Well-to-wheels analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of plug-in hybrid EVs

That's quite a report. Over my head at a glance.

Figure 3.7 (p. 41) seems to give the -10 and -20 their AER, but cut the -30 to -20 levels and the -40 down to -30ish for on-road real world driving. Says that the power-split -10/-20 will use gas to overcome conditions, while the -30/-40 series designs will sacrifice AER to keep the ICE off until depleted. Do I understand that correctly? If so, how does that reconcile with the lack of choice on EV vs HV in the Prius PHV prototypes? As tested by our forum members, wouldn't AER be reduced more or less proportionally to that of the series design?

 

First I've got to say the authors did themselves a disservice in defining what AERXX does in the real world. I would hope that if a vehicle gets 27 in the real world it would be labeled AER27 not AER40. With that said in my skimming they probably did not give an AER40 the proper weight disadvantage either, so its hard to tell how they are using these numbers. If the volt is really 40 would it be a serial AER60 in the report? Should we account for the retarded engine choice in figuring out gasoline consumption. Hopefully the AER will correspond to an average real world milage and if the volt gets 27, it should get a 27, if it gets 43 it should get 43.

Let's wait a little while for the epa, or gm, or more likely one of the car magazines to test the volt and tell us how far it goes AER and its CS mpg. I doubt this report accurately tells what the volt will do. If you want to play around it seemed like 43 miles AER on 8.8kwh of electricity, and lets through a low ball of 34mpg cs out there just to talk if you can't wait. Phv prius lets say 13 miles AER and 50mpg cs.

From a more intrinsic point of view all fossil fuels are not equal. If I charge a phv prius at night, I'll be charged about 4 cents a kwh and it will likely charge on a mix of wind (that's what I pay for), nuc, and coal none of these get turned off but excess might be sold if the city doesn't use it. The local grid is much greener than those in the scenarios. YMMV. If I fill up with gas, its gas, but likely a lower energy cost than in South Dakota since the refineries are close and use light crude. Also YMMV. I would much rather fill a phev with wind power, and hill with solar, than gasoline. Those ghg scores are estimates. The fewer ozone action days in my city from tail pipes the better. This is even a bigger imperative in those dirtier cities like LA, pittsburgh, and houston. My local grid is 32% coal, but those plants will be on whether I plug in or not, the plan is to reduce it to 22% by 2020. If your in North Dakota or Indiana your grid looks completely different than mine.

Won't the volt us a lot less fossil fuel than a lexus or gm hybrid? I am distrustful when we get to the CO2 is the big problem. At least the report does show the changes of gasoline use, and has a more realistic growth rate of phev and ev for the grid then some other reports.

 

usb, i know you really don't like the volt, but you really need to think about some of your statements. For someone who has renewables for his power (i use ecotricity.co.uk which is all wind and solar) and commutes 26 miles a day, the volt (or ampera) would -inarguably- use less fuel, emit less CO2 or other GHG's and cost less to run for me than the current prius PHV or regular prius. if they made a PHV with 25 mile range it's a more complex prospect (part of my commute has a 70mph limit, and some large hills). Certainly i'd -like- to see a series hybrid with 80 miles of AER, and at that point i really don't care if the range extender is a 6 litre V8, i would still use less fuel across a year.

 

They are going to offer a 40-60 mile PHEV pack for the 2010 Prius, from PICC (Plug In Conversions)... It's not "factory", but it might acomplish what you want, without even replacing your current Prius. Even if it costs $10-12K, it's less than replacing an existing Prius.

WWW.EVWORLD.COM : California Company Develops 40-Mile Plug-in Prius

and

Ewert Energy Systems

 

Not so fast in your conclusions. Is your 'clean' energy wasted if you do not use it, or more likely, your neighbor is getting a dirtier mix when you opt for the "clean" stuff ?

 

On an individual scale it may work that way because of existing extra capacity, but on a large scale, if everyone paid a bit extra for the renewable energy they'd have to bring all that renewable energy online.

In theory, for every customer they sign up they should be bringing online that much more renewable energy.

 

I was asked this same question yesterday by someone who had just moved to town and signed up for green choice, but wondered if it mattered. In the past, my utility has added more renewable as more people have signed up for the program. But the new plan puts so much renewable energy online that the costs will just be passed to all the customers if enough people don't sign up. It may be cheaper to sign up for green energy and lock in the price of wind instead of more expensive solar that will be built. Then again the grid is much greener than burning gasoline in a hybrid for me today, and it will be even more so tomorrow. I think ecotricity works the way green choice used to work in austin, they really do build new green capacity.

