The idea that you can say "oh, electric is based on fuel power plants" is just disingenuous. Electricity is fungible. Having electric cars lets you replace the fuel with renewables and the car doesn't have to care.
I’m not sure why the grid mix is relevant at this time.
electric car usage in the US is less than 1 million cars.
My point was that that the electricity can come from a variety of sources, including fossil fuels. Coal is dying. Natural gas is cheaper and much cleaner.
True. But how much HVO100 can you personally produce?
Solar is easy to produce locally, even on your own roof. Also electric cars typically turn around 85% of the energy into forward motion. Because it's local there's minimal distribution costs. Additionally grid size installations are competing with coal, natural gas, and similar sources quite well on price.
Gas cars are around 15% efficient, and diesels are only slightly higher. Anything like gas has substantial costs in distribution, and of course you have to drive to/from gas stations (instead of just charging at home/work.
So even if HVO100 is 100% renewable, it's not going to be cost efficient, or energy efficient.... so why bother?
Sure a Prius can get as high as 38% (at the cost of two complete drive trains). But what about the average vehicle sold in 2018?
I suspect you'd be well below the 30% efficiency again. At least in the USA the Prius isn't particularly popular (except to trade in for a model 3). The demand is for the small crossover and SUV segments.
Fuel produced from anything farmed might be carbon neutral, but the process of farming itself has a huge impact on the environment. Also, we just have by far not enough farmland to come even close in supplying the traffic sector with fuels - while in many regions there still is a shortage of food. So with the exception of processing waste from food production, it is environmental-negative to use grown fuels. Solar cells are more than 10x more efficient per area used and can be mounted on top of roofs etc.
That is a very good point. We have quite a few applications, where we will need fuel for quite some time to come, let us reserve all the "reneweable" fuels for those applications. Electric cars are a thing, electric airplanes are unfortunately only at their very beginning.
There's good reasons beside carbon to avoid running your car on what's pretty much liquid margarine. Arable land can't be spared for it on a global scale. And it fills the air with the usual medically inadvisable smut and gases.
Airplanes, on the other hand, that might be a good thing.
Do you mean that if you get electric cars running off coal power plants now, then that frees you up to replace the coal with e.g. solar power later on?
(From a programming perspective - since this is Hacker News, after all - we could view electric power as an "interface" which hides the implementation of how it's generated from the car, as opposed to petrol which is "tightly coupled" to the car)
They're really both interfaces, for petrol you get energy and CO2 emissions for a given quantity. However you don't know that the CO2 emissions are net - the fuel might have been produced via some synthetic process driven by renewables. Unlikely, but as an interface you can't really know the details of the implementation behind the scenes.
Technically, this isn't a car analogy - it's that rarest of creatures, the reverse car analogy, which uses programming concepts to explain things about cars.
Same goes for diesel. You can run cars exclusively on bio-fuel, the cars won't care. Only when you scale it up to current worldwide fuel consumption levels you might even make a worse impact on climate than fossil fuels would right now.
Well, thats the point - we know that bio fuels have a huge negative environmental impact and won't scale, while we have a clear path to base the grid on reneweable production.
We could also have had diesel cars with about 20-40% of emissions of the the current "fleet" for about two decades. But apparently nobody cares and now, instead of thinking about all the other stuff we need to replace fossils (heating, steel and concrete, chemical industry) and slowly phasing out those low-emissions cars, people debate about electric cars, which as of today are mainly used to greenwash the sale of inefficient SUVs and themselves are abominations of the green growth idea (name one advantage of the model x over a station wagon design)...
As it stands now we are experiencing an all out bankruptcy declaration of the idea that free, unregulated markets (which allow monopolies and cartels to thrive) are gonna be beneficial for humankind in the long term.
I don’t think there ever was an idea in economics that totally free and unregulated markets was a good thing. The most hard core free market proponents always said state should focus on the (minimal) sets of rules to let the market maintain fair competition between participants. That includes anti-monopoly and anti-cartel regulations.
One of the problem IMHO is that the concept of "market" in a global economy is very blurry.
What is a monopoly in this context ? does having 99% market share in the US constitutes a monopoly if a chineese competitor has twice the number of users ? Are you going to dismantle google and amazon, only to see baidu and alibaba reap the market ?
Exactly. Having electric cars means that you can generate your power however you want. Nuclear (fission or fusion), solar, fossil, biomass - it doesn't matter.
That you can doesn't mean you do. Both wind and solar uses ex coal as backup and with only 1% of the worlds energy consumption being covered by those its safe to say that currently evs are powered by fossil fuel. Also look up capacity factor. We arent even close to be able to use solar and wind for anything big scale, although actually creating these giant farms are extremely big scale because the energy density is so low.
No big scale? Germany is in 2019 at 45% reneweables in the electricity mix so far. At the moment I am writing this, 30% of the electricity is provided by solar, 20% by wind energy.
No, nuclear is not reneweable. The main sources of reneweable are wind, solar, bio mass, water. Depending on the source the exact numbers might vary for small differences in counting, but to see the overall development, look here: https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share_de.htm?source=ren-sha...
45% of electricity capacity NOT energy consumed. The distinction is extremely important.
Those percentages talk about how much capacity they have to produce electricity in Germany NOT how much they consume from that capacity (capacity factor is the important word and that's only between 20-40% of that capacity.
Plus those percentages is before you include how much energy is important.
In other words that number is highly highly misleading.
No, the number is the actual electricity produced. You can see the numbers here: https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share_de.htm
The average of reneweable energy in Germany for 2019 so far is 46.5%, it was slightly over 40% in 2018.
The number is not the electricity consumed. Again capacity factor needs to be factored in plus all the other things I just listed for you.
So it's highly misleading. On top of that, we haven't even talked about the fact that it's increased the prices dramatically for the german consumer and it's not going to reduce CO2 emissions even looking into the future maybe even slightly increase it because of the need to support it with coal now that they are closing the nuclear power plants.
You should start providing numbers and links to base your argumentation on.
