What? Article says Hybrids/Electrics could strain water supplies

Aye, lets scrap the whole plug-in hybrid or electric car ideas so that people can continue growing lush lawns in climates that never historically allowed them to grow.

People are stupid.

 

I thought we had rising sea levels so wouldn't power plants that use sea water for cooling lower the sea levels if they used more water?:rofl:

 

Well as long as they don't worry about all the water wasted making gas ... or the gunk that fossel fuels put into the air, that gets rained back into our drinking water supply ... don't touch the sacred cow

 

That was just another example of journalists manufacturing a ludicrous negative spin based on an isolated fact, from what was otherwise a serious piece of research. CalCars (Felix Kramer) sent out an email quoting from Carey King, the author of the original research. The estimated impact of 1 million PHEV 40s would be to increase water losses (consumption) in the electrical generation industry by 0.13% (that's point-thirteen percent). I guess "Water losses from PHEVs Would be Lost in Rounding Error" doesn't make quite as snappy a headline. The source material can be read at:

Rational Energy Policy by Dr. King: Another article about my PHEV/EV and water usage - unneccesarily alarmist

The author's own conclusion is that there is no issue in the near term, but that if PHEVs become the norm, you would need to plan in some areas to accommodate the additional demand for water lost in cooling during electrical generation. Seems reasonable to me.

 

But then if all our cars were EVs, was there an article stating that our current power plants would supply 78% of that energy just by plugging-in on off-peak hours?

 

Yeah, I calculated a number a bit higher than that directly from DOE data, but several credible sources have come to the same conclusion. Here's a brief report from the US Pacific Northwest Labs:

http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf


I think they came out with 84%, but it varies by region.

 

Wouldn't be ironic if this hit job story originated from ethanol?

 

Actually the article didn't appear to be as alarmist as most of the man-made GW poop that is spread over the media. It just points out that more plug-ins means the need for more power. Something I commented on in another post regarding the fragility of the power grid being able to handle a large increase in power demand.

Of course charging your car at night would help, but what if you have to charge it in the daytime? Say you charge the car at night, but need to re-cachrge at work to get home? Plus, a large increase for power at night means plants will have to run langer at a higher output, minimizing downtime for repair and maintenance.

What we need, and will need iof battery tech improves to the point they are vialble alternatives to gas, are a butt load more power plants. So that begs the questions, where are the plants going to go? and what type of plant? Coal! our most abundant power source, Nucular ;-) would be good if we had effective reformation of the spent fuel (as does France for god's sake).

In honesty, my purpose for purchasing the Prius was to diminish my dependance on oil. I don't need to be funding a war from both sides. I don't believe the hype around "man made" climate change (as its now called, shocking as this winter may have erased a half degree centegrade temperature change on the globe) that does not mean I belive in polluting for the sake of polluting or to be convienient, but that also means that a power plant shouldn't be built because it will cause some pollution. Use state of the art tech in building new plants and they are almost as clean as the air before it went into the plant.

 

Yeah, this report is kind of like the AP article that showed up today stating that Global Warming was going to affect all kinds of transportation by warping railroad tracks, collapsing bridges, and washing away roads.
The Associated Press: Global Warming to Affect Transport

 

You made the comment on another thread http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-h...gen-highways-dead-end-finally.html#post573663
and then I posted this: Technology Review: How Plug-in Hybrids Will Save the Grid and nerfer, burritos and chogan all weighed in too. You can run to another thread but you can't hide. :fencing:

 

Okay, just to ask the question again....how much electricity is used to make gasoline...and then burned in an ICE, the least efficient use of the juice?

Maybe, just maybe, if repeated as many times as possible, the message that EVs are better than gasoline might sink in.

Thanks to all those on this forum that continually state the studies and data to support an alternative to 'that's always how it's been, why change' attitude. I've learned much and am passing along all pertinent info to those who'll listen.

 

I looked up Darelldd's analysis on his website, (evnut.com), but his calculation was for extraction and refining of oil in California, which I think is not representative (California wells are marginal high-cost wells).

Other calculations shown on that page provide national average statistics. There, the answers are far less impressive than you might suppose. Direct purchases of electricity for refining oil, for example, amount to just a fraction of a KWH per gallon of gasoline. Adding in the energy value of the natural gas burned to power oil refineries and you still come up with just over (the equivalent of) a KWH of electricty per gallon. But that's just refining.

Let me take a stab at it based on the wheel-to-well calculations performed by the US Sandia National Laboratories. Looking at their reports, for gasoline cars in the US, the well-to-tank fossil fuel inputs looks to average about 18% of the tank-to-wheels fossil fuel inputs. In other words, roughly, for every gallon of gas burned in a car (tank-to-wheels), another 0.18 gallons is burned in production-distillation-distribution of the fuel (well-to-tank). (That's much lower energy overhead than California oil, where the net free energy of oil production/refining appears to be less than half the energy value of the oil, per darelldd's website.)

Assuming that's about right, it's fairly straightforward to ask how much electricity you'd get if you burned 0.18 gallons of gasoline (equivalent) and used it to produce electricity. Based on a few random internet sources, the US grid is right now about 30% efficient in the conversion of fossil fuels to electricity, though the best available technologies can more than double that. So, assume that 60% of the energy value of the 0.18 gallons was converted to electricity. Taking a gallon of gas to have 35 KWH of energy, that would amount to (call it roughly) 4 KWH of electricity, or enough to power a relative efficient EV for (say) 20 miles. Half that, if I used actual US average grid efficiency.

So, I don't come up with as high a number as EV advocates will show, but I think I see the point. If you took the energy now used to extract and refine petroleum, and converted that efficiently to electricity, you could power a significant number of EV miles from that. I don't get full replacement of the gasoline miles, but it's enough to make that an interesting point.

The only other downside I see to the calculation is that much of the energy input appears to come from oil and natural gas itself. So, .... in effect, you wouldn't have that energy available if you weren't in the process of extracting and refining gasoline. So it's more of a theoretical than a practical calculation.

 

Ultimately, it's the whole choice thing. I'd like (as would MANY others) a choice when it comes to my transport needs. We choose what we like, what makes sense for each individual. Some will not do the math and choose an SUV in a world of $100/barrel oil. some will do the math and choose a lower-emission car, but higher intitial cost with overall lower total expense (both green $$$ and green environmentally).

I appreciate all the calulations that people run here on PriusChat. It certainly helps to choose. And to weed out the unworthy choices, based on studies and stats.

But, if you like the color of that 15-MPG vehicle, then there's not alot one can do. Or convincing people they don't need 4WD 365 days a year, when only 3-4 days a year they actually feel it's necessary. (just talked to a co-worker, and they think this way, since I mentioned the Prius is not AWD..."Nope, gotta have 4WD"...whatever)

Getting a viable EV choice is like 12 years past...I'd like to see that choice again. Especially with the new battery tech, the renewables available.

 

What's disturbing though, is that for (conservativly, as evidenced by european / asian vehicles) probably over 95% of the U.S. population, for most of their driving, a 15-20mpg vehicle is not only unnecessary, but having one ultimately wastes the dwindling fuel commodity. So it hurts us all. Pointing that truth out, some will still say, F everybody else ... I want what I want. That, in turn, is in part because of the ad man. The ad man doesn't lay down MILLIONS for a 30 second superbowel slot for nothng ... but because people buy into it.

Ive made the smoking analogy before, but it's true ... yes, you got a right to smoke ... but when your thing is the 2nd largest cause of lung cancer ... you put others at risk. Similarly, the smoker's med insurance costs get passed on to the rest of us. Yep, we are the ME ME ME generation.