On the Psychology of Personal PV and EV ownership

I've thought about this quite a while, because I'm in the opposite situation. I own a PHEV, but my roof is not suitable for solar. I ended up with the PHEV because, at the time, I was able to buy clean power from the grid. But really, I ended up with it because my thinking was unclear.

Put that aside.

If there is a connection between owning grid-connected PV and an EV, it has to be psychology. Because there should be no logical connection. There's nothing about owning grid-connected PV that makes an EV any cleaner. It's the carbon intensity of the local grid that determines the impact of the EV, whether you have grid-connected PV or not.

A lot of people don't believe this or refuse to get it. But just sit down with a paper and pencil and work out total carbon emissions for the entire system -- PV plus grid.

Every KWH your PV puts onto the grid displaces a grid-produced KWH. So, you put a KWH onto the grid, you reduce carbon emissions by that much. (In Virginia, by 1.1 lbs CO2 per KWH). Every KWH you you don't put out onto the grid requires the grid to make that up with a grid-produced KWH. And so increases emissions by that much.

In short, if you're connected to the grid, every KWH you use in the home requires the grid to produce another KWH of electricity. Grid-connected PV reduces the average carbon-intensity of the grid, by adding a clean power source. But at the margin, consuming another KWH in your home still generates the average carbon emissions of the (now somewhat cleaner) grid.

Restated, the more you use in your home, the less fossil-fuel-fired KWH you displace off the grid. I guess that's obvious. But it seems to elude a lot of people when it comes to grid-connected PV plus an EV.

So if you put 10 KWH/day into your EV, and you have grid-connected PV, then, one way or the other, the grid now has to produce 10 KWH/day more electricity. Than it would have, if you hadn't charged your EV. So to figure your carbon savings from an EV versus a Prius, that's the figure you have to use.

Here in Virginia, PV or no PV, if you're grid-connected, an EV at 3 miles per KWH has emissions that are maybe 30% less than a Prius. (That's operating cost only -- if you toss in the carbon penalty for manufacturing the batteries, pro-rated over battery life, the advantage is modestly smaller.) If you then work out the arithmetic of dollars per ton of CO2 avoided, EVs are way down the list, way below well-sited PV.

The conclusion is that if the CA and NJ grids are similar to VA (and CA is), you get much bigger bang for the buck investing in PV than in an EV (assuming the alternative to the EV is the next best alternative, which is a Prius). What you've done is completely rational, from the standpoint of getting the greatest CO2 reduction per dollar invested.

 

I am highly supportive of smaller decentralized power plants (like solar on roof) and just plain anything smaller than the huge plants the utilities insist on for "economies of scale". You can see how the utility's approach worked at Fukushima with 10 GW and 5 or 6 rxrs in one spot on the map and more to be built same spot. I call this gotta-be-humongous syndrome the "Kinsley Landfill Syndrome" and/or PITBY "Put it in Their Back Yard" (Kinsley Landfill closure being my first eco-victory).

I am less supportive of the idea that EV is green because you can fill it with solar. As per Japan, we may need elec for electric needs, and fossil fuels/gaso may be advantageous for cars especially of course Prius efficiency.

CHOGAN2 I am thinking VA/Dominon is not yet big on supporting solar on roofs?

 

I like what my local utility, PG&E, is doing for their renewable energy option. Based on the power consumption of the customers opting into the renewable plan, they will enter into long-term contracts with 3rd party companies that will build small to medium sized solar generating facilities within the utility's service area.

So, the PV is relatively local to me rather than being invisible (and being based on a tradeable RECs). If I use more energy at home and to power my car it collectively results in specific new contracts for regional PV installation.

This plan is a redo of an earlier REC-based plan and was a result of negotiations with various utility reform and environmental groups. This is my superficial understanding anyway. I plan to read more about the details soon.

 

Your personal EV may be run on coal, (for the moment), but by buying it you are doing the heavy work of establishing a market for (potentially) extremely clean vehicles.

 

I disagree with your statement that there is "no" advantage.

I do get the argument that grid tied PV panels automatically mean the owner has offset the dirty power from the grid.

However, at the very least, the PV owner's use of his own solar power is better than the grid tied power simply because there are fewer losses.

As for the general argument, the PV power definitely makes the EV very 'green' if any of the following are true...