I have provided a link which clearly shows the increase of reneweables in the consumed electricity. Equally, the CO2 per kWh is constantly declining, now at about 480 g/kWh. So CO2 emissions due to electricity production are clearly decreasing in Germany.
It is also wrong to speak about "now that they are closing nuclear power plants". Quite a few already have been closed, we habe about 8 left, on average one of those is going to be closed every year, nuclear power is quite small in Germany already. Yes, it will have an impact on the bilance, but the buildup of reneweable energy far exceeds the decomissioning of nuclear power plants.
I used to think like you. Then I started digging into things a little deeper and came away utterly horrified at how much of what we read is completely misleading.
Lets start with the idea that wind is somehow making strides:
>I used to think like you. Then I started digging into things a little deeper and came away utterly horrified at how much of >what we read is completely misleading.
>Lets start with the idea that wind is somehow making strides:
Yes, energy prices in Germany are high for private households, as the costs for the transition are put only on private consumers and small businesses while large industries pay none of it. This is rightfully critisized by many. What is the relevance for the discussion here?
This article actually confirms the numbers I named, with almost 40% reneweables in 2017. So you show that your claim about my numbers is wrong. Thanks.
I already showed you and explained how they were wrong. It doesn't matter that it's from 2014 the underlying point is still the same as it has nothing to do with how much has been added but how you measure it to get to those number you are.
You are talking about electricity it's not energy.
You are talking about what % of electricity is produced IN Germany now what it consumes (i.e. imports)
Your number needs to factor in capacity factor (it doesn't)
The point of this discussion is whether Solar can be used for large scale energy consumption. It can't and it isn't and you haven't showed that to be the case for the very reasons I just explained to you.
Sun could be 100% based on the way you present it and it still wouldn't mean that Germany didn't use other types.
I already showed you and explained how they were wrong. It doesn't matter that it's from 2014 the underlying point is still the same as it has nothing to do with how much has been added but how you measure it to get to those number you are
No, you claimed that my number of 45% reneweable electricity production in Germany for 2019 so far is false. But you provided a link which showed that it was 40% in 2017 already. So how have you shown my number wrong? Please let us just talk about the number, don't start other topics as in your previous post.
You are talking about electricity it's not energy.
Yes, I am talking about electricity, my claim was clearly referring to that. How was my claim wrong?
You are talking about what % of electricity is produced IN Germany now what it consumes (i.e. imports)
Germany is a net electricity exporter.
Your number needs to factor in capacity factor (it doesn't)
What capacity factor needs to be factored in and how when just doing the sum of the production in Watt hours?
The point of this discussion is whether Solar can be used for large scale energy consumption. It can't and it isn't and you haven't showed that to be the case for the very reasons I just explained to you.
My claim didn't talk about solar specifically, but about all reneweables together. How was the number I named wrong?
Sun could be 100% based on the way you present it and it still wouldn't mean that Germany didn't use other types.
No, I have not made any claim about solar. I have just named the total percentage of reneweable electricity of the total electric production.
It is false for the reasons I already explained to you. That number is misleading. Renewables are calculated that way which is what is misleading for reasons I already explained.
No, you didn't you opened up a whole range of other topics. So, what is wrong with just making a talley, how much energy is produced by all power plants?
And how is the number of 40% for the reneweable part of the energy production (not installed capacity or whatever) wrong for germany?
Are you going to provide some content to the discussion, or do you just keep talking?
Name me a single reason, why you think that all sources which list the German electricity production - to make it clear, that means the amount of electricity put into the grid - at 40% reneweable sources is wrong. Don't claim you said it somewhere, give it here, as a single clear statement.
Capacity factor (which means that you have to reduce the number to that factor which is betewen 20-40% of what is stated as capacity is different than actual usage)
It's only electricity produced in germany (which means you have to include electricity coming from other places than Germany)
That electricity is a subset of energy.
It's pretty simple. Your number ignores those facts to get to that numbers. If you factor those things in the number will dramatically smaller.
Capacity factor (which means that you have to reduce the number to that factor which is betewen 20-40% of what is stated as capacity is different than actual usage)
I know what capacity factor is. But I was not talking about the installed peak power of reneweables, I was talking about the actual amount of energy which has been produced. It is irrelevant what the capacity is, it is only counting the energy being produced, which is measured by the meter. That is the number I have been talking about.
It's only electricity produced in germany (which means you have to include electricity coming from other places than Germany)
What are you talking about? Germany isn't importing electricity on a large scale.
That electricity is a subset of energy.
That is true, that doesn't make my statement, that reneweables are over 40% of all electricity production in Germany wrong. But you claimed my statement were wrong.
It's pretty simple. Your number ignores those facts to get to that numbers. If you factor those things in the number will dramatically smaller.
No I was just talking about the metered electricity production.
Per capita per year, the US consumes 13.0 MWh of electricity and 436.6 gallons of gasoline. With ~132k BTU of energy per gallon, that's 16.9 MWh.
Let's say electric cars are 50% more efficient in terms of energy consumption; that's still a 65% increase in the amount of electricity production required. As we move to EVs and renewables, this extra energy is going to come from keeping fossil fuel plants online that would have otherwise been shut down.
Counting the energy use of EVs as potentially from renewable sources is just feel good and ignores reality. The marginal electrical consumption caused by Teslas coming off the line today will not come from renewable sources over the lifetime of the vehicle, even if you assume a very healthy exponential ramp from today.
You're refuting one bad argument with another, which unfortunately is pretty much par for the course for discussions on energy policy.
Even with this, the shift is still well worth doing, not least of which because the distributed storage it offers is likely the only way we'll be able to hit 100% renewables down the track.
I cannot comment on the US numbers, but the German numbers are as following:
- total electricity production is around 600 TWh/year
- switching all cars to electricity would require about 120 TWh/year (44M cars x 14000km/year * 20kWh/100km)
That would be a 20% increase in electricity production required, but from that one can deduct quite a bit for fuel refining and distribution, better buffering of peak electricity production etc.
