. If sun electrons are fungible, and if a plugin owner can claim their car is powered by the sun because of that, then they can claim to be carbon free.If they can't claim it to be carbon free, then they can't claim to be sun powered. It is both or it is neither.

So it isn't certified, so what? The only reason to be certified is in order to sell SRECs. If the person wants to use carbon free power, they aren't going to be selling the SRECs to begin with. What is the difference between a home PV in a locale that allows it to be certified for SRECs and one that the locale that doesn't besides paper work? Whose toes could get stepped on?

Transmission fees for the grid supplied electric are included in the bill. If the utility is being forced to pay the PV owner more than the spot wholesale for the electric their panels provide to the grid, that is an issue with poor regulations.. Even then, their is likely a monthly fee in order to be tied to the grid.

So, the only way for someone with a PV and/or a wind turbine can claim to be carbon free is to be off the grid. You do realize that an off grid home will take more resources and have less carbon emission reduction than a grid tied home, right? The grid tied one won't have any environmental and power loss costs for batteries, and any excess electric generation made during the day goes and displaces fossil fuel energy right away.

 

So let me get this straight. I'm considering getting solar, but I am usually at work when it is sunny. If I drive home, charge then back to work I can claim that I am "clean" and driving on solar. But if I charge at work (on a sunny day) and am using almost nothing can I claim I'm driving on solar? I'm producing the solar electrons and I want to claim I'm the one consuming them.
Does it make any difference if I live 50 ft from where I work? Or 500 ft or 5 miles?
What about the fact that at home I use 120v to charge (15% losses) vs 240v at work with 10% losses?
Should I just not get solar if I can't claim to be driving on solar?
(My home electric usage is too low to make solar practical without charging a car once in a while)

Note that nationally the line losses are something like 5-7%. But certainly only a few miles away they have to be much smaller than that. So it seems to me it is greener to have solar at home but charge miles away with less losses during charging.

Mike