Electric Vehicles :: FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) Links

[Smidge204]

That's not quite accurate. Coal power plants do indeed reduce output at night, so if you are adding nighttime demand in a coal area then they are burning more coal to meet that demand. We have to be careful not to fight FUD with more FUD.

Only if the powerplant isn't underutilized. You can't just turn a coal plant on and off, and it can take many hours or even days to get those things up to operating readiness if they cool down, so there's a minimum amount of fuel it needs to burn to stay ready.

If you're not extracting at least the minimum amount of power from the plant, then the excess is wasted. This is called "spinning reserve" and power companies hate it because they're forced to spend money on fuel without anyone to buy the power. This is why many utilities offer cheaper rates at night, to encourage people to use it... better to sell it at a discount, even at a loss, than have it go up the chimney!
=Smidge=

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

That's not quite accurate. Coal power plants do indeed reduce output at night, so if you are adding nighttime demand in a coal area then they are burning more coal to meet that demand. We have to be careful not to fight FUD with more FUD.

its accurate here. the load provided does not vary more than 10-15% at any time of the day for the single coal plant in WA State. and its that reason why WA will have ZERO coal plants. NG plants can AND do vary their load and can do so within a few hours.

 

[JRP3]

I know they don't shut down completely, but they do throttle down overnight. There may be some efficiency gain from running them at a certain load but I'm pretty sure a fleet of EV's charging at night in a heavy coal region means more coal is being used to charge them. WA state is obviously not a heavy coal area.

 

[JRP3]

Take a look at the graphs on page 5 of this PDF report looking at the PJM grid. Normal night time shows coal ramping down, add a fleet of plug in vehicles charging at night and coal ramps up to meet the demand.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014002/pdf/erl9_1_014002.pdf

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Take a look at the graphs on page 5 of this PDF report looking at the PJM grid. Normal night time shows coal ramping down, add a fleet of plug in vehicles charging at night and coal ramps up to meet the demand.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014002/pdf/erl9_1_014002.pdf

ok, this is COMPLETELY invalid for most of the country. this study shows places where coal is their main source of electricity 24/7. they dont have a choice but to ramp down and its a huge hit on their efficiency and profit margin

AND

that can change. they are in the predicament because they have elected to not invest in alternative methods. it is a very hard thing to turn lives upside down especially when a lot of areas in KY, PA, WV, etc have whole counties were greater than 50% of the population directly rely on coal for their livelihood.

But we have hit the proverbial brick wall and right now, our only chance is to take our foot off the accelerator. will that save us? probably not. will it buy us a bit of extra time? probably and that extra time might be enough to allow us to think our way out of the mess we have put ourselves in.

 

[JRP3]

I'm only talking about coal heavy areas, as I mentioned all along. Go to this map, click Sources of Power, and select Coal, and you'll see coal is a larger percentage in many states.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997398" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Since NG is used more during daytime for peaker use, and nuclear is baseload and not ramped, you'll see coal as night time ramping in many of these states. Obviously less going forward, but we are talking about what is happening now.

 

[Smidge204]

Take a look at the graphs on page 5 of this PDF report looking at the PJM grid. Normal night time shows coal ramping down, add a fleet of plug in vehicles charging at night and coal ramps up to meet the demand.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014002/pdf/erl9_1_014002.pdf

"In this work, it is assumed thatthese plants will be operated at constant capacity utilization, equal to their daytime maximum, and that the excess power generation at night will be used for PHEV charging."

In other words, those graphs simply assumed that so much PHEV/EV charging would take place that the coal plants could run at 100% capacity the whole time. Even the graph showing the coal plant's output being reduced is fictitious!

"Filling The Bathtub" is a good idea, and having more demand for EV charging than it takes to absorb all that spinning reserve is a problem I wish we had.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX0G9F42puY (Embedding doesn't seem to work for me)
=Smidge=

 

[JRP3]

In other words, those graphs simply assumed that so much PHEV/EV charging would take place that the coal plants could run at 100% capacity the whole time. Even the graph showing the coal plant's output being reduced is fictitious!

"Filling The Bathtub" is a good idea, and having more demand for EV charging than it takes to absorb all that spinning reserve is a problem I wish we had.

Are you trying to suggest that when demand drops overnight the coal plants do not reduce output? Because I can assure you that is false. As they say in the video, filling the bathtub is a good idea, for the generating plant, but that means using more fuel, and if that fuel is coal that means more emissions.