If you take the energy content of fuel, an electric car is roughly 4x as efficient as a combustion engine. While combustion engines may reach peak efficiencies of 40%, the average over the whole driving cycle is less than 20%, as the peak efficiency is only reached in a narrow band of power productions - usually at highway speeds. That is the reason hybrid cars save fuel, the electric component reduces the inefficiencies of certain parts of the driving cycle.
I'm not surprised the German numbers are better. But even there, with Germany's remarkable progress, a Tesla bought today will be scrapped before Germany reaches 120% of today's electrical production in renewables.
Fair enough; I should have used 25% instead of 50%. In my head I was multiplying by the energy efficiency of electrical production but that of course is not relevant to this calculation. The irony of correcting a bad argument with a bad argument while complaining about the same is not lost on me. I believe my point stands.
In Germany, far more reneweable power is added to the grid as the consumption could increase. With about 44 million cars on the road, every year 3 million new cars are sold, so it would take 15 years to add that extra 10-15% of electricity consumption to the grid.
Whether the grid reaches 100% reneweable during the lifetime of an electric car bought today or not might not be clear, but the point being was, it is guaranteed to contain way more reneweables as of today and with that the base of the calculations was wrong.
If you're adding marginal consumption to the grid that does not exist today, you can't account for it as being in part powered by renewables. You are producing no more renewable energy than previously, and fossil fuel consumption will increase by exactly the amount you're adding to the grid.
I'm not arguing that EVs aren't a good idea. I'm just in favor of being clear about the choice that's being made; a switch to 100% EVs would result in significantly increased electricity consumption powered by fossil fuels until renewables catch up, but lower overall carbon emissions since you're burning the fossil fuels more efficiently.
No. At best we could add 6% more electric cars per year - if only electric cars would be sold. That is the renewal rate for cars in Germany. This means, the energy consumption would increase by 1.5% per year. The addition of reneweable energy to the grid per year far exceeds the amount of energy that could be used by electric cars even at 100% market share. Which they are unfortunately far from. So the mix gets cleaner even after accounting all new reneweable energy for the electricity demands of electric cars.
It is simply not relevant that renewable energy is being added to the grid faster than EVs are increasing energy consumption. If you add energy consumption to the grid, you are powering it with your dirtiest power, which you'd otherwise be shutting off.
EVs are still superior when powering them entirely with fossil fuels. I'm not trying to argue against them. But it's important to be truthful about where the energy is coming from.
The argumentation with the marginal mix sounds nice, but is wrong. You cannot assign a certain power source to a certain electrical device unless they are directly connected. Your lightbulb isn't running on 100% coal, just because you switch it on.
Yes, if there is a difference between the demand and the amount of reneweable energy produced, that has to come from carbon sources. So increasing the demand might increase that. On the other side, in Germany we are already at the point where we have excess energy production. Mostly because coal and nuclear plants cannot be throttled quickly. So quite often we have to take reneweable energy off the grid to keep it stable. Equally, we have negative electricity prices on the spot market. Here you would even have to calculate a negative CO2 content in the energy mix for electric cars which could absorbe that wasted reneweable energy.
In the end, electric cars are rather accellerating than slowing down the switch to more renweables in the mix and as said, the addition of reneweable sources far exceeds the addition of electric cars - at the moment even by orders of magnitude.
An electric car powering on otherwise wasted renewable energy does not have negative CO2 emissions, just zero. Germany had 134 hours of negative power prices last year, and this would indeed mean that a marginal electric car added to the grid would be proportionally powered by renewables - 1.5% in 2018. In that sense, my argument of 0% is too extreme especially as the number grows, but it is still a negligible amount even in Germany today, which is significantly ahead of most countries on the renewable transition.
It is fair to count renewable energy that could not be produced without the assistance of BEVs, via demand dispatch or battery to grid transfers. And the full amount of this energy should be counted, not just its share of contribution to the grid.
Keep in mind that 600TWh/year is likely a capacity of at least double that. But the peak rate is only under worst case scenarios like a sustained heat waves. Unfortunately that high peak capacity is very expensive and goes unused for the majority of the year.
Electric cars consume quite a bit of power, but the longer range cars like the Audi, Jaguar, Tesla, top of the line leaf, and bolt all have a 200 mile or so range. So under normal use (somewhere around 12,000 miles a year) they don't need charged every day.
So generally cars can charge off peak, but in times of dire need I can see only allowing cars to charge when there's a surplus of power... strangely enough these surpluses are becoming common because of solar. Sometimes utilities even have to pay to get rid of the power.
>Per capita per year, the US consumes 13.0 MWh of electricity and 436.6 gallons of gasoline. With ~132k BTU of energy per gallon, that's 16.9 MWh.
>Let's say electric cars are 50% more efficient in terms of energy consumption
Let's look up the numbers, instead of guessing.
The average fuel economy of an american car is apparently 24.7 mpg, whereas a Tesla Model S gets 3.0 miles per kWhr.
So if you replace one with the other, you will need about 3.5 MWhr of extra electricity. 27% extra.
The good thing is that we should be able to charge the EVs at the time of our choosing, and maybe even discharge them into the grid when the power demand outweighs the generation. The utilisation of wind, solar and off-peak baseload power should increase.
Even if EVs do double electricity demand, its mainly going to be off peak, and you've got 8+ hours you can spread the charging over.
Maybe not a great match to solar, but a good match for wind.
Yes, I completely fucked up the math. Muphry's Law. But my point still stands; you aren't powering that EV with renewables until the grid goes over 100% of today's production. The fact that you "can" doesn't mean you are.
No, you're powering it with whatever the grid is using. Which is what invalidates your point. Even coal is cleaner [1] than gas. The grid is continuously getting cleaner, and your diesel only gets dirtier as it gets older.
Wowee, it's not "my" diesel. I am in fact an EV advocate, and they're worth transitioning to even if you're powering them with coal. This is a fact that we agree on.
My point is that the grid is not getting continuously cleaner if you're dumping a bunch more load on it. The marginal increase in load will be powered by fossil fuels for a significant amount of time, which is longer than the lifetime of a Tesla built today.
You take your dirtiest power offline first (with a sane energy policy). Any extra load you add is by definition delaying that event.