Where sagebrush is from, they don't use many renewable and mandates will force whatever gets built. So if he joins a program it will likely do no good. That does not change the fact that the grid is getting greener even where you can't choose to add green energy.

 

Sagebrush's argument in the past is that any additional loads on the grid are in essence fossil fuel powered since that's where spare capacity is.

Any low carbon power source is typically run flat out as it has the lowest fuel costs (renewable = 0, nuclear = low) and then from there the preference is to run coal and then nat-gas plants.

The problem with that argument is - where do you draw the line once you've added that load? You could make that argument about any load on the grid until the grid is running 100% renewable.

So in my opinion - make the claim that any new load on a grid which is powered partly by fossil fuels is completely fossil fuel powered is a fallacy.

 

Color me skeptical. Any utility I have looked into that sells "green energy" has small print that simply says that their clean mix will cover green demand. This is nowhere close to being the same as saying that new demand will lead to increased production. In cases I have checked, it means that the utility buys clean energy (that is already on the grid) from outside sources.

I'll avoid calling utility green offers a scam, but I suggest reading the fine print before sending them extra money for what is likely greenwashing.

 

Indeed. And I do.

 

Completely agree with that point. The nuc, wind, and solar run full tilt on my local grid, as unfortunately the coal plant. biomass and gas fill in for peaks. The coal plant will be partially turned off as we add more renewables. The plan for 2020 is to get 8% of electricity from biomass which can be used at peak demands and to even out renewables. By 2030 there will likely be a surplus of renewables in the local grid at times and these will be sold to other utilities and hopefully displace their fossil fuels.

 

You can look up austin green choice, which is one of the most sucessfull efforts in the country. I also lived in Palo Alto California which is another successful green energy utility. These programs work with other companies that build new power on the grid based on long term contracts. City of Austin utilities has added a tract after selling the previous tract, which means the customers are actually getting these projects built.

 

What makes you confident in this statement ? Explain why the operator is going to operate at partial capacity, even though this electricity is the cheapest (or maybe on par with nuke) on the market ?

 

Nothing to do with pricing or regulation ?

addendum. Huh, look what I found
http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_rps-portfolio.htm

AG, if the total clean energy fraction in TX is no greater than the RPS requires, what do you conclude regarding the effectiveness of your green energy surcharge in its ability to bring additional green energy online ?

 

Did you find a cherry?

Texas is pro-wind and anti-coal in regulation. Well in the scheme of things that makes it pretty neutral since there is a public cost to burning coal, and money from wind power funds the states school system. The mandate for wind for 2010 was hit in 2005 because of programs like green choice. The legislator is building a better grid so utilities doesn't have to pay the extra costs of transmission lines to west texas and the panhandle where wind and solar are best. So the legislature raised the goals which are also being beat. It's not a 0 sum game. The state has 3% energy from wind, Austin just hit 13% part of the reason much more wind is being built than the legislature asked for. By the way the pro-wind laws were put on the books because an overwhelming majority of Texans want them. As I said the current plan is going to outstrip green choice so additional money won't help, but ..... I locked in to my windmill for 10 years with 5 to go, so I may be paying lower rates than the non green choice customers soon.

The regulators which in my case is the city council asked for 3% solar and 30% renewable by 2020. The regulators are also the ones pushing green choice The current utility plan is 3% solar and 36% renewable. There is no way green choice is going to buy all that power so some will be passed along. If 100% power was paid for by green choice the utility would get it built. One plan called for the closing of the coal plant in 2020, but it was rejected based on likely cost and risk.

 

Yes i'd be interested in the PICC system, but i don't think they have any plans to have a uk dealer, and there's no DIY option.

40 mile PICC PHEV Prius would be better for me than a volt/ampera.

 

The price is matched to the top 3 regional suppliers - i.e. it costs no more money. (that's for their 50% from their own wind farms, 50% brown power) i've opted to pay slightly more (50% their wind, 50% green power). they are getting new customers faster than they can get planning permission for new sites.

Sadly, no. while most of the time i don't need 100 miles, my wife does need it for performances, and we don't want two cars.

If it's charged from renewables, YES. If it's not, YES. The chargers, inverters, batteries, everything, will improve with a second generation, but there needs to be a first generation.

Would it contradict it with my drive cycle and power supply?