 

[kentuckyleaf]

So please let me try to get everything straight, in order to avoid any possible FUD. The coal power utilities in Kentucky, where I live, powers down to the exact load at night, there is zero spinning reserve, and the tiny fleet of EV's in Kentucky that plug in at night increase the carbon footprint exactly as much as they would if charging during the day? Would I be "greener" driving my 4Runner all over the place? If I get a solid answer to this question, I would make a better decision at the end of our lease. The 4 Runner is a much nicer ride anyway, but I figured I'd be better off using it only when exceeding the Leaf's range, or for when we take out the canoe or camper. Who can figure this out for me? Thanks in advance!

If it is any help, I am powered by KU, and I have followed the power lines all the way from the E.W. Brown power plant to our local substation. I'd guess we are nearly 100% coal at night, like a previous post mentions, there isn't much outcry at the local or state level to change Kentucky's power mix to something greener. I suspect the hydro from Dix Dam is only used at peak. I have grid tied PV during the day, but normally the Leaf is sitting at work on sunny weekdays.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

it is very unlikely that you can turn your dam off at night unless its Summer. guessing that all depends really on your rainfall, watershed, etc. but around here, the rivers do not do well when the flow is altered that much. at times, we can change the flow pretty dramatically due to downstream charging (rain not power) but dams generally provide little options unless you have a pretty large storage pond

 

[JRP3]

There is always spinning reserve of some sort. If you add more significant load to the grid they have to increase the amount of power that's put out. A single EV would not be enough load to do anything more than slightly change the frequency of the power output and probably would not need compensation, a bunch of EV's charging certainly would. Of course your LEAF charging from coal still has a lower emissions footprint than your 4runner.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

There is always spinning reserve of some sort. If you add more significant load to the grid they have to increase the amount of power that's put out. A single EV would not be enough load to do anything more than slightly change the frequency of the power output and probably would not need compensation, a bunch of EV's charging certainly would. Of course your LEAF charging from coal still has a lower emissions footprint than your 4runner.

there does not always have to be a spinning reserve. we only choose that method because we didnt know any better or have better options. now we do

http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2013/03/this-week-in-evville-working-for-power.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

A friend of mine lives near this plant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bend_Power_Station" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He said you can clearly see the number of stacks that have smoke (steam?) coming out varies by time of day and time of year. AFAIK these plants pulverize the coal into a fine powder and inject it into a furnace. No doubt there are related processes of circulating cooling water, lubricants, who knows what all, but the process can certainly be throttled if nothing else, by shutting down some of the units when demand is low.

 

[Smidge204]

Are you trying to suggest that when demand drops overnight the coal plants do not reduce output?

No, that is not what I'm saying. Let's use a car analogy.

When driving your ICE vehicle around, the engine is producing power. When you slow down, the engine also slows down to produce less power. When you come to a stop, you need no power... but the engine does not shut off. There is a minimal speed - and a minimal amount of power - at which the engine must run at or else it will stall. This no-stall limit exists regardless of how much power is actually requires. Idling the engine wastes gas.

This is why hybrids adopt the strategy of shutting the engine off below a certain speed, or when stopped. An idling engine is wasting fuel, so you turn the engine off and supplement the drive train with a power source that has instant availability (an electric motor) that can provide the power needed until the engine can start back up.

The same is true for power plants. As demand decreases, they throttle down to burn less fuel. However, there is a minimal, "Idle" power output required to keep the plant "on." Once your demand drops below that threshold, you start wasting fuel exactly as an engine idling at a traffic light is wasting fuel. This wasted energy is called "spinning reserve."

In areas that rely heavily on coal power, this waste ends up being rather significant. You can throttle down the plants as low as they'll go, but their combined output may be higher than demand... and if you shut them down you might not be able to get them running again by the time you need them.

Does that explain it a little clearer?

it is very unlikely that you can turn your dam off at night unless its Summer. guessing that all depends really on your rainfall, watershed, etc. but around here, the rivers do not do well when the flow is altered that much. at times, we can change the flow pretty dramatically due to downstream charging (rain not power) but dams generally provide little options unless you have a pretty large storage pond

Or a bypass. Most dams have a bypass of some kind to keep the water flowing without running it through the turbines for exactly this reason. They CAN be "turned off" completely, since they can be "turned on" again within a few minutes. A older coal plant might have millions of gallons of water that need to be brought to a boil and need time to build up sufficient head of steam... and by the time you get everything up to speed it'll be time to turn it off again.