EVs are an important next step, and an absolute necessity for stabilizing the grid when transitioning to intermittent renewables. I was replying to a very specific claim made by the parent comment.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply ownership, and should have used the indefinite article "a" diesel, not "your" diesel.
If you take the existing grid, and add a bunch of load to it, and also add a bunch of renewables, the grid is still cleaner. For the set pollution outputs, the amount of power generated is higher. Pollution per unit power is less.
And the point I was making is that it doesn't matter, even if coal was where the additional power came from (and it absolutely will not be), it's still cleaner than current ICE cars (that's the link I cited in the previous post)
Right, I am 100% on the same page that EVs even when powered by coal power plants are better. No brainer, let's get it done.
But you aren't thinking clearly about where the power for EVs is coming from. I'm going to attempt to illustrate with some made up numbers for simplicity.
This year, we have:
* 100 TWh electricity consumption
* 100 TWh gasoline consumption
The electricity is generated via:
* 20 TWh from renewables, growing by 10 TWh a year
* 80 TWh from fossil fuels, shrinking by 10 TWh a year
This system will reach 100% renewable consumption after 8 years, having consumed 80 + 70 + 60 ... = 360 TWh of electricity generated via fossil fuels, and gasoline containing 800 TWh.
Now if we could switch the system over to 100% EVs this year (to make the math easier), let's assume we can replace gasoline containing 100 TWh with 20 TWh of electricity. The capacity for this generation comes from our existing fossil fuel plants, which were in the process of shutting down.
Our consumption is now:
* 120 TWh electricity
Generated via:
* 20 TWh from renewables, growing by 10 TWh a year
* 100 TWh from fossil fuels, shrinking by 10 TWh a year
This alternate system will reach 100% renewable consumption after 10 years, having consumed 100 + 90 + 80 ... = 550 TWh of electricity generated via fossil fuels.
Even on an aggressive renewable ramp (which should be more favorable than reality), the addition of load from EVs has caused 52% more consumption of electricity from fossil fuels over the course of the ramp. This is still a significant reduction in carbon emissions, as the power plants burning fossil fuels are more efficient, and it's worth doing. But it is not correct to say that the EVs are powered in part by renewables until near the end of the ramp. Any amount of renewable energy you feed the EVs is simply being taken from elsewhere in the grid.
Now, you could ramp up renewables more quickly to make up the shortfall, but you could have done that anyway. The only real connection they have is that EVs can dispatch demand and even send power back in to the grid from their batteries, in order to allow the grid to remain stable as more intermittent sources of power are added to the grid. In places where wind and solar have caused an excess of energy, like Germany on occasion as discussed by a sibling commenter, or at times in my own Australia, you can start to attribute that otherwise wasted energy to fueling EVs.
You are missing the point. This is a long run game, since we can easily transition from fossil fuels to alternate energy source without having to replace fundamentally how EV engines work. All they need is electrons, not exploding fossil fuel. These electrons can come from any source. If it's fossil today it doesn't matter. 20, 50. 100 years from now the source of energy can shift significantly while the transportation industry just wouldn't care anymore.
ICE cars are around 15% efficient. Electric cars are generally 85% to 90% efficient. "50% more" is a pretty big understatement. 1.5x * 15 is only 22.5% efficient still around 1/4th as efficient as an electric car.
Also given solar's growth and the time it will take for most cars to be electric there's plenty of room for more solar production. California now requires solar on all new homes, and it's getting ever more price effective to use renewables. Seems like I see a few stories a week about a coal, NG, or similar peaker plant being cancelled, or decomissioned in favor of battery storage, solar, or both... for purely economic reasons.
A 75kw battery in a tesla gives you a range of 310 miles or so. So that's 4 miles or so per kw. So if I install the smallest Tesla solar system (4kw for $8,000) and being in central California I get a fair bit of sun. Should easily make 15-20kwh in the winter, and a fair bit more in the summer. That's 80 ish miles a day in the winter, and more in the summer. I drive about 30 miles a day on average.
So with a 8kw solar system I'd likely handle my driving needs and put a big dent in my other power needs. Tesla's new solar pricing puts it around $2.00 a watt installed. $16,000 isn't cheap, but our power bill isn't cheap either, especially in the summer.
As a nice bonus solar panels noticeably decrease the heat load in the attic, saving airconditioning costs. Amusingly solar panels over parking lots (so they provide shade) actually save a fair amount of gas. The huge win is when everyone runs their AC flat out for 15 minutes when they get into their 130F cars, if their car is closer to ambient they spend much less gas on the AC.
While solar does contribute to the "duck" shaped power production curve, cars typically spend the vast majority of their time parked, and can be programmed to use power whenever there is a surplus/whenever the price is lowest. So while electric cars can consume large amounts of power, they generally aren't picky on when they get it. At least for home users they typically schedule charging for whatever time the cheapest rates start.
I am imagining most cars will be plugged in at night when there is no solar energy produced,do they imply you can buffer energy in the cars battery and you can extract some if is needed or that you can charge it in smart ways, like charge slower if the grid is not at full capacity.
Are there disadvantages for the battery life or charging time?
Yes, this is true. It's not a huge factor. Keep in mind that the worst 1% of the days of the year are a serious strain on the electrical grid. They often require very inefficient and expensive peak plants to spin up to help ensure the grid doesn't fail. Not only are those peaker plants inefficient when running, they are quite expensive even when not running.
Additionally even on those top 1% days (3.5 days a year) there's likely only a few hours where the load is near max.
So if say 1M (2% or so of all cars) cars in a country like Germany would contribute say 25% of their capacity just 3-4 days a year it could make a significant difference and make the power grid more reliable and allow the least efficient peaker plants to be decommissioned.
Even over a decade of use, electric car owners aren't going to notice 25% of their battery being used 3-4 times a year.
If it's those sort of numbers then that would be fine - in everything I've read about this (which isn't a great deal) it's been very unclear as to how often such pulling back of power would be used. :)
My memory is blurry as this I read that almost 10 years ago now, and it probably changed since then, but one vision was, assuming you have an electric car that has a capacity of 200 miles. You drive on average 20 miles to get to work, get into the parking lot, plug in your car. It doesn't need to be charged, because you'll be doing the same 20 miles at night.
