Are Electric Cars Really That Polluting?

There is nothing wrong with importing energy from out of state. It's not like importing energy from a foreign country, where there could be an embargo. As long as California pays the bills, there is no problem. They have acted in recent years to restrict purchase of out-of-state coal, but that is simply to meet CA's GHG goal. Any new IGCC coal plants w./ carbon capture would be compliant with AB 32, and so would be imported. Ideal location would be in the Powder River Basin. Eliminates need to transport coal long distance on diesel-powered trains, and captured CO2 could be used nearby for EOR. Note that ALL future coal plants will have to capture CO2 in order to comply with EPA's new point-source rules.

There is no need for gas backup of wind at night w./ regard to charging EVs, since dispatch is discretionary, not mandatory. Easily remedied with smart charging/wireless/software. EVs could be charged in 'clusters' and staggered as to exactly when they are charged (and even how fast) to reflect actual wind being produced. There is no comparison to daytime power production, where gas backup is a must to prevent blackouts when wind energy drops below amount actually being demanded by grid.
California's blackouts of 12 years ago had nothing to do with importing energy from out-of-state or not having sufficient in-state generation capacity. This is a common misperception. Rather, it had to do with deregulation of the spot-price market and subsequent market manipulation by -among others- one Enron, from Texas.

Again, as long as other states are willing to sell CA power, and CA invests in projects in these states, I don't see a problem with importing energy. Yes, it results in a slightly lower Gross State Product, but it is not like we are talking about differing currencies here. It is better for GSP to import power (if it's cheaper) than to try to deploy resources in-state that are more expensive (solar in the Mojave). Another great source of potential energy to CA would be Pumped Hydro Storage deployed in Idah0, Oregon and Washington.....absorbing overnight wind from Montana and North Dakota, and re-releasing as peak-time power. These three states also have ample geothermal resources, which is ideal for baseload.

The 12% is misleading, because this is across all times of day, for the entire year. Check and see what the % is between hours of 11pm-7am or 12am-6am.....it will be much higher. Ergo, plug-ins (charged at night) will also have higher than 12% of their power from nuclear.

Coal is unlikely to ever exceed peak of 39.5% again. EPA point-source regs specifically say new power plants must have less CO2 than 500g/kwh, something nat gas can do easily (excluding methane emissions), but coal can only do with CO2 capture. Not sure if TX is planning to 'grandfather' in a bunch of old coal plants and keep them on standby, but it might not matter, as there is speculation that Obama administration will soon move to implement CO2 standards on existing plants. They have already done this in a backdoor-way by restricting mercury, NOx and soot in a way most existing coal plants cannot meet.

Nuclear will alway be a risky investment. Much of the cost has to do with a lot of red tape, and it would be easier if states had greater control. Meltdown is primarily a risk to adjacent states, not the country as a whole, so regional cooperation is probably likely to overcome red tape quicker.
At any rate, opening up a vast new market in terms of overnight EV charging would not eliminate risk of investment in nuclear, but it would certainly be a lessening factor.

 

100 GW is in the country as a whole. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
CA is an anecdotal example, because at present there is no easy way to shift vast amounts of energy from one part of the country to another, something construction of the 'SuperGrid' is meant to remedy.
This is particularly useful when shifting power to a different time zone.
For example, if EV drivers in the Eastern Time zone know that they get Off-peak rates beginning at 11pm, then most will plug in (or program their cars to begin charging) at that time. Power use in Central, Mountain and Pacific time zones will just begin to start tapering off around that time (10pm, 9pm, 8pm), so it would be most efficient to have baseload plants keep operating at their peak efficiency and transfer extra power towards the East Coast.
The line losses from long-distance power transfer are smaller than the energy lost in inefficient 'throttling' up or down of baseload plants. Even smaller if we can get large-scale superconducting lines.