So please let me try to get everything straight, in order to avoid any possible FUD. The coal power utilities in Kentucky, where I live, powers down to the exact load at night, there is zero spinning reserve,

This may or may not be the case. Do you know for sure? The larger the fraction of power delivered by coal, and the larger the swing in peak/minimum demand, the more wasteful the whole system is. If there IS spinning reserve, then charging your EV at night, using power that would otherwise be wasted in vain, you're doing everyone a favor.
=Smidge=

 

[JRP3]

Does that explain it a little clearer?

No because it's not really accurate. You're making an assumption that coal plants are throttled so low that they are just idling but this is not necessarily what is actually happening. You can have spinning reserve as long as the plant is not running at 100% and the grid always needs a certain amount of spinning reserve. Yes if you happen to be in an area where your local grid is being supplied by a coal plant that is operating near it's minimum then charging your car, or more likely a number of cars, may bring it's output to a more efficient level. Once you have a fleet of EV's charging and "filling in the bathtub" you are no longer just improving efficiency and are simply burning more coal.

 

[kentuckyleaf]

We are a long way from a fleet of EV's in Kentucky. We pay sales tax, property tax, and zero state incentives. You would think a state that is proud of it's coal power and cheap electric would be all behind an electric fleet. Not so much.

 

[Reddy]

Would I be "greener" driving my 4Runner all over the place? If I get a solid answer to this question, I would make a better decision at the end of our lease. The 4 Runner is a much nicer ride anyway, but I figured I'd be better off using it only when exceeding the Leaf's range, or for when we take out the canoe or camper. Who can figure this out for me? Thanks in advance

I don't know if I can provide a definitive answer, but here is some info for thought:

This Tuesday I went to a presentation about EVs and the smart grid by a gentleman at our local library. Very informative. In his presentation he showed a slide of various "average" emissions for EV vs ICE across the various US power pools. I think I located the slide (#12) here:
http://beyondli-ioniv.labworks.org/presentations/BeYond_Li_Kintner-Meyer_final.pdf

Kentucky is in the ECAR (1st column) and is "only" 68% coal, at least back before 2010. http://www.earthlyissues.com/images/nercmapopo.gif
However, US coal use has been been dropping for years and is nowhere near 50% of electricity generation today. Most likely, your utility has also reduced coal consumption and increased natural gas because its cheaper (I bet they haven't dropped your electricity prices though).
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ng-coal-with-36-percent-share-of-electricity/

Even using the older pre-2010 data, most emissions are much less with EVs (except particulates and SOx) than ICE. If urban air quality is more important to you than global air quality, then it's always better to use those coal plants than drive ICEs. Again, remember these are "averages". In most of the US, EVs beat all other ICEs, including the Prius. See slides 24-28. Unless you have a 35+mpg ICE and very dirty electricity, you're cleaner driving an EV. It looks to me like the 20 mpg 4Runner generates much higher emissions, and it costs $0.20/mi to drive at $4.00/gal. I would go with the EV, even in Kentucky.

The take home message I got from the presentation was this:
EVs make sense TODAY, from an overall economic and pollution emissions standpoint. AND: EVs will make EVen MORE sense in the future, with additional improvements in renewable energy penetration, smart grid technologies and battery improvements.

Is this game over for the ICE? Probably not just yet as most people are too scared, think they drive too far, or lack charging infrastructure to make the switch. However, the presentation does show that with smart grid charging, 73% of existing US light-duty vehicles could be replaced with EVs TODAY with no additional generation required. That's amazing given that it will be decades before we even get to 50% EVs.

Reddy

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Grid balancing and storage is our major achillies heel but only because we dont know any better. Now we have options
http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com/2013/03/this-week-in-evville-working-for-power.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Smidge204]

No because it's not really accurate. You're making an assumption that coal plants are throttled so low that they are just idling but this is not necessarily what is actually happening. You can have spinning reserve as long as the plant is not running at 100% and the grid always needs a certain amount of spinning reserve.

I'm not assuming anything. The scenario I've described is not just possible, but it actually happens quite a bit in some areas. If anything you seem to be assuming that coal plants are always operating above their minimum output - which in some areas they do. I'm actually quite careful not to actually assume anything, and if I do I tend to state it explicitly.

Spinning reserve is capacity than can be brought online quickly: within ten minutes. It is not necessarily the case that a power plant has that capability. Again, it takes time to throttle up a machine that has millions of tons of thermal mass. I'd assume that many modern coal plants can handle it, but a lot of the older ones might not.

Once you have a fleet of EV's charging and "filling in the bathtub" you are no longer just improving efficiency and are simply burning more coal.