So instead of charging, the grid is able to "buy" electricity from your battery during stress times (say maybe during lunch hour or something).
You end up having the grid having access to all electric car's battery when not needed.
Won't that affect the battery lifetime? Or this new batteries can be smart about this? I am thinking that replacing an used battery will contribute negatively to the environment.
EVs used for commuting will eventually be plugged in during the day at the workplaces (in cities where the grid usually has more capacity), not only overnight at homes. Large part of renewables is wind, which is available overnight, too. Most EV users will surely accept trading, say, 30% of maximal EV range which they don't need every day, for cheap electricity plan.
As long as we stay in optimal operating envelope for batteries (no full charge/discharge with large currents, no temperature extremes), there is no downside for battery life.
I don’t know if that many people today actually think their electric car is far better than traditional ICE vehicles, but that doesn’t matter.
These intermediate steps are required to setup the logistics and economies of scale for a future when our primary energy source is a cleaner alternative.
just that some cars and their usage patterns won't matter for the kind of energy consumption required by residential heating, industrial processes and shipping. Those are the real things, where we need to setup logistics and economics and absolutely nothing is done. (Reasonable) Electric vehicles are nice and good and phasing out reasonable (think 50-60mpg) cars for them is an inevitable thing (at least in cities), but it's just the tip of the iceberg
This economy isn't new. Public transport, much of it electrified already, is the very definition of economy of scale. It will trade some comfort and convenience for increased efficiency and lower cost (not to mention some hefty side benefits like less congestion and reclaiming some land in cities). It could also free up city traffic and allow reclaiming some of the land. It's also not very popular with people who can afford an EV today which leads me to believe this is only about comfort and convenience at the budget you can afford. For some people this leads to an EV, for others to an ICE.
TLDR: the study referenced is inherently flawed. Among others:
* It used outdated NEDC tests instead of WLTP numbers. (Diesel) car makers are known to have cheated NEDC tests for decades, using corrected WLTP numbers changes the whole story.
* It exaggerated the CO2 emissions for production of batteries, Tesla's Gigafactory emits 2.6x less CO2 per kWh than assumed.
* It assumed a battery lifespan of just 150k km. Tesla's rated battery lifespan is over 2M km, so taking 300k as very conservative number changes the calculation significantly.
* It assumed an energy mix of today, instead of an increasing share of renewable energy in the future.
Using corrected data, the Tesla emits actually 63% less CO2 instead of 11-28% more.
> It assumed an energy mix of today, instead of an increasing share of renewable energy in the future.
This is probably worth top billing. Even if electric vehicles were to produce more pollution _today_, they would still be a positive in that it would move a large part of the pollution problem upstream, where we have many more strategies available to solve it. Not entirely unlike an abstraction layer that produces worse performance today but enables performance-optimising refactoring tomorrow.
A bit of a sideline, but I'm inclined to agree that simply counting renewable energy produced as carbon neutral isn't right. I'm not even thinking of the emissions incurred in constructing e.g. solar plants. Energy is a liquid market, any consumption takes up a part of the total production of the relevant area, and it's the average emissions in that area we should be concerned with, IMO.
It's probably not quite so cut-and dried. A gigafactory building solar to produce it's own energy certainly seems like it should get a steep discount in emissions. But where do we draw the line? I buy wind power. Does that mean it no longer matters how much power I use? That doesn't seem reasonable, either.
If you want to be more environmental, use power when the current carbon intensity of the grid is low. Effectively you are then providing demand-side management to reduce overall carbon dioxide production.
https://carbonintensity.org.uk/
What you really want to know is what the marginal carbon intensity is. In other words, if I add demand now, what form of generation will supply that additional demand? This is somewhat different from what the current mean carbon intensity is.
Its a choice how people decide to account for it yes, the correct answer probably depends on the situation.
If electricity supplied to the grid is 50% wind, and 50% coal. You could sell 50% of your customers 100% green electricity, or sell 50% green electricity to all of your customers.
The former allows customer to put their money where their mouth is, and directly support the green energy build out. The latter may be more suitable for govt mandated targets.
The only thing that's unreasonable is counting green electricity twice.
Note the former doesn't fully allow customers to put their money where their mouth is, since a great deal of their electricity/power will be used indirectly. So voting for government mandates will ensure that the companies they buy from are using clean power even if they are suppliers to suppliers to suppliers and so not directly influenceable via consumer action.
Is it just me or does anyone else not think in absolutes for cars, nuclear, renewables etc.
Yes, fossil fuels should be phased out, however we should still continue research to make Diesel and Petrol more efficient and clean.
A large proportion of the world still can't afford a car let alone an electric one, those that do buy secondhand imports from the Western world (5-10 years old).
Equally logistics will be reliant on ICE for many years to come, so focusing on efficiency and reducing those emissions.
Stop bashing either technology and focus on improving them together!
I think it is clear that electric is the future, mostly because of better energy efficiency, simpler manufacturing, and falling battery prices.
What I don't know is how quickly this future will come, and whether CNG/LNG (to which engines of cars already in use can easily be converted) is the right thing for the next 10 years until electric vehicles are cheap, and charging and range aren't a problem anymore.
LNG/CNG burns much cleaner than diesel/gas and it is easier to refill than to recharge. As bonus, refitted engines retain the ability to run on gas if needed.
We have had LNG/CNG for forty years. There have been huge fleets of public sector vehicles converted to it in the past but those vehicles were not replaced with more LNG/CNG vehicles. There was also a considerable tax incentive.
It was a failed experiment. It never took off. Already electric cars have better infrastructure and higher uptake and it isn't as if governments are fleet buying electric vehicles for councils/utilities to use. They had been doing that with the LNG/CNG things several decades ago, and building some refilling infrastructure in depots.
When you compare the success of diesel in the European market for small cars you can see a change of fuel is possible. Diesel isn't as cheap as it once was but it still commands a large part of the European market.
