Coal power Volt vs. Gas power Prius

Yes, but that takes a collective pollution burden and disproportionately places it on yourself. Instead of taking the viewpoint that we are collectively in excess of our clean production to some degree, that would say that your consumption is 100% excess. If everyone took that viewpoint, then we would all consider ourselves to be using 100% dirty fuel and no clean energy, which is clearly not right. That's why I think it's pessimistic.

Regarding the TVA green switch: It has occurred to me that it might be a scam. How would I really know that my extra money's going toward green energy? It would definitely require some trust.

 

+1

Doors, insulation, windows, hybrid hot water heaters (where natgas is unavailable), CF lighting etc.

All have much better impact for far less money. Far more are 100% USA made so the money stays here and therefore pay for themselves.

 

^^ I don't understand your reasoning krelborne, sorry. What is hopefully clear to you from my arguments though is that if you add MORE demand today with an EV, all of the energy to run it is going to be dirty.

Re: TVA. I don't doubt that TVA is buying clean energy in an amount to cover the consumption of people who opted in to the program. My point is that they are doing so *anyway*, or are buying clean energy that just takes it away from somebody else. The problem is that no *additional* clean energy is on the grid from your voluntary higher payments.

 

I see your argument, but I can't allocate "dirty" energy to specific products without going down some logical rabbit holes. If an EV would be entirely powered by dirty energy, what about my TV? My computer? My air conditioner? Or would you argue that the EV is "special" in this regard because it is the only one with a readily available alternative, the plain old automobile? It's all a matter of accounting.

 

Do remember however that EV's and Pev's not only can buy power from the grid, but they can (with the proper inverter setup) sell power back to the grid. This could have a significant effect on a number of different energy fronts. The first is by having a large number of EVs plugged in 23/7 (as most cars sit most of the time!) they could be selling back to the grid at times of peak demand, reducing peak generating needs of the grid, and in turn reducing peak idle spinning capacity that needs to be available for spike loads, therefore reducing net emissions.

Second, with a signifiant number of Evs plugged into the grid, they serve as a large, disaggregated battery bank that tends to even out the variances of wind and solar, in effect allowing solar to be used 24/7. Charge at times of low demand, sell back at times of peak demand, all the while programming the EVs to have enough battery power stored to drive what ever number of miles that the owner needs on any given day. It is a win/win/win scenario, and it is not pie in the sky technology .

Icarus

 

True, but there's a lot missing with all this issue of efficiencies.. Gasoline (& fuel oils) 'manufacturing' requires lots of electricity ... and the huge amounts of fossil fuels required just to make the electricity necessary to make the gasoline never gets accountd for. Plus, much of our fossil fuel comes from terrorist supporting countries ... yet the multi trillion dollar military cost never gets factored into the "cost/efficiency equasion" either. Those two hiddon factors are certainly known, by the insiders within the power industries ... but discovering how truly burdonsome THEY are is impossible to discover ... like national secrets.

 

Business & Finance: Oil vs. Coal - TIME

Yes we should switch everything from coal to oil, as it says people are starting to do. Check the date of the article if you think I am serious.

I wonder how the responses would have changed it had said leaf instead of volt, or better --
Rav 4 that runs on sunshine (solar) and unicorn farts (wind) versus terrorist funding gasoline burning soccer mom's Suburban.

There was a former president that said "we are addicted to oil", and that guy knew about adiction being an alcoholic. Then that current president anounced his goal of a million electric (and electrified) cars by 2015. Do they just not get it? Isn't CO2 the end all most important thing? Or maybe there is a reason that presidents since Nixon have thought it was important to use less gassoline. Hell that Carter guy even wanted to pay electric companies to build coal power plants.

I think you are missing a few key points here. 3 miles per KWH is not bad, in fact epa called it the energy equivalant of 99 MPGe which is a far shot from 20. If you are in a coal state and think CO2 is the most important thing, Many of us don't, a prius is cleaner than an BEV RAV4. Some want lower tail pipe emissions so that the air is cleaner to breathe in their city. The prius gets you far on the way here, but what about those that want a bigger or faster vehicle? Some would prefer to reduce dependence on a scarce resource that has been used for economic black mail in the past and will likely be used that way in the future. There are even some of us that actually like the way electric drives.

Even 5 million evs will have little effect on the grid and its pollution. If you live in a coal state clean it up if that is what is important to you. That is a separate environmental issue.

Full financial disclosure, I own stock in JCI which will make money with more electric vehicles, GE and SI which makes money with more windmills, and BTE which makes money destroying the environment to produce oil.

 

Excellent post, Icarus. From what I've learned on V2G (vehicle-to-grid), battery makers selling to EV makers are currently unwilling to let their batteries be used for V2G, because the batteries have a limited number of charge/discharge cycles, and each cycle devoted to other than propelling the vehicle -- e.g., feeding power back to the grid -- decreases its "useful" lifespan ("useful," that is, from the manufacturer's point of view).

There is also the question of warranties, and whether V2G use of a battery might void them.

 

One focus of this discussion is accounting for the total end pollution involved between Prius, Volt, EV, PHEV. While minor, the disposal negatives of lubricating oil, brake pads, radiator fluid, other fluids, and consumables should favor the EV.

