Without Clean Electricity, Plug-In Vehicles Aren’t So Hot

[Arminius]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Arminius and Ryland -



Wow, I didn't know that there was that much energy being wasted/lying around at night. I thought the power plants would lower their output to save $$$. It's a crime not to store it/use it the next day!

CarloSW2

Yeah, but I always read articles from green sites with a grain of salt handy. Too many don't understand basic (by "basic" I mean junior high level) science or even semantics. Here's a quote from the original article that link is referencing, which is discussing the state of the grid at night (emphasis mine):

"According to a recent U.S. Department of Energy study, there is so much excess capacity that if every light-duty car and truck in America today used plug-in hybrid technology, 73 percent of them could be plugged in and "fueled" without constructing a single new power plant. Not a bad thing these days."

"Excess capacity" is not the same as "excess production." What the author of that link did was confuse the two. The system has the capacity to produce more electricity than is used at night, so no more electric plants need to be built. That's a far cry from saying that excess electricity is going to waste, which is false.

However, the main point that vehicles that run on electricity are the cause of less pollution per unit remains true. In addition, the future looks bright for alternative sources of electricity, which would make the point even more true.

[cfg83]

Arminius -

Ok, that's more in-line with my expectations. You still have to burn more fuel to juice-up the cars at night.

CarloSW2

[Arminius]

Recent study of electric cars.

http://solveclimate.com/blog/2008040...e-gas-cars-map

[Ryland]

It takes time, and fuel to throttle back power plants, and more time and energy to bring them back up, to me it would make sense to have EV's use a power plan controlled charger, as the daily loads drop, they switch your cars charger on, if you need to charge it in the day time then you pay more.
Or just get your own solar or wind system and charge it your self.

[Arminius]

Originally Posted by Ryland

It takes time, and fuel to throttle back power plants, and more time and energy to bring them back up, to me it would make sense to have EV's use a power plan controlled charger, as the daily loads drop, they switch your cars charger on, if you need to charge it in the day time then you pay more.
Or just get your own solar or wind system and charge it your self.

I just read an article about California Edison's electric program or plans to have such devices in homes. The idea is that they would send a signal to the box to begin charging cars at times when it was best, usually at night.

[hvatum]

Originally Posted by Ryland

It takes time, and fuel to throttle back power plants, and more time and energy to bring them back up, to me it would make sense to have EV's use a power plan controlled charger, as the daily loads drop, they switch your cars charger on, if you need to charge it in the day time then you pay more.
Or just get your own solar or wind system and charge it your self.

That's one of the better uses of solar or wind, the only problem being that you usually charge at night, when solar cannot be used. But it's a nice idea for wind power since you can just charge with whatever power it produces, charging a car doesn't require a constant input like computers or hospital equipment does.

Otherwise wind and solar don't have much potential to actually offset fossil fuels, it's not constant the way coal or nuclear plants are. Solar and wind are expensive, and can only really offset our current base load when one considers the absolute minimum that it might produce. If at some point wind and PV installations might produce 2% of their maximum output (100,000MW), that means that you need a 98,000MW reserve. That will probably come from natural gas, which can be cycled quickly, but that still means we're not getting rid of fossil fuel plants, just using them less.

If it gets into cycling coal plants it's quite questionable, since they will pollute more in the warm up stage and cool down. Ironically with the intermittentcy of wind power in Denmark they just run their coal plants 24/7, and when they get a lot of wind generation they sell it at dirt cheap prices to Germany and Sweden, where industrial users probably use it to smelt aluminum or something.

For the time being nuclear is the only option we have NOW. Solar power and wind power seem perpetually "just a few years" away from being economical. I'll believe it when I see it, but we shouldn't depend on a technology "eventually" being practical. Also solar panel manufacturers are piggy backing on the electronics industry right now using excess low quality processed silica, but a serious ramp up in production would mean they'd have to smelt their own and prices would have to jump.

I see far too much "feel good" focus on windmills and solar panels, and not enough consideration of the actual environmental impact. Also despite all the talk we're building 39 coal plants right now in America, Germany is building 4...

PS. Nuclear waste disposal, reactor safety are no longer technical issues, they're just political issues. France has no problems with it, we're just shackled politically by the psychological fallout from Chernobyl.

[roflwaffle]

The only thing I worry about is a loop such as...
-W/o clean electricity from renewables PHEVs aren't so hot
-W/o PHEVs clean electricity from renewables isn't so hot

etc...

[LostCause]

Originally Posted by hvatum

PS. Nuclear waste disposal, reactor safety are no longer technical issues, they're just political issues. France has no problems with it, we're just shackled politically by the psychological fallout from Chernobyl.

I don't think burying nuclear waste in metal drums, encased in concrete, encased in a massive overfilled cavern is the most responsible thing to due when taking future generations into account. Trash is one thing, but when it lasts 14,000 years it is a trans-generational issue.

The scramble for new resources is a little too reminiscient of coke addicts trying to get their fix. Building coal plants is the equivalent of coke addicts digging through the trash for residual powder from the previous night's party. Building nuclear plants is the equivalent of drug users maxing out debt to get drugs now, without regard to the impact it will have on their children.

But hey, I'm an addict too... My vote is for nuclear fusion. We can turn hydrogen into helium and let it escape into the upper atmosphere where it can be blown away by the solar wind. Totally "green" technology, disintegrating our planet one atom at a time.

- LostCause

[cfg83]

hvatum -

This is your first post?!?!?!?

Originally Posted by hvatum

...

I see far too much "feel good" focus on windmills and solar panels, and not enough consideration of the actual environmental impact. Also despite all the talk we're building 39 coal plants right now in America, Germany is building 4...

PS. Nuclear waste disposal, reactor safety are no longer technical issues, they're just political issues. France has no problems with it, we're just shackled politically by the psychological fallout from Chernobyl.

Isn't Germany building 4 because of it's massive Solar program? :

Germany Embraces the Sun - 07.09.01
http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2001/07/45056

FREIBURG, Germany -- Germany is not necessarily known as the sunniest spot in Europe. But nowhere else do so many people climb on their roofs to install solar panels.

Since the introduction of the Renewable Energies Laws (EEG) in April last year, Germany has been experiencing a remarkable boom in solar energy.

"When my cab driver gives me a lecture about solar technologies, I know I am back home," raved Rian van Staden, executive director of the International Solar Energy Society (ISES) about Freiburg, the sunniest city in Germany and host to the InterSolar conference July 6-8.

The little university town in southwest Germany, about 40 miles away from the French and Swiss borders, is Germany's "Solar Valley."

It would make convenient sense that we're building coal because we have huge reserves (Carter said this in the late 1970's).

I don't believe you on the nuclear waste disposal issue.

CarloSW2

[Arminius]

I'm for going nuclear.