I think we need to look to China and what they are doing. It is full steam ahead for electric. The diesel and petrol cars will simply get replaced with new vehicles, there won't be any conversion to LNG/CNG.
We get the full Musk vision of robot taxi cars that do their fleet thing removing the need for car parks and making roads safe to even the lamest squirrel, but the real danger to the automotive status quo is affordable Chinese electric cars that pass the safety tests and are nice to be in just because they are electric. We have had the market changed before with Volkswagen and the Japanese cars coming along and actually being what people wanted, despite being alien to the established industry.
Most cars you see reviewed are refreshes of the existing conventional ICE models, they have updated styling and updated infotainment systems with a revised version of the same platform. Despite the failings, Tesla are 7 years ahead in redefining the automobile product. The incumbents are not really trying, they are just running these ICE refresh vehicles. The market isn't going to be disrupted by them.
Meanwhile, in China they have 5 and 10 year plans to dominate the automotive trade with fully electric cars. Plus the incentives in their domestic market make things possible at scale. Much like how the VW came along with a better value proposition the same can happen with Chinese electric cars. If the payments are easy and the warranty lasts forever with the running costs much lower than ICE then the market for second hand ICE cars will be reduced to scrap value. As soon as it comes to replacing a part such as a bolt buried deep in the transmission somewhere it becomes more sensible to scrap the thing.
I agree with you, as I cannot see, for example container ships or Australian Road Trains [0] converting to electric anytime soon. Also what about freight trains in remote parts of the world?
EDIT: freight trains are for the most part electric, they just carry their own diesel-powered power plants with them.
Depends on how do you produce electricity. In France where electricity is produced by nuclear power, it is certainly true. In countries like Germany for example where electricity is produced by burning coal, it might not be true.
The critisized article uses 550g/kWh for the German grid mix, but in 2018 it already was down to about 480g/kWh and is on track to be lower in 2019 as reneweables are expanded. So that number is quite off already.
H.W. Sinn has made a range of presentations (you can find them on youtube if you understand German) where he tries to show how reneweables are infeasible. Also there, he has the pattern to use slightly out of date numbers as basis of his calculations. I actually have met C. Buchal at university, but that is quite some time ago. He is a really nice guy and as a physicist he should have spotted the shortcomings of this publication. But from what I have read, he is working on synthetic fuels, so that might explain the angle.
Since the electricity produced in the EU is a part of the Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), one could argue that any electricity used will have no impact at all on the CO2 emissions. The reason is that in the ETS, there are a fixed amount of emission allowances. So if a coal power plant produces extra electricity, someone else will decide to emit less CO2.
And one would lose their argument because having quotas on emissions doesn't eliminate the impact (because otherwise they won't be quotas, they'd be a prohibition).
BKS argues that you cannot take solar panels on the roof of the battery factory into your calculations since "otherwise you just take away green electricity elsewhere". My point is that if you allow that reasoning (which I think is correct) then it also follows that using dirty electricity in the EU takes away dirty electricity elsewhere. Therefore, the calculated emission impact of electricity use should probably be much closer to zero.
And since diesel use in transportation is not included in ETS, there is an even bigger impact of switching from diesel to EV: you stop burning fossil fuel in your car and the electricity you use will crowd out emissions elsewhere.
The whole diesel/electric/petrol discussion is pointless, the only thing that is actually better for the environment is to drive less. The other three are all about a degree of being less bad, not better.
That advise just fails miseably in practice. We can't go back to non-mechanical sources of power unless we want to economically regress to those times.
Can you imagine ships taking months to cross Atlantic? Can you imagine horse being used for delivery?
The fact that delivery requires moving a couple of tons of vehicle to deliver at most 50kg of packages is where the problem lies. Larger delivery vehicles will obviously be required for remote locations and logistics, but for edge delivery (to re-use Cloud terminology) in urban spaces, there are many cases where soft mobility solutions would make much more sense, like electric-assisted cycling. DPD has started investing in those solutions [1].
As Dr Elliot Fishman said when Dominos announced pizza delivery by self-driving cars: "If the answer is a 1500kg ton car to deliver a 0.9kg pizza, you're not giving the problem your full attention". - https://twitter.com/ElliotFishman/status/907698051589869568
> We can't go back to non-mechanical sources of power unless we want to economically regress to those times.
I really don't see why not.
> Can you imagine ships taking months to cross Atlantic? Can you imagine horse being used for delivery?
Yes I can. I can also imagine less shipping by producing more stuff locally.
> Can you imagine horse being used for delivery?
No, but I can imagine deliveries to be much more efficient than they are today. Just for one anecdotal example, last week I ordered two memory modules for a NAS, they arrived in two different shipments. Even a moments' reflection would have shown the ridiculousness of partial shipments, for one that particular NAS needs its memory incremented in double banks, for another, you'd have to do two upgrades even if it worked. So two different DHL trucks had to drive a significant distance in order to deliver two very small (less than 30 grams each) devices. The inefficiency there is staggering.
Sure, but just to be more structural about allowing people to work from home and to collate shipments from multiple senders to a single recipient (like we used to do...) would already cut down tremendously on un-neccesary mileage.
A very large percentage of the jobs out there could be done just as effective from home as from an office.
Also in the news: "The European Commission has formally accused BMW, VW, and Daimler of colluding to impede the rollout of emissions limiting technology" [0]
I really hope all these German carmakers become the next Kodak.
In the meantime electric cycling and public transportation beat both of these 2 ton couches on wheels. Anyone who has ever tried an E-Bike knows that they are freaking amazing. We can do so much better than electric cars.
111 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 158 ms ] threadMost diesel cars can be used with HVO100 - 100% renewable
Electric cars have lots of options in addition to electricity from fossil fuels
Nuclear, solar, wind, geo-thermal, hydro.
We’ll probably need diesel for quite some time but electric cars do have more options.
Fossil fuels (total) 2,651 63.5%
Nuclear 807 19.3%
Renewables (total) 713 17.1%
electric car usage in the US is less than 1 million cars.
My point was that that the electricity can come from a variety of sources, including fossil fuels. Coal is dying. Natural gas is cheaper and much cleaner.
