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

This always seemed odd to me as well.
If the Prius family is all about lower GHG emissions, and EVs shouldn't be sold in areas where they result in higher GHG emissions, wouldn't it follow that the standard Prius should not be sold in areas where EVs are cleaner?

 

So, rather than claiming you are driving on solar power with carbon free energy, you should claim that you added those to the grid for everyone to use.

I am doing my own share too, as the environment is shared by all of us. Reduced, Reuse, Recycle.

I moved closer to work which reduces the miles to be driven. That's more important than switching to another fuel to drive.

Sure, if that EV meets Toyota customers' needs (driving range, refueling speed, interior space, etc.) similar to the Prius.

 

Claims aside, PV is good, while EV is mostly just another energy sucking appliance.

Sometimes they are connected, in the sense that people decide to put up PV because they bought a big electric gadget. Illogical conduct, but a whole lot better than driving a 25 mpg fuel guzzler.

 

Sure, I could say, "I add as much solar energy to the grid so others can use it, as both my house and both electric cars use", however, "I'm driving on sunshine" is much easier to say and doesn't cause as many eyes to glaze over.
And I do say the former in longer conversations, or when someone expresses more interest in how that works.

That is excellent! Many people don't understand just what a large amount of energy that can save. We are doing the same this year and I am really looking forward to it. Not only the fewer miles driven, but also the time saved.
When you can do both though, and have a more enjoyable car to drive on top of that, why not? (Rhetorical question)

Great, so you would support Toyota if they stopped selling the Prius to homeowners with a garage and outlet, in regions where the GHG emissions on the grid are lower, instead they would only sell them the PiP?

And for many, better than driving a 50mpg fuel guzzler

 

Energy (electron) is fungible but not the carbon footprint. You can say you are driving with solar energy but not with carbon free solar clean.

Think of electricity like water. When pure water flows out from your home to a non-pure public water system, you will get the tap water at work. It doesn't matter you are 5 miles away or 50 miles away.

You can bottle it at home and bring it to work (or anywhere). That's what SRECs do.

If I were you, I'll get the solar panels installed since I can say my EV miles are solar powered. CA grid is one of the cleanest anyway and you are making it even cleaner. Plus your appliances at home can run on carbon free solar electricity during the day time.

Sure, if all homeowners with a garage and outlet want PiP over a regular Prius despite the extra cost and the lack of spare tire -- hence having a choice is better. Further reduction in GHG emission could justify the use of small $2,500 tax credit.

I could not say the same with Volt or BEV where the incentive promotes higher GHG emission. This is wrong and counter productive.

 

So you don't support selling the PiP in Hawaii, where it has higher GHG emissions when charged off the grid?

You seem to support choice for Toyota, but not the other companies. To be consistent, in states where the PiP gives lower GHG emissions, shouldn't Toyota not allow sales of the standard Prius?

 

Seems to me Prius is all about getting the most MPG from a gallon of gasoline, eg; in Japan where there have no fossil fuel resources. Conservation of resources, but not CO2 reduction per se. Of course, CO2 reduction happens anyway due to the efficiency. Pip makes sense especially when your drives are short around town you can minimize the initial 10-min low MPG period and in that sense reduce CO2.

 

I don't think Toyota should roll out PiP in the states where it would result in higher emission.

Hawaii like Japan, would likely have many short trips where gas engine warm up could produce more emission with reduction in efficiency. That's where EV miles have advantage.

At the opposite end, state like Texas had about average emission in the grid but most over there drive long distance. PiP designed to take advantage of short trips would not make sense there.

There is no other manufacture that takes account of emission with sales. If there is, I would support them.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. PiP has compromises despite lower GHG emission. Therefore, giving a choice between a regular Prius and PiP is good.

Not every buyer in clean grid state has a garage and a plug. Not every buyer want to plug it in (and unplug it). Not every buyer is willing to go without a spare tire.

EV miles are great. Practicality of Lithium battery at PiP battery size is where it makes sense. That's only in certain states with a clean grid.

 

Hawaii's grid uses oil and coal for power. It has one of the most carbon intensive grids in the nation.
Trips in Hawaii are limited, as you say, however, many people in the states have short trips as well.

If you promote people's personal preferences when it comes to buying a dirtier car when it is gas, I don't see why you don't support people's personal choice when the dirtier car is electric (for fewer people as well).

I think it is quite clear with Toyota's decision to sell the PiP in Hawaii that their priority is not lower GHG. Yes, efficiency is a priority, but GHG reductions is simply a byproduct of that for some buyers.

 

Hawaii EV miles are as clean as 36-43 MPG gas miles. Typical trips on the island with gas probably get lower than that, due to warm up penalty. Therefore, EV miles using electricity may makes sense to most. A typical trip in Texas would not be that short, ditto in other states bigger than HI.

I don't promote people buying dirtier gas cars. A choice offered is good. You are the one who is pushing to limit choice.

If PiP costs the same, refuels just as fast and has a spare tire, I would agree -- stop selling regular Prius in the states with clean enough grid.

 

I confess to not having read the entire thread, but what is mising (in general) in this conversation, is that plug in cars can benefit the grid in both directions. That is, they can buy from the grid at times of limited demand, and SELL to the grid at times of peak demand (and pricing in some places) creating, in essence, the long sought after large, disagregated battery bank than makes solar and wind viable 24/7.

Most cars sit 23/7. If they were plugged in, programmed to buy and sell as the market requires (all the time ensuring there is enough "juice" in the bqttery to get tot he next destination) you could in simple theroy reduce the idel, spinning generating capacity that is simply waiting for the peak demand.