That sounds like the kind of problem I'd prefer to have, to be honest! :lol:

Now we have options

There are two flaws in the Vehicle-To-Grid model. The minor one is wear and tear on the battery; it would probably be fairly low but it's a liability/consumer confidence issue.

The big one is the potential to leave an EV driver without enough charge to get where they're going. It's fine that you can include as part of the V2G agreement a minimal required range, but we all should know just how volatile EV range can be and how abysmal the vehicle's ability to track and estimate range based on battery SOC is. By the time you add in sufficient padding there might be no battery capacity left to contribute. The other side of that coin is unexpected trips where for one day the owner might have to exceed the agreed upon nominal range, or if the owner needs to disconnect the vehicle and the battery is at a lower SOC that required.

I would sooner give homeowners incentives to buy battery storage systems along with their solar PV systems and incorporate that into the grid. Though there's no reason we couldn't do both.

I think AndyH has posted a very nice video on a grid-to-fuel scheme being developed in Germany, to convert excess electrical power to methane for storage and use. I think that's a fantastic idea since, even at the rather unimpressive storage efficiency, it makes full use of the existing infrastructure as well as making the surplus (presumably renewable) energy available to other sectors like chemical processing, home heating, etc.
=Smidge=

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

No because it's not really accurate. You're making an assumption that coal plants are throttled so low that they are just idling but this is not necessarily what is actually happening. You can have spinning reserve as long as the plant is not running at 100% and the grid always needs a certain amount of spinning reserve.

I'm not assuming anything. The scenario I've described is not just possible, but it actually happens quite a bit in some areas. If anything you seem to be assuming that coal plants are always operating above their minimum output - which in some areas they do. I'm actually quite careful not to actually assume anything, and if I do I tend to state it explicitly.

Spinning reserve is capacity than can be brought online quickly: within ten minutes. It is not necessarily the case that a power plant has that capability. Again, it takes time to throttle up a machine that has millions of tons of thermal mass. I'd assume that many modern coal plants can handle it, but a lot of the older ones might not.

Once you have a fleet of EV's charging and "filling in the bathtub" you are no longer just improving efficiency and are simply burning more coal.

That sounds like the kind of problem I'd prefer to have, to be honest! :lol:

Now we have options

There are two flaws in the Vehicle-To-Grid model. The minor one is wear and tear on the battery; it would probably be fairly low but it's a liability/consumer confidence issue.

The big one is the potential to leave an EV driver without enough charge to get where they're going. It's fine that you can include as part of the V2G agreement a minimal required range, but we all should know just how volatile EV range can be and how abysmal the vehicle's ability to track and estimate range based on battery SOC is. By the time you add in sufficient padding there might be no battery capacity left to contribute. The other side of that coin is unexpected trips where for one day the owner might have to exceed the agreed upon nominal range, or if the owner needs to disconnect the vehicle and the battery is at a lower SOC that required.

I would sooner give homeowners incentives to buy battery storage systems along with their solar PV systems and incorporate that into the grid. Though there's no reason we couldn't do both.

I think AndyH has posted a very nice video on a grid-to-fuel scheme being developed in Germany, to convert excess electrical power to methane for storage and use. I think that's a fantastic idea since, even at the rather unimpressive storage efficiency, it makes full use of the existing infrastructure as well as making the surplus (presumably renewable) energy available to other sectors like chemical processing, home heating, etc.
=Smidge=

all valid worries but

remember the driver is getting extra range that he normally could not afford since the PUD actually paid for the larger capacity.

remember, 90+% of the times, it is capacity that is not needed, so its dead weight.

remember, YOU control how much you put into the grid. if there is a chance you might need it, dont offer it. but how often is that going to happen? once a week, twice a week? you already have more capacity than you need to begin with.

what we really fail to realize is that the LEAF's "limited" abiility to transport us still provides more than twice the national daily average driven last year (29.3 miles) now, if we increase the EVs range from 80 miles to 150 miles now it goes from handling 93% of our needs to handling 98% of our needs AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. the only caveat is to allow the PUD to access the power if they need it and we dont.

and when we go to liability and consumer confidence, there is no doubt that if given even a smidgen (no pun intended) of a chance, we will screw it up. sure, some people are disorganized, space case wrecks who barely stumble thru life (we have all had those days) and will burn themselves here. they will either learn or elect not to participate in the program on their next purchase.

also cant emphasize the value of a decentralized power system. I cant help but feel we are counting the days when terrorist attacks on our national infrastructure will become common. who knows? maybe our focus on terrorism over the past 11½ years has done a lot more good than we will ever realize but the power grid is simply too big, too remote and too accessible to be completely protected.