Solar is easy to produce locally, even on your own roof. Also electric cars typically turn around 85% of the energy into forward motion. Because it's local there's minimal distribution costs. Additionally grid size installations are competing with coal, natural gas, and similar sources quite well on price.
Gas cars are around 15% efficient, and diesels are only slightly higher. Anything like gas has substantial costs in distribution, and of course you have to drive to/from gas stations (instead of just charging at home/work.
So even if HVO100 is 100% renewable, it's not going to be cost efficient, or energy efficient.... so why bother?
Diesel - 16,54 SEK/L. HVO100 - 17,36 SEK/L.
RIght now on one of the biggest petrol chan here in Sweden.
https://m.circlek.se/cs/Satellite/m/SE1/sv_SE/pg133234738132...
Even at those numbers, electric is better. There's no need to use old data.
I suspect you'd be well below the 30% efficiency again. At least in the USA the Prius isn't particularly popular (except to trade in for a model 3). The demand is for the small crossover and SUV segments.
Airplanes, on the other hand, that might be a good thing.
(From a programming perspective - since this is Hacker News, after all - we could view electric power as an "interface" which hides the implementation of how it's generated from the car, as opposed to petrol which is "tightly coupled" to the car)
They're really both interfaces, for petrol you get energy and CO2 emissions for a given quantity. However you don't know that the CO2 emissions are net - the fuel might have been produced via some synthetic process driven by renewables. Unlikely, but as an interface you can't really know the details of the implementation behind the scenes.
That freedom means that greening of the power supply can be solved at a societal, rather than personal level.
As it stands now we are experiencing an all out bankruptcy declaration of the idea that free, unregulated markets (which allow monopolies and cartels to thrive) are gonna be beneficial for humankind in the long term.
What is a monopoly in this context ? does having 99% market share in the US constitutes a monopoly if a chineese competitor has twice the number of users ? Are you going to dismantle google and amazon, only to see baidu and alibaba reap the market ?
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
35% renewable.
12% nuclear.
Those percentages talk about how much capacity they have to produce electricity in Germany NOT how much they consume from that capacity (capacity factor is the important word and that's only between 20-40% of that capacity.
Plus those percentages is before you include how much energy is important.
In other words that number is highly highly misleading.
So it's highly misleading. On top of that, we haven't even talked about the fact that it's increased the prices dramatically for the german consumer and it's not going to reduce CO2 emissions even looking into the future maybe even slightly increase it because of the need to support it with coal now that they are closing the nuclear power plants.
It's a huge failure.
Lets start with the idea that wind is somehow making strides:
https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR349_IjpQUn2HChgQCGGaYlR6...
Today it's less than 1% of the world's energy (which is the important factor here not just electricity) Projected to be 3% in 2040.
With regards to Germanys ELECTRICITY usage (again it's not energy but electricity):
https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/reality-check-germany-doe...
And again pile up all the other things I talked on top of that and you get to why your "facts" are not actually useful but misleading.
Regarding energy prices in Germany
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-households-and-i...
Regarding capacity factor: http://www.nmppenergy.org/feature/capacity_factor
Regarding CO2 emissions: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/
>Lets start with the idea that wind is somehow making strides:
>https://www.iea.org/weo/?fbclid=IwAR349_IjpQUn2HChgQCGGaYlR6....
>Today it's less than 1% of the world's energy (which is the important factor here not just electricity) Projected to be 3% >in 2040.
I wasn't talking about the world number, but the German number.
>With regards to Germanys ELECTRICITY usage (again it's not energy but electricity):
>https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/reality-check-germany-doe....
>And again pile up all the other things I talked on top of that and you get to why your "facts" are not actually useful but >misleading.
Besides that link being from 2014, we have added a lot of reneweables since, it isn't contradicting what I said.
>Regarding energy prices in Germany
>https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-households-and-i....
Yes, energy prices in Germany are high for private households, as the costs for the transition are put only on private consumers and small businesses while large industries pay none of it. This is rightfully critisized by many. What is the relevance for the discussion here?
> Regarding capacity factor: http://www.nmppenergy.org/feature/capacity_factor
Yes, and?
> Regarding CO2 emissions: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/
This article actually confirms the numbers I named, with almost 40% reneweables in 2017. So you show that your claim about my numbers is wrong. Thanks.
You are talking about electricity it's not energy. You are talking about what % of electricity is produced IN Germany now what it consumes (i.e. imports) Your number needs to factor in capacity factor (it doesn't)
The point of this discussion is whether Solar can be used for large scale energy consumption. It can't and it isn't and you haven't showed that to be the case for the very reasons I just explained to you.
Sun could be 100% based on the way you present it and it still wouldn't mean that Germany didn't use other types.
Thats the point you seem to be missing here.
No, you claimed that my number of 45% reneweable electricity production in Germany for 2019 so far is false. But you provided a link which showed that it was 40% in 2017 already. So how have you shown my number wrong? Please let us just talk about the number, don't start other topics as in your previous post.
You are talking about electricity it's not energy.
Yes, I am talking about electricity, my claim was clearly referring to that. How was my claim wrong?
You are talking about what % of electricity is produced IN Germany now what it consumes (i.e. imports)
Germany is a net electricity exporter.
Your number needs to factor in capacity factor (it doesn't)
What capacity factor needs to be factored in and how when just doing the sum of the production in Watt hours?
The point of this discussion is whether Solar can be used for large scale energy consumption. It can't and it isn't and you haven't showed that to be the case for the very reasons I just explained to you.
My claim didn't talk about solar specifically, but about all reneweables together. How was the number I named wrong?
Sun could be 100% based on the way you present it and it still wouldn't mean that Germany didn't use other types.
No, I have not made any claim about solar. I have just named the total percentage of reneweable electricity of the total electric production.
Capacity factor (which means that you have to reduce the number to that factor which is betewen 20-40% of what is stated as capacity is different than actual usage)
It's only electricity produced in germany (which means you have to include electricity coming from other places than Germany)
That electricity is a subset of energy.
It's pretty simple. Your number ignores those facts to get to that numbers. If you factor those things in the number will dramatically smaller.