The 23 GW of night demand you mentioned can be extrapolated to about 230 GW for the nation as a whole, since CA typically represents about 10% of national energy use.
The U.S. grid has a peak capacity of 1000 GW+.
Let's be clear that the 230 GW of night-time energy use will continue even with large-scale EV deployment. Thus EVs can only be blamed for incremental emissions above this amount. Off-peak EV charging fits right into the fact that wind will expand at a far higher rate than the 230 GW over the next 20 years.
Further, any emissions associated with the 230 GW are due -today- to the fact, again, that we don't have a SuperGrid with the means to transfer power from surplus areas to deficit areas. Thus we have coal and gas plants running at night in one part of the country while nuclear power plants go idle in another .
It should be clear that a natural gas plant transferring power from Florida to Ohio (and thereby idling the Ohio coal plant) results in much fewer emissions, even after factoring in line losses.

 

Not that simple.

There is no doubt that e.g. Enron caused acute energy shortages in CA that forced the state to buy sky-high spot prices from out of state, but they were only able to manipulate the market because CA only needed a few extra straws to break the camel's back. If CA had developed a reasonable amount of backup capacity, or if CA had allowed the market to set retail pricing by demand, Enron would not have had a fertile ground to exploit.

The underlying problem with the CA utility structure was regulation that prevented utilities from charging more during peak demand. This had the two-fold effect of 1, not having a market mechanism to suppress demand; and 2, making it unprofitable to build capacity to cover peak demand.

 

I refer you to the black outs of 2000. The problem comes from the high percentage of imports. If there is a lack of hydo as there was in 2000, and california doesn't have the grid or generation capacity the situation could easily happen again. With San Onofre off line, what is the purpose of continuing to plan to be so short of power. The southern part of the state may definitely have grid problems without higher generation. California imported 30% of its electricity in 2011, and it was probably higher last year. I can't see why taking all those transmission line losses importing natural gas and coal is a good thing.

The wind/natural gas mix is about surving demand. If you don't also have fast cycling natural gas wind becomes less efficient (lower % gets to customers). Texas has enough natural gas for more wind, but will need different kinds to get to 20% wind from the 9.5% we used last year. California also needs to change their power plants to react better, but they only produce a tiny amount of wind today.

Nothing is misleading about it. Its the average amount. ERCOT never falls behind nuclear power levels. In the winter it falls behind coal levels, and now some coal plants are shutting down in the winter. This isn't available to cars. In ERCOT the bulk of homes and businesses will be on the smart grid soon, which means Plug-ins will help ballance wind. Nuclear isn't part of the plug-in picture. It costs a lot of money to decomission a nuclear plant, so they are just "on". Wind displaces natural gas first, then coal. 2018 starts the phase where wind will shut down a lot of coal. Building so much wind also makes nuclear non-ecomic for new plants, it is only economic to keep the already built ones running.

We have the existing coal plants to do it. If there are price spikes for natural gas they won't be shut down. Its more about economics. The EPA attempted to close down a couple of the worst plants, in a really sleazy way. I think if they had done it above board, they would have closed completely in 2015. As it is the company TXU sued them, won the suit, but still closed those plants last winter. They are running this summer, and may run many more summers.

Texas's coal plants are much newer than most of the country, most were built after the congress told US we couldn't build base load natural gas. I serverely doubt that epa will charge much for coal co2, it might actually help texas, but east coast, coal state, and midwest democrats would be screaming.

Low natural gas prices and more wind are what it takes to kill coal in texas. Many here don't like it, but the govenor does.
Coal is Coming Undone in Texas

Better regulation is always welcome, but a lot of the red tape has to do with utilities like Southern California Edison, that lied on its papers.
Southern California Edison's Problems Ensnare Entire Nuclear Energy Sector - Forbes
PG&E also did a great deal of lieing on its papers filed for diablo canyon.

I would have considered a melt down of that beautiful beach front by san onofre a disaster for the whole country. All the tax payers would have had to bail out California. I don't think the Japanese thought fukashima was a local disaster.

Now my own utilities ownership of South Texas Power has been quite different. They went beyond the NRC for safety, but there were massive cost over runs. The plant is sited away from major population, and has more back ups.