The PV panels would not have been installed if it were not for the purchase of the EV.

The EV owner has become more aware of their electric bill, and thus has made a reduction in other areas to lessen the impact of the EV on their bill (this one really doesn't matter if they have PV panels or not).

The PV owner generates enough power to offset all of their homes use plus at least some of the cars use. The greater the percentage of the cars power needs supplied the greener. Ideally it would cover all of both the house and transportation.

 

Ok, well 2 out of three isn't bad.

You are right, on its own, 3 doesn't mean a persons EV is cleaner.

For me, building a net zero house which includes cost of transportation incorporates the first point. So, it is a shortcut way to state it, but is not synonymous, therefore not logically valid.

So I withdraw that one.

 

I have a different viewpoint. It is entirely based on this question: What endpoint of sustainability are we after?

Non-polluting vehicles (of which EVs are a big component) and clean power generation are both essential. It is not a high personal priority to constrain both of these to be in lockstep as long as both are addressed. If one starts to progress faster than the other, then that actually puts pressure to resolve the lagging side.

 

I'm not sure we are totally standing still. Most of the power plants close to me have been making the switch to Natural Gas. The Crystal River Coal plant has recently finish installing the long NG pipeline down the coast of Florida and the Weedon Island plant has finished making the shift from oil (!) to NG a few years ago. The other thread paper Plug in Prius - Most Environmentally Friendly Vehicle in Study, has an interesting graphic where the
Leaf EV friendly states took a big increase from 2010 to 2012. (So our old threads address a dynamic in action.)

Meanwhile the renewable mandates in a number of states are still driving wind and solar installations. One of the real subtile aspects is distributed solar and wind developments get virtually no press while big plant news makes it seem like only big plants are being built or not built. Installing a lot of solar panels on an old factory roof just does not make the national press....or even the local papers.

I will keep looking out for the inflection point where solar generation costs become less than fossil fuel cost. I cannot predict when and where this will occur, but I know it will happen. At that point I expect new fossil fuel plants will experience a significant slowdown and (distributed) rooftop leasing will suddenly become a huge industry. It will be a very good thing if the EV industry has lots of choices when that occurs.

 

I will fully agree about the long way to go, but I'm willing to bet that it will take about the same amount of time to get to equivalently broad carbon free vehicle (lack of) emissions.

Obviously, I'm not disagreeing with the logic of the present situation. What I am saying is waiting on supporting EV vehicles until we reach a national point of only improved emissions from driving EVs has issues. Not having an auto industry able to build huge volumes of EVs when that point is reached should be avoided.

 

In most areas, PV is nearly a no brainer, assuming you have a satisfactory site (lack of shading etc) Given the tax credits, FIT rates, utility rebates etc the pay off is pretty quick, irrespective of future price increases in utility rates.

That said, I am a big fan of pooling resources and investing in solar co-ops that are ideally suited. for example, instead of putting PV on YOUR house in say Seattle (assuming your house has good exposure) putting the same KWs of PV in Yakima or Ellensberg would yield about a 25% gain in total annual harvest, simply because there is more sun in Eastern WA.

We get hung up on having "our own" PV we (both consumers and policy makers/utilities etc) ought to be looking at, and encouraging the most efficient options. Another side benefit of
Co-op solar is the economy of scale makes it even more cost effective. Instead of costing say $5/watt installed, you might drop the price to say $3.50/watt, allowing your investment dollar go further and make the payoff faster.

The bottom line is, even considering transmission loses, a large installation in a better location just makes economic as well as environmental sense.

Icarus

 

Is this the project?

Create Solar Energy Together | Mosaic

 

Start by asking yourself how different the world would be if long-range BEVs were economical, remembering that:
- BEVs don't require petroleum
- BEVs don't have a tailpipe
- BEVs are quiet
- BEVs can be charged at night and it's a natural time to charge
- most electricity is used during the day
- electricity can be generated from many sources
- renewable electricity generators are getting cheaper
- you can have PHEVs
- BEVs use a lot of batteries
- recycling exists
- the world is more than the USA

To, me, it's a real no-brainer why there's so much support.

BTW, I'm sure that a significant fraction of PEV owners are PV owners because
- they live in warm, sunny places
- where they live having a PEV improves PV economics
- where they live having a PV improves PEV economics.
- they're somewhat altruistic