 

The EPA did MGPe based on the energy content of the electricity at the socket versus fuel at the pump. All energy sources are not created equal, and burning oil is one of the costliest in terms of economic factors and unhealthy pollution. Your 20 would mean that all your energy came from coal from an inefficient grandfathered 50 year old plant and your 50 mpg came from magical gasoline that took no energy to refine or transport. There is a spectrum which makes the math hard, and even harder to find on a marginal basis. Most coal power plants are base line and do not change their production based on load. Some of the most inefficient plants are base line, and these run on or off, consuming the same amount of coal if there is demand or not. Some coal power plants are load following, and will increase electrical production. If you have these and there is slack capacity you most likely would use coal to fill up an ev. Newer but much more expensive technology can greatly increase the efficiency of new coal power plants. Natural gas is used for much of the load following in states like california and texas. New combined cycle plants are often 60% efficient and releases less co2 per unit energy than gasoline. So this would be a 59 MPGe on energy in the NG with less co2 than a 59 mpg car only counting the gas from the pump. Then you have wind, and it is estimated in 30 years texas will just wasting wind at night unless it is charging banks of batteries. Nuclear also is just on. How do you account for wind or nuclear in your system? So marginal energy wise I guess you could give the leaf a 20-infinite MPGe, but I would not say your number is better than the epas, just different. As I said, for me the point is to use less gasoline. I do spend more electricty to keep cool in my house than I would on a PHEV or BEV.

 

Which is in idiotic formula since it includes the power plant inefficiency in a regular car, but omits the power plant inefficiency in an EV.

If the EPA were consistent it would let me pull the Prius ICE out of my car and drag it along behind me on a trailer for an immediate 300% increase in MPG. Ridiculous.

 

NG power plants do exist that run at ~60% efficiency when they are set up as a combined heat and power station (CHP.) They are also a teeny tiny fraction of the power plants that supply the US grid and should be recognized as such by people trying to come to reasonable conclusions and not just obfuscate the reality that EV running off the grid is typically more energy intensive and much dirtier than running a Prius.

 

Are you kidding me? The EPA is providing a BASIS for COMPARISON between cars so we can know that the Leaf uses more power then the Tesla Roadster and less then the Volt. That is the point of the label.

The gas powered cars don't have the inefficiency of the refinery figured in, do they?

 

So, it seems like more energy is used from charging your car than from gasoline but it depends on where the energy comes from. If the volt uses 9.2 lbs for coal than it would be more polluting using a plug-in. What about if 30% of your power comes from coal? What about the Plug-in Pruises? Does the electric battery of a plug-in prius use as much energy as a Volt?

 

The Prius plug in uses less energy per mile and per charge then the Volt. The per mile is the important part, because per charge the Prius goes less distance. The EPA label for the Prius plug in has yet to be released so we do not the best way to compare yet.

 

One car has the powerplant inside, the other outside. Outside does not mean it does not exist, unless you are delusional.

CAFE fuel economy calculation is the most hilarious of all for EV or so-called alt-fuel vehicles. They realistically calculate a well-to-wheel energy consumption, and then divide the result by SIX. Why 6 ? Just because. And it is politically expedient, a carry-over from Detroit's 'flex-fuel- vehicles and the ethanol circus. To be consistent the same stupidity is applied to EV.

You want to talk W-t-W ? Fine by me, but you are not going to like the answers (minus political tomfoolery or fanboi delusions.)I'll start the discussion by posting a chart from Wayne Brown, Seminal Prius Hacker Extraordinaire and all around genius and environmentalist:

His slightly more detailed discussion is here. I guess (and it is only a guess) that Wayne's production figures do not include exploration or extraction, and I doubt they include transport to the refinery. OTOH, coal mining is no picnic. I have read figures that 13-17% of the btu's in the ground make it to the wall socket when all is said and done. I will have to dig up references to substantiate the numbers, and will if you are serious about an informed discussion.

 

TANGENTIAL POST -- COAL EXTERNALITY COSTS

SourceWatch

 

Yep, you caught me distorting your truth with facts. What a great obfuscator I must be. I was explaining that there is a wide range of imputs and it is not easy to tell how much energy it takes to get raw material to electricity to the plug, nor is it straight forward to decide how much energy it take to turn oil in the ground to gas at the pump. I think I was clear about these being newer not the extremely old coal plants you choose as the only mark. Here is my quote typo and all -

New as in if you are building a new plant, and the grid is adding power all of it cleaner than ancient coal plants. FL&P is putting in 2 new 60% Combined cycle plants (gas turbines and heat recover turbines) and estimate that they will use 50% less natural gas and produce 50% less carbon dioxide than the 60s era natural gas plants these are replacing. Replace coal and you get more of an improvement and you don't need to pay for the emissions. The first 60% plant came out in 2003

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baglan_Bay_power_station"]Baglan Bay power station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

CHP systems have been built in the lab that are 80% thermally efficient. The grid is growing for non-ev use and should be made greener. Adding EVs is a different decission, and if you look at the important metrics are better for the country. IF you assign all the coal polution to them they do indeed look dirtier, but that is a huge distortion. In germany they plan to convert coal plants at 46% efficiency with CCS starting in 2020 and complete in 2050. CCS is expected to remove 77% of the carbon. CCS can be added to combined cycle plants. If we convert to an ev and phev fleet there is more money to pay for these upgrades that we are not shipping off to buy oil.