 

Better battery tech is needed. No argument there. Recycling industry will mature.

DBCassidy

 

Again, I am simply not convinced that having your power generation located outside of your borders leads to blackouts. These are not foreign countries we are getting our power from. They are other utilities that signed contracts which are legally binding, and enforceable via litigation in U.S. courts.
If PG&E or SCE invest in energy in Nevada or Arizona, then what matters is how the contract terms are written, not where the physical Megawatts are actually located. They could very well stipulate that CA gets 'first dibs' on all power up to a certain amount, or during a certain time. That could actually mean that a utility in another state would have to deny its own nearby customers the watts from a power plant -even during peak demand- and instead send that power to CA. Failure to do so would be a violation of the terms of the contract. Of course, it could be possible to simply rely on market prices, not contracts, but I doubt CA utilities would base more than a fraction of peak needs in such a way. Blackouts vs. out-bidding other Western states is not an appealing choice.

I am in agreement with you here. I don't understand half of the CA regs. I do know there is a lot of NIMBYism there, which makes it harder to get things built. AB 32 is one example. But, costs are important too. If Nat. gas or IGCC coal in NV or AZ meets AB 32, then it makes more sense to import these. Even with line losses, they would still be cheaper than PV in the Mojave. PV's are obviously less GHG, but CA's economy is better off buying cheaper NG and IGCC that just barely meets AB32.

I'm not sure about this w./ respect to overnight EV charging. If the EV's are grid-networked, they can react at nearly the speed of light, cutting off charging, or scaling charging up or down, depending on wind conditions. Reaction is much faster than a gas turbine -even faster than SOFC- so, not sure why they're necessary. EVs would be providing the same buffering as NG, just on demand side as opposed to supply side.

Exactly. It is an average, across all times and seasons. Given most NG and coal plants throttle down at night, it follows that nukes should command a higher % of all power generated during strictly the 11-7 or 12-6 hours, and excluding all other times.

Not defending EPA methods, nor those of PG&E or SCE. Flip side of too much / too aggressive regulation is too little. Might want to check out this link (from your link), detailing lax attitude of TCEQ:

Coal Star State | The Texas Observer

Agreed. A really bad nuclear meltdown is a disaster for the entire country. But let's be clear that it's only a disaster in monetary terms for most of the country, but it is a disaster in life and death terms for the relevant and adjacent states. So, there would be more incentive for them to get the regulations right. And, it's probably more efficient in terms of red tape.
I would take nuclear over coal (w/o co2 capture) any day. I am dismayed by environmentalists who protested nukes in the 70' and 80's, which only led to more coal.
I feel the southern states are especially in need of nuclear, as they are short of fossil fuels and lack renewables too.
Let's also not forget that when (not if) the refinery complex of TX, or the southern coast of FL gets hit with a CAT5 hurricane -made worse by warm water and rising seas- the rest of the country will consider it a disaster too.
Better to worry about a real threat 100 years from now (sea-level rise) than a hypothetical threat 100,000 years from now (nuclear waste)

 

Agreed. CA regs are to blame. Not going to defend those, but let's be clear about the chain of causation:


(1) CA regulations prohibit market pricing for peak demand------->
(2) No peaker plants are built in-state, nor are out-state utilities willing to sell peak power at low prices--------->
(3) Enron, et. al step in and exploit the situation.


If CA had allowed market pricing for peak demand, while simultaneously denying a single permit to build any peak capacity in-state, it is highly unlikely blackouts would still have happened. Peak rates would escalate to the point that there would simply be too much incentive for a utility on the Nevada or Arizona side of the CA border to throw up peaker NG plants and profit from the situation....in a 'good' way as opposed to the 'bad' way that Enron did.

Regulations matter more than where the physical Megawatts are actually located, up to a certain point.

 

Don't forget also, in an era of ever-rising gasoline prices, there will simply be more incentive to keep HEVs/PHEVs/EVs on the road longer -battery costs and all- vs. an ICE car. Also ensures higher resale values, delaying scrappage except as a last resort.