I know what capacity factor is. But I was not talking about the installed peak power of reneweables, I was talking about the actual amount of energy which has been produced. It is irrelevant what the capacity is, it is only counting the energy being produced, which is measured by the meter. That is the number I have been talking about.
It's only electricity produced in germany (which means you have to include electricity coming from other places than Germany)
What are you talking about? Germany isn't importing electricity on a large scale.
That electricity is a subset of energy.
That is true, that doesn't make my statement, that reneweables are over 40% of all electricity production in Germany wrong. But you claimed my statement were wrong.
It's pretty simple. Your number ignores those facts to get to that numbers. If you factor those things in the number will dramatically smaller.
No I was just talking about the metered electricity production.
Let's say electric cars are 50% more efficient in terms of energy consumption; that's still a 65% increase in the amount of electricity production required. As we move to EVs and renewables, this extra energy is going to come from keeping fossil fuel plants online that would have otherwise been shut down.
Counting the energy use of EVs as potentially from renewable sources is just feel good and ignores reality. The marginal electrical consumption caused by Teslas coming off the line today will not come from renewable sources over the lifetime of the vehicle, even if you assume a very healthy exponential ramp from today.
You're refuting one bad argument with another, which unfortunately is pretty much par for the course for discussions on energy policy.
Even with this, the shift is still well worth doing, not least of which because the distributed storage it offers is likely the only way we'll be able to hit 100% renewables down the track.
That would be a 20% increase in electricity production required, but from that one can deduct quite a bit for fuel refining and distribution, better buffering of peak electricity production etc.
If you take the energy content of fuel, an electric car is roughly 4x as efficient as a combustion engine. While combustion engines may reach peak efficiencies of 40%, the average over the whole driving cycle is less than 20%, as the peak efficiency is only reached in a narrow band of power productions - usually at highway speeds. That is the reason hybrid cars save fuel, the electric component reduces the inefficiencies of certain parts of the driving cycle.
Fair enough; I should have used 25% instead of 50%. In my head I was multiplying by the energy efficiency of electrical production but that of course is not relevant to this calculation. The irony of correcting a bad argument with a bad argument while complaining about the same is not lost on me. I believe my point stands.
Whether the grid reaches 100% reneweable during the lifetime of an electric car bought today or not might not be clear, but the point being was, it is guaranteed to contain way more reneweables as of today and with that the base of the calculations was wrong.
I'm not arguing that EVs aren't a good idea. I'm just in favor of being clear about the choice that's being made; a switch to 100% EVs would result in significantly increased electricity consumption powered by fossil fuels until renewables catch up, but lower overall carbon emissions since you're burning the fossil fuels more efficiently.
EVs are still superior when powering them entirely with fossil fuels. I'm not trying to argue against them. But it's important to be truthful about where the energy is coming from.
Yes, if there is a difference between the demand and the amount of reneweable energy produced, that has to come from carbon sources. So increasing the demand might increase that. On the other side, in Germany we are already at the point where we have excess energy production. Mostly because coal and nuclear plants cannot be throttled quickly. So quite often we have to take reneweable energy off the grid to keep it stable. Equally, we have negative electricity prices on the spot market. Here you would even have to calculate a negative CO2 content in the energy mix for electric cars which could absorbe that wasted reneweable energy.
In the end, electric cars are rather accellerating than slowing down the switch to more renweables in the mix and as said, the addition of reneweable sources far exceeds the addition of electric cars - at the moment even by orders of magnitude.
It is fair to count renewable energy that could not be produced without the assistance of BEVs, via demand dispatch or battery to grid transfers. And the full amount of this energy should be counted, not just its share of contribution to the grid.
Electric cars consume quite a bit of power, but the longer range cars like the Audi, Jaguar, Tesla, top of the line leaf, and bolt all have a 200 mile or so range. So under normal use (somewhere around 12,000 miles a year) they don't need charged every day.
So generally cars can charge off peak, but in times of dire need I can see only allowing cars to charge when there's a surplus of power... strangely enough these surpluses are becoming common because of solar. Sometimes utilities even have to pay to get rid of the power.
Let's look up the numbers, instead of guessing.
The average fuel economy of an american car is apparently 24.7 mpg, whereas a Tesla Model S gets 3.0 miles per kWhr.
So if you replace one with the other, you will need about 3.5 MWhr of extra electricity. 27% extra.
The good thing is that we should be able to charge the EVs at the time of our choosing, and maybe even discharge them into the grid when the power demand outweighs the generation. The utilisation of wind, solar and off-peak baseload power should increase.
Even if EVs do double electricity demand, its mainly going to be off peak, and you've got 8+ hours you can spread the charging over. Maybe not a great match to solar, but a good match for wind.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-...
My point is that the grid is not getting continuously cleaner if you're dumping a bunch more load on it. The marginal increase in load will be powered by fossil fuels for a significant amount of time, which is longer than the lifetime of a Tesla built today.
You take your dirtiest power offline first (with a sane energy policy). Any extra load you add is by definition delaying that event.
EVs are an important next step, and an absolute necessity for stabilizing the grid when transitioning to intermittent renewables. I was replying to a very specific claim made by the parent comment.
If you take the existing grid, and add a bunch of load to it, and also add a bunch of renewables, the grid is still cleaner. For the set pollution outputs, the amount of power generated is higher. Pollution per unit power is less.
And the point I was making is that it doesn't matter, even if coal was where the additional power came from (and it absolutely will not be), it's still cleaner than current ICE cars (that's the link I cited in the previous post)
But you aren't thinking clearly about where the power for EVs is coming from. I'm going to attempt to illustrate with some made up numbers for simplicity.
This year, we have:
* 100 TWh electricity consumption
* 100 TWh gasoline consumption
The electricity is generated via:
* 20 TWh from renewables, growing by 10 TWh a year
* 80 TWh from fossil fuels, shrinking by 10 TWh a year
This system will reach 100% renewable consumption after 8 years, having consumed 80 + 70 + 60 ... = 360 TWh of electricity generated via fossil fuels, and gasoline containing 800