This is not rocket science, as all the technology currently exists. For a more detailed description google Dennis Hayes at the Stinson Bullok Foundation in Seatle. He is a strong advocate of the idea, and has written and lectured on the subject.

Icarus

 

No, sorry, you misunderstand me. I'm all for selling the entire Prius family nationwide. Toyota and you are limiting choice.

Toyota has little to no control over personal behavior. Hawaii has sort of a limiting factor on range due to being an island.

However, the grid there is awful, even with the warm up penalty, a Prius is cleaner.
If Toyota is considering individual situations, then they should allow sales in other states to individuals whose driving habits would result in lower GHG emissions (if your assumption their primary goal is selling only where GHG emissions would be lowered).

I agree with you completely!
In addition, there are benifits in dramatically less local pollution, noise pollution, national fiscal and security.
Add lower maintenance, drive quality, performance, and safety and EVs, if they work for the driving habits, are an easy choice.

USBseawolf has focused solely on GHG emissions, so I focus on that when speaking to him.

 

A regular would get about 25 MPG if it is driven a few miles or about 5 mins.

I don't see Toyota limiting choices. PiP roll out is done methodically (other plugin manufacturers didn't). We may never know the exact criteria but it is generally to reduce emission with respect to each market. That seem to be where we disagree on.

V2G is not new and it has been in development since the start of plugins. I don't think it has been sold and used at homes. I don't know anyone having it.

I am looking to do Prius UPS as a backup generator. V2G could fill that need.

 

That is why I am fine with people claiming it without being directly plugged to the panel or having some official slip of paper. Reducing GHG is a group effort, but you need to offer some incentive for people to become part of the group.

It actually isn't about carbon emission when it is said emissions were a priority for the Prius. It was the other emissions; i.e. NOx, hydrocarbons, CO, etc. Low GHG comes from the high fuel efficiency, which likely could be made higher at the expense of the other emissions.

Japan is also concerned with pollution in its cities. The LEV projects, which the Prius came out of, were all about reducing vehicle emissions of pollutants.

The problem with that analogy is that electrons don't carry the impurities(pollution) with them like water does. They are emitted at the point of generation. A lab instrument isn't effected by whether the electrons it is using where made by emitting carbon or not. Using tap water instead of di(pure) water will invalidate results and possibly break the instrument.

If a region doesn't certify home PV for SRECs, and no one else(the utility) can claim for that purpose, then the homeowner doesn't need SREC to say their car in powered by sunshine or carbon free.

Hawaii's grid is mostly petroleum. A PPI's EV miles end up emitting more GHG than a regular Prius there.

Texas has cleaner than average grid, and it does have major cities where residents have short drives.

Neither does Toyota. Otherwise they wouldn't sell the PPI in Hawaii, and sell it in Texas.Then if they were so concerned about emissions, they would limit their customers' choice of the Prius by not offering it in states where they sell the PPI, because the PPI would be cleaner.

Toyota would also have taken a stance like Honda did in regards to V8s, and not make any. They don't even offer a V6 in the Tundra anymore, while Ford has expanded the fuel efficient V6 options in the F150.

But people's car options aren't limited to the Prius or the PPI. In states where the PPI would average 10g/mile of CO2 than the Prius, which is all it does emit extra in ND with 80% coal, it still emits far less GHG than other cars in Toyota's line up. If the PPI is too dirty, then so is the Corolla.

Or just other the PPI in those states. If it is good to give customers the choice of the Prius where it is dirtier, then it should be good to give them the choice of the PPI. Toyota can even give some SRECs out as an incentive.

Hawaii is a tropical island. Its normal temperature is closer to the cold oil viscosity test temp than NJ's average. Engine warm up will be shorter there than the rest of the nation on average.

With the warm clime, of many EV miles does a PPI lose, and the ICE turn on, with the AC running?

If Toyota is so concerned about Typical American trips, why didn't they aim for a longer EV range? The PPI's GHG emissions are only about 5% lower or less than a Prius for the typical American in most clean states.

Toyota is the one that limited choice. If GHG was truly their reason for doing so, we are simply following 'their' logic to the conclusion. They excluded the PPI as a choice for people who would take action to lower their electric use GHG. They should exclude the Prius from where it would be dirtier than the PPI for those same reasons.

 

I don't agree with this one-dimensional thinking.
GHG should be given a weight, but certainly not 100%...maybe 25-40%.

Other factors include:
1. local smog creation (or reduction of)
2. What is the next power plant to be built, we should not worry the existing ones (except as a separate issue)
(i.e. if there were suddenly 1M new EV/PHEVs how would they get powered?)
3. Reduction of global oil imports
4. Reaching critical mass of EV charging infrastructure in every state
(you'd like to be able to drive through a high-GHG region/state and be able to charge an EV, else you'll never buy an EV to mostly drive in your low GHG region/state)
5. We need to sell more EV/PHEVs nationally (covering all weather conditons and driving conditions) to get battery production higher and other technologies improved; thus lowering costs and improving specs for all (with a 10-30 year horizon)
(Even if there is some small near-term increase in GHG in some regions, we need buyers in all regions to contribute to move the technology and infrastructure along quicker. The grid in those regions can/will/should get cleaned up anyway as a distinctly separate issue. Delaying everywhere and waiting until the grid everywhere is cleaner is short sighted.
Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Mike

 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

What also hasn't been mentioned is that electic motors are significantly more efficient than any ICe, regardless of the source of the electricity.

Icarus

 

I think that gets folded into the overall electrical power it takes to move the cars.
Very good point though, and one of the reasons I like EVs so much