 

Enron did a little more than just 'step in.' LOL

They and their colleagues in crime conspired to shut down plants in CA at the most critical times for ' maintenance,' and manipulated the main transmission line from N. to S. CA to cause artificial shortages. As I said though, this was only possible because CA was already living on the edge in terms of peak capacity, and Californians happily cranked up their AC right up to collapse of the system.

And/or Californians would have curbed their demand. High prices tend to have that effect.

So I'll conclude on a slightly different note:

• Enron was criminal
• The state regs were stupid. It is not as if state price fixing is a novel idea, or the consequences a surprise.
• The people of CA were morons. Wth did they expect ?? Really, <<10 cents/kWh without bounds ?? I grew up in CA, so I can say that

 

And higher prices here did exactly that. Most folks seem to forget that that event hit the entire West Coast, not just California. But we cut demand enough to avoid any blackouts.

Unfortunately, other kinds of poor management here caused permanent damage to our rate structure.

 

A car charging cannot cut its power demand fast enough to prevent voltage and frequency fluctuations.

Keeping the grid operating properly requires more than just meeting the demand in terms of mega watts delivered.
Here is a study on one method to allow large amounts of wind, combined with compressed air (CAES) and NG to provide a consistent high quality feed in to the grid.

(Note: I tried to link a pdf but PC doesn't seem to like the link. Search for CEC-500-2013-004.pdf at http://www.energy.ca.gov )
Mike

 

It becomes less efficient because of the voltage fluctuations; severe fluctuations can damage equipment.
If the fluctuation can be managed, a little less efficiency may be worth it depending on what the price of NG is, and what value that utility assigns to GHG's.
Glad you mentioned CAES.....along with Pumped Hydro (and eventually, V2G), they offer even faster reaction times than NG, with no GHG's.

 

Is california at risk for blackouts? Some MIT scientists think so
Bad News For Power Blackouts: MIT's Killer Algorithm - Forbes

California - Timeline | Blackout | FRONTLINE | PBS
You forgot a great number of steps.
1) PG&E and SCE ask for deregulation so they can make more money
2) Pete Wilson's government gives them all they ask for. It includes rules that power producers can make more money if there are shortages, and disincentives to build power plants in california. They know there were problems, but just left them in the law.
3) Davis takes over and does nothing to fix the warned about problems with deregulation
3) San Diego electric is the first utility to finish deregulation. They triple prices for production.
4) Drought conditions reduce hydro power, the utilities and power producers now can ask for huge profits.
................................
5) PG&E and SCE lose a lot of money trying to pay spot prices. They refuse to buy
6) Black outs....
Lots of crying,
7) Long term contracts are sighned with unfavorable rates to california rate payers
8) PG&E & SCE doesn't get to charge as much as they want and declares bankrupcty, asking the state to bail them out.

Dynergy and Reliant (now NRG), PG&E, SCE, San Diago Electric all manipulated the market with enron. The system was rigged. The PUC of other states nor the FERC was going to build to ensure california reliability unless the utilities were paid. California is much bigger than those other states in terms of demand. By the california deregulation rules, without long term contracts that the california utilities could not afford power was not going to be built. If the utilities could have passed along the higher charges though, maintenance would have been quickly done, and just small blackouts and high bills would have happened.

Well yes, and the way California deregulated just was made to rape the rate payer. That the California government didn't know what they were doing, and caused blackouts and rates to go up in other states is just awful. No one is going to build a plant that needs a long transmission line today, when in a few years a better located plant can get constructed. The long transmission lines cost money.

I wonder when the next blackouts happen whether the PUC will think about rejecting the building of natural gas plants.
San Diego utility revives plans for electric plant - Businessweek
We may not get blackouts again in california or we may get them this year. In 2011 ERCOT thought they had 15% capacity over peak, but peak happened to be 20% over their estimates. They did obtain out of grid power, but if its hot in california, it is likely going to be hot in nevada and arizona too. Who is doing the math? Is it the same guys that thought they had plenty of power in 2000?

