plug in hybrids, the grid and off-peak demand

[phantom power]

This business of plug-in hybrids (and/or all-electric cars) is interesting. If you are one of a few people who own one, it's a great deal. You get yourself a time-of-use plan from the local utility, charge your car up at night with cheap electricity. The power companies don't even notice. Everybody wins.

Like a lot of things, the equation changes in a scenario where they actually become popular. Now, you have a lot of people charging batteries at night. Suddenly, the local utility sees a rising demand at night. "Off peak" isn't really off peak any more. It becomes a new peak in demand, at night. Since the actual energy demand is now significant, the question of how this energy is being produced, and what it's impact is, becomes relevant.

That isn't exactly a ground-breaking observation, nor is it intended to stomp on the idea of plug-in autos. But like all approaches to moving past fossil fuels, it implies a sort of "global vision" of how everything would work under such a system. Does the concept of "off peak" savings become obsolete? How do we obtain energy that is GHG neutral? What is the role of plug-in autos, versus the role of public transit, versus the role of walking and bicycles? How many people will continue to afford cars? If that number is small enough, does it really matter?

I'm unsure of what my point is. Maybe it's "the vision thing." We all see a lot of sound bites about "the future of energy" from politicians, but it's all very disjointed. I don't see much systems-level insight. How all the pieces would fit together. An attempt to predict at least the first- or second-order effects of proposed energy sources, and take them into account.

I wonder if any visions will be discussed on Sept 5, or will it be just more pieces?

[GliderGuider]

1. Systems issues with electric vehicles

Calculating the extra electricity required to switch everybody in the USA to EVs shows that you would need on the order of 200-250 GW of extra generating capacity online eight hours per day. (262,000 million vehicle miles per month, at 0.2 kWh/mile, recharging over 8 off-peak hours per night). Given that this is about 20% to 25% of the current US generating capacity, in principle it seems doable.

One wrinkle in the cloth might be lithium availability. I ran across an analysis (PDF) that says there may not be enough Lithium Carbonate available to make the needed batteries if we try to do it with li-ion. The world currently produces 70,000 tonnes of Lithium Carbonate per year, and a 16 kWh battery (as used in the Volt) requires 24 kg. We could produce enough batteries for only 3 million such batteries per year if we used all the production for car batteries. That's just 5% of the global automobile production...

[phantom power]

2. Lithium may be a major economic limiter.

On the other hand, if EEStor makes good on their marketing, it might not matter. I'm sort of agnostic about plug-in cars. I can think of a lot of scenarios where they don't pan out, or aren't relevant. But I can appreciate the benefits in principle. I'm dubious about how many people will be able to afford personal cars of any kind in the coming decades. Bikes and walking seem like growth industries to me.

[razzleberry]

5. Lithium is not a limiting issue

given demand,
other sources would be developed.
the earth'd crust contains enuf lithium.

OTOH,
nickel or cobalt could be problems.

some hopeful lithium-ion batteries
do not contain any 'critical' materials.

[GliderGuider]

6. The issue is lithium carbonate

We could ramp up production, and there is research being done on other storage technologies like the EEstor supercap already mentioned.
It's certain that either or (more likely) both of those WILL be needed if electric cars are to make any difference.

Every time I look at another proposed solution to some eco-enviro-techno problem I find an order of magnitude difference between the scale of the problem and the scale of the proposed solution. It's discouraging, and makes me wonder why the world seems filled with innumerates.

[skids]

9. My math comes out about the same...

Li battery Li content can vary based on chemistry, but is around 2% by weight

Looking at a 5KW Li-poly system (which you have to go wayback for since
hymotion is busy switching over to use A123 cells)

http://web.archive.org/web/20060306033844/www.hymotion.com/products/index.htm

They claim "up to 50 km" EV-only mode. "up to" means city driving, what in a normal
hybrid you get 1.5 to 2x the mileage as highway and there's good reason to use that
as a yardstick, so we are probably talking 25km EV-only mode highway here, assuming you
have a car that can do EV-only on the highway at your desired speed. That works to about
3 miles highway per KwH.

Those units weigh out at 72.5Kg, so they contain approximately 1.4Kg of Li metal. So
there I'm in agreement with the referenced paper.

Where I cannot agree with the paper is the utter absurdity of the idea that
consumers are going to buy 60M of these things per year. I hate to break it to
the guy, but if enough people actually do buy in to create a Li supply shortage,
I will frankly be glad and amazed. In other words it doesn't keep me up at night.

Further, in a supply crunch, new sources that were not economical before are plumbed.