That said, other than the PUC building too little reserve power, in 2012 California did build a great deal of wind and solar. The survey of leaf owners in the state said 39% offset the power their bev was using with solar power. The power for these plug-ins in California is likely to be very clean indeed.

 

I am sure CA is doing the math. Check it out:

CleanTechnica | Clean Tech News &amp; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &amp; More.

CA is making more progress in solar than TX is in wind. Pretty soon CA won't need fossil fuels for peak power......imported or not.......Haha!

 

All I see is the headlines that San Diego and San Francisco are at risk of rolling black outs this summer. Since the CPUC has been rejecting new natural gas power, and not even considering that San Onofre might be decommissioned, I am certain they are not doing the math. California is in better shape than it was in 1999, but mother nature can be a b&tch, and I don't think the CPUC folks get it. Remember California has brought on-line much power that should be moth balled, if new 60% efficient ccgt is built then renewables added, you remove the moth balled stuff and shut down some more natural gas thermal plants that can not cycle with renewables and are much less efficient than than ccgt plants.

Since this solar can't all flow to those Southern California residents, I think you can see my point. The reason again CPUC needs to consider in state generation is because it doesn't have control of out of state generation.

As for the idea that California is adding Solar faster than Texas is adding wind, that is a little bit off. From the article

From your same source publication

CleanTechnica | Clean Tech News &amp; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &amp; More.

The last I checked 9.5 GW are still better than 2.1 GW. Texas has added so much wind that grid improvements are needed to add more

I'm spit balling but 2 GW of solar if its at 25% utilization from the hours the sun shines is about 4400 Gwh. In 2011 California used 292,000 Gwh which makes solar about 1.5% of california's energy use. Some have said that this undercounts roof top systems, lets throw in 1% for the systems not counted and guestimate 2.5%. Now this often comes at peak so its more valuable than wind but.... Its much easier to build a lot of wind. California should do both, and really did get more serious about wind in 2012.

Total Electricity System Power

Wind in 2011 was 5% of california use, it likely is higher today, so it dwarfs solar. Texas produces a higher percent of its grid from wind and solar than california. Where california comes ahead is in small hydro and geothermal that texas simply does not have. Both states are doing relatively well for the US but could do better.

Where the TCEQ and PUCT (public utility comission texas, the CPUC counter part)falls down is in the amount of coal that has been built. It also has been slow to allow ERCOT in setting higher reserves for black outs. The rolling black out that I experienced was from poor regulation for cold, many power plants failed when we had unseasonably cold temperatures and they were not weatherized.

 

Check this out:


California ISO -
Today&#39;s Outlook Details



Today's peak is expect at 33 GW while the available capacity is ~45 GW. The legislative changes after the 2000 - 2001 disaster, along with better control by CA ISO has changed things. CA is the most energy efficient state in the US, per capita (about 1/2 the average and of Texas).

U.S. Per Capita Electricity Use By State In 2010

Over the past few decades electricity demand nation wide has increased by a lot by remained relatively flat in CA.

http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2008/data/papers/8_733.pdf
(see graphs on page 2 and 4)

Mike

 

That's fine for today, but um don't we remember last month

Conservation, cooler temps help California power grid - Chicago Tribune

46.3 GW peak demand means that california exceeded the safety margin. It required conservation, San Diago Electric cut some power to the navy, PG&E cut some power to businesses that had agreed to have power cut to avoid black outs. What happens if its hotter next year with less rain and snow so less hydro power? Since it takes a while to get ccgt plants through the red tape and built doesn't it make sense to bring in about 4GW of fast cycling ccgt, that could be deployed as 8 - 500MW units with efficiency of 60% when operating above 40% capacity. Say they operate at an average of 70%, That is 24,000 gwh a year or about the amount california had as coal in 2011.

I am curious to see the 2013 power plant mix, but here it was in 2011
Age of Generating Units of California's Power Plants as of 2009
Many of those '60s and '70s era natural gas plants have been burning more natural gas this summer, with some coming out of mothballs. Its not a stretch to think that building new ccgt goes along with conservation and renewables. That is unless you want 40+ year old gas plants on-line instead of building more efficient ones. If you are a utility that owns these old plants you may like that, but as a rate payer or environmentalist its not a good move.

Of course Texas uses more power than California per capita. When I lived in palo alto, I didn't have an air-conditioner. In 2011 we had 100 days over 100 degrees here. Texas refines oil for a good portion of the country, and makes aluminum, etc. These are power intensive tasks. Texas can ofcourse do more to conserve, but its really a stupid comparison to think California should not have much lower electricity demand per capita.

 

There is nothing wrong with using conservation to limit power on peak demand days. As a matter of fact I think it is the best way to go. For a dozen or so days per year it makes a lot of sense to cut back a little rather than have to build extra power plants just to use a few days per year.

I'm in a voluntary PG&E program where I get ~2 cents per kwh lower rates all summer, but on about a dozen days they can email me a day in advance to notify me of a high demand day. From 2pm - 7pm on those days my rates go way up. Since my normal usage is very low anyway I don't do much special on those days, just don't use any appliances or cook until after 7pm. These days are only Mon-Fri and I normally don't get home till ~7pm anyway.

At my work we get notified in a similar way and we shut off ~half the lights and raise the A/C temp by 1-2 degrees. I don't know what monetary incentives we get. Curiously, the work and residential cut-back days don't always overlap.

I'm not saying that TX and CA should be the same. (In CA we pump lots and lots of water, 80%+ of it goes for crop irrigation and lots of it goes out of state.) But look at the residential per capita usage. A/C usage nationwide is ~5% of total demand. I feel for those of you in hot places, especially with high humidity. I use no A/C in my home, by design. I have a large SW-facing shade tree. I've insulated well. I built a fan system that brings in cool air from under my house (only bother to use it ~10 days per year). Most of my neighbors have A/C running 50-75 days per year.

I'm actually amazed at how low the per capita residential usage is in CA since I see so much wasted usage everywhere.

Mike

 

It is only fine if you don't put a large negative value for blackouts. The conscious decission to realy on conservation and mothballed generation on what is not a very different july day, leaves the grid at heavy risk. What if there is a drought year like in 1994 or 2000 where much less hydro power is generated?

Nothing wrong with having conservation, but there is a lot wrong with assuming that today's weather is what we will get tomorrow, and under-building capacity on purpose. Hey I left the state, so I willl not be heavily impacted, but I still do business there, and have friends and relatives.

Where I see it is CPUC is underbuilding then using power plants that should be moth balled and conservation to avoid black outs. That system will work for a number of years, but they will hit. Blackouts cost much more than the power plants that are needed to reduce them. I don't understand why you would want to continue to use plants that were mothballed that are at least 35% less efficient new ones, because you don't want to pay for infrastructure for fossil plants. Within 10 years that is bound to cost rate payers money if there is a blackout or if the price of natural gas goes up.

Nothing wrong with that. I allow my utility to play with my thermostat if they need to, it hasn't happened yet. I still want them to build enough capacity that they don't need to do that. I buy wind electricity. Its good to use rates to demand shift though.

Nice, but again might it be better if they actually built the infrastructure and prevented using these tools unless there was very hot weather and drought? If california got hit with the weather texas got in 2011, there would of course be major black outs. The weather there is not as extreme in most places as it is here, but the principals of under engineering as PG&E and SCE do, is not a good thing. Can we at least agree that California needs to quickly rebuild capacity lost by what I consider the criminal negligance in breaking San Onofre by trying to sneak in a power plant upgrade.

Again, if we didn't have air conditioning here, we would have a lower population. You can see the migration after affordable airconditioning was done. You can't compare places that don't need hvac for living. Its just wrong. I don't know the residential figures, but a great proportion of power in texas goes to work not home. If you made the temperatures the same, its likely a austin home would use less energy than one in San Diago. Many businesses locate here for the natural gas and electricity prices. You can't say they would use less in California, they just would locate many of them outside the US if they had to pay california prices.