It is extremely likely that we will see another battery/energy storage tech leapfrog
before even 25% of cars have these cells.

The only important thing is that we switch to electrical drive systems, since
that gives us the flexibility to use whatever is economical at the time, not to
mention saving on the productivity drain related to ICE and brakepad repairs and
side-trips to the gas station. Any cheap series hybrid model no matter how small
the battery system would give consumers the chance to vastly improve their fuel
options going forward.

If they do lease the batteries as is rumored, I think the Chevy Volt will be very
popular, though I don't know if they are going to go with the best kind of drive
train (4 hub motors)

[razzleberry]

10. the issue is LITHIUM, not (solely)lithium carbonate

there are other sources, and other semi-refined ores, for lithium

curently, the cheapest/lowest-capital method to produce
lithium was/is used.

....................
c'mon, the scaremongers are just looking for a headline.

the world's stock, and/or supply of carbonate may be thin,
but that is not the only supply of lithium

[razzleberry]

3. do you just make this stuff up?

new peak, at night. lol

.............................
suppose there were 100 million electric cars in the US
average of 4 miles per KWH. driven 40 miles per day.
daily demand, 10 KWH, recharged over 8 hours, --> 1.25 kw.

additional load --> 125 thousand megawatts

capacity --> one million megawatts

the electrical grid is just loafing along at night.

[phantom power]

4. I didn't run any numbers, if that's what you mean.

The point of the post was to incite some discussion, and learn something. Which I did: an electric car can do 4 miles per kWh.

[NickB79]

7. GliderGuider's post stated 0.2 miles per kWh

While your post states 4 miles per kWh, a 20-fold difference.

GliderGuider's post has an actual link to his source, though. Do you?

[GliderGuider]

8. There's a lot of variability

Due to car design, weight, aerodynamics etc. The Wikipedia article actually quotes a range of 0.17 to 0.37 kWh/mile. I was being generous and quoting on the low side, but 0.25 is right down the middle.

[Kolesar]

11. Study finds enough electric capacity to "fill up" plug-in vehicles across much of the nation

From the DU-E/E archives:

Study finds enough electric capacity to "fill up" plug-in vehicles across much of the nation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=74943

Release date: December 11, 2006
Contact: Susan Bauer, [phone]

Mileage from megawatts: Study finds enough electric capacity to "fill up" plug-in vehicles across much of the nation

RICHLAND, Wash. – If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics.

Researchers at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory also evaluated the impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, on foreign oil imports, the environment, electric utilities and the consumer.
...READ ON...

[NNadir]

12. Oh good. A study shows...

:eyes:

Amory Lovins various "studies" over the years have shown lots of things, not one that has proved to be an accurate representation of the true state of affairs.

All "studies" sound great until someone actually tries them on scale.

Most electricity in this country comes from dangerous fossil fuels. The Chinese are more honest about an attempt to expand their car culture. They're just planning on coal based fluid fuels.

[Kolesar]

13. It's the Dept of Energy, not Dreamy Lovins

PNNL is a DOE Office of Science laboratory that solves complex problems in energy, national security, the environment and life sciences by advancing the understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and computation. PNNL employs 4,300 staff, has a $750 million annual budget, and has been managed by Ohio-based Battelle since the lab's inception in 1965.

--o--
There is a real problem with battery powered cars that it will mean consuming more resources. There will be bigger conversion losses from generation to the wheel than gasoline. This does mean consuming less gasoline, which is good for security and peak oil and bad in that coal has much more carbon per unit of energy than petroleum-based fuels.

I think battery powered cars are going to have to be the solution people settle for. And they will drive a lot less. Who really wants to drive to inlaws' house two states away, anyway?

[diane in sf]

14. PG&E in California is actively pushing plug-ins for night time charging

because there is a surplus of electricity at night. The cars can also be used to discharge during the day to aid during peak use. They can act as a fly wheel for the power grid.

Amory Lovin's research has so far been accurate, especially his projections from the 70s on the use of renewables and conservation versus building new power plants, particularly nukes.

He is the one who advised the state of California to reward large power providers for using less electricity instead of more. The per capita consumption of power in California is less than any other state. And there is still enough waste to go even lower without sacrifice of the quality of life (heating, cooling, lighting, hot showers, cold beer).

[Kolesar]

15. We had a period where the temperature stayed below freezing for weeks last January

Thank you for your response.

We have a huge number of heating degree-days in the winter. That's why Ohio is a huge energy consumer. Our economy is still based on manufacturing and that still does mean rolling mills and auto factories (Ohio is up there with Michigan and Ontario on the list of top automobile producers). That is why Ohio has huge per capita electricity use. Industrial and commercial electricity usage is still larger than residential use in my state.

California has implemented impressive demand side energy conservation measures. But that is not the reason why they are lowest in energy usage. It's the climate and the economy.

As for Lovins, I surely have not read all of his books. I don't think that would be a good use of time. However, when people send me to an article by Lovins, I find the material to be poorly written. He inserts unreferenced terms into his writing. I cannot figure out his meaning through context. He infers conclusions that can only be supported by faith and hope.

For example, just because implementing a nuclear electricity program in some state was an economic failure for the electricity company, he infers that all nuclear generation can be replaced through a stolid implementation of demand-side efficiency methods. That's nuts.

Concluding that we can achieve our transportation goals and reduce petroleum consumption by shaving a hundred or so pounds off the body of all our automobiles by using composite body parts is also beyond belief.

[diane in sf]

21. BA, except fot the coast in California our weather can get fairly extreme, from heat iand

winter cold in the inland valleys and deserts to super cold in the mountains. Not everyone lives on the coast and even on the coast in Northern California we've been known to have two weeks of over 100 degree weather. The need for cooling causes huge electrical demands during heat waves. Most people here probably heat with natural gas so it does not create a huge electrical demand during cold weather. As I remember from when I lived in Ohio, most people there are heating with natural gas as well as heating oil. So this doesn't cause a winter demand on the use of electricity.

A citizen of Ohio is as capable as a typical Californian to able to lower blinds during heat waves, close curtains in the winter evenings, put in better windows and more house insulation, weather strip, get better appliances, etc. Ohio may even be at an advantage in adding stuctural home improvements as there is probably a higher percentage of home ownership due to the lower cost of housing.

When you say "its the economy" for electrical use being low in California, what do you mean? We have a large amount of industry in this state. Also industrial refitting can be highly profitable to the companies involved. Any energy savings goes directly to the bottom line.

You say:
"For example, just because implementing a nuclear electricity program in some state was an economic failure for the electricity company, he infers that all nuclear generation can be replaced through a stolid implementation of demand-side efficiency methods. That's nuts."

I don't find "that's nuts" to be a really well thought out rebuttal.

Thank you.

edit for typo

[Kolesar]

26. Can all nuclear generation can be replaced through demand-side/efficiency methods?

That was the impression that I got from reading Lovin's material. He did not cite any alternative energy in his example(s) of how nuclear failed and demand side reductions were "proven" to be the "only" success (the only alternatives would have been hydro in that era). Is that Lovin's thesis? Please tell me. I got lost in the obscure references last time I tried to suss out his plans.

I don't see how demand side reductions can be logically extended to supplant all of nuclear generation. I could see demand side reductions used to reduce about 10% or 20% of electricity usage. If we applied those reductions to coal fired generation, which is about half of America's electricity generation, we would reduce 20% to 40% of coal-fired electricity generation. But I don't see how we could apply demand-side reductions of more than 50% of electricity usage, which is what would be needed to eliminate 100% of coal-fired electricity generation and then to begin to cut into the next-most-polluting generation, which would be natural gas and nukes.

[Kolesar]

27. Yes, you did say "power" not "energy" in your earlier post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=110633&mesg_id=110760

I was thinking that you said "energy", so I went on about the heating loads in this state with 6000 degree days. In my experience, the only electricity increase in the winter is due to increased lighting and the furnace blower running. My electricity bill does go up a lot in the winter. Homes with heat pumps for heating are rare.

[amandabeech]

24. Does Ohio really have that much eletrical heating of homes and

businesses? Or do you have lots of electric ground-source heat pumps?

I'm from Michigan originally, and its mostly natural gas and oil up there, together with the odd wood stove or fireplace insert.

Of course, Michigan winters are more severe than most of Ohio.

[diane in sf]

20. NN and BA, your very nonspecific slams of Amory Lovins are lame, you may not like his

ideas but if you are going to criticize his research you should get more specific.

Thank you.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Why don't people look for actual studies?

Instead of arguing about who wrote the study, and what the impact on GHG's will be, based on press coverage, invest just a little time to do some research:
http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf

IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLES ON ELECTRIC UTILITIES
AND REGIONAL U.S. POWER GRIDS
PART 1: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Michael Kintner-Meyer
Kevin Schneider
Robert Pratt
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

...
For the nation as a whole, the total greenhouse gases are expected to be reduced by 27% from the projected penetration of PHEVs. The key driver for this result is the overall improvement in efficiency along the electricity generation path compared to the entire conversion chain from crude oil to gasoline to the combustion process in the vehicle. Fundamental to this result is the assumption that a PHEV by itself would be more efficient than a conventional gasoline car because of the regenerative braking capability that stores the kinetic energy in the battery during deceleration and because the engine operates at near optimal conditions more of the time than in conventional vehicles. On a regional basis, the greenhouse gas emission improvements could be as large as 40%, as in ERCOT, which has a large penetration of natural-gas plants. Conversely, the improvement in greenhouse gas emission could be zero or slightly negative for the MAPP region with essentially all coal generation (see Table 3).
...
The total particulate emissions (PM10) are likely to increase nationally by 18%, caused primarily by increased dispatch of coal-fired plants. As can be seen in Table 3, however, in regions with a large contribution to the marginal generation from natural-gas fueled plants, the total particulate emission could improve. The total SO_X emissions are increased at the national level by about 125%, also caused by coal-fired power plants. However, while the particulate and SO_X emissions are expected to increase in total, they would be removed from the urban areas to the locations of the power plants, commonly at a considerable distance from the large urban population. All urban emissions are expected to significantly improve (see Table 3).
...

[Kolesar]

17. Well

I posted that PNEL study Friday morning in Post 11 in this very thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x110633#110701
For that matter, I posted the NREL study in this forum months ago

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Thank you for that

However, as much as possible, I prefer to cite original sources.

I know in my own field of expertise that even the so-called "industry press" frequently fails to get the story right. Too often, I find the results of studies to be misrepresented.

[razzleberry]

19. meaningless garbage

pointing out meaningless percentages,

instead of things that are important

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Please elaborate

Your cryptic message makes no sense to me.

[razzleberry]

23. electric cars, would be a blessing to humanity

in many ways.

where, exactly, is particulate air pollution,
in the US, a problem?

[AdHocSolver]

25. No matter how charged, electric vehicles win over internal combustion vehicles in every way.

Internal combustion engines produce low torque so require a heat-producing, energy wasting complex transmission (referring to automatic transmissions) that actually requires the fluid to be cooled to avoid damage. This requires burning gasoline to overcome the energy thus wasted.

Electric drive motors can be designed to produce high torque at low RPM, so they can use much simpler and more efficient transmissions.

Internal combustion engines require that they be "warmed up" and sustained at a high temperature (about 190 degrees F.) for optimum efficiency and operation. At the same time, this heat has to be removed or the engine can become damaged. Gasoline is burned to keep the engine hot and provide the energy to cool it. Consequently, even when the vehicle is stopped in traffic, the engine has to "idle" at 700 to 800 RPM to keep it warm, to cool it, and to keep the oil circulating. This all burns gasoline that isn't even moving the vehicle.

When an electric vehicle is stopped in traffic, for example waiting for a traffic light, the electric motor is OFF and draws no current. This is one reason the why Prius gets such good gas mileage. At a traffic light, both the electric motor and the gasoline engine are off. When the car starts moving, it is the electric motor that gets it going using the energy stored in its battery.

Because of its low torque, the gasoline engine has to rev to a high RPM (2000 to 2500 RPM) until the car gets up enough speed for the transmission to upshift to a higher gear. This start up is why gasoline powered cars get poorer mileage in stop-and-go driving. Using the electric motor to get the car moving from a standstill is why the Prius gets even better mileage in city driving than on the highway at which time the gasoline engine is operating.

At the same time, internal combustion engines require oil changes, coolant changes, and transmission fluid changes, all made from oil, not to mention tune-ups, air filters, oil filters, etc. Electric motors don't require any of that. Internal combustion engines are constantly emitting pollution and greenhouse gases. Electric motor vehicles are effectively zero-emissions vehicles.

Whether charged through the electric grid or a small onboard internal combustion engine, electric vehicles save oil and produce far less pollution than internal combustion engine powered vehicles. Such a hybrid design could provide "the best of both worlds". For intercity trips, the batteries could be recharged by a small on-board internal combustion engine driving a generator. Such a dedicated engine could be designed for maximum efficiency on any type of fuel and to produce low emissions. For local driving, just plug it into your house current. Such a combination could easily provide the equivalent of 100 MPG. A bonus would be lower maintenance costs for vehicle owners. Properly designed and manufactured electric motors have few moving parts and are low maintenance items.

What is at issue here is not technology. The technology exists today to economically start converting to hybrid vehicles. What is at issue is whether our environment, our economy, and our life style are going to be preserved or whether they are going to be sacrificed to maintain oil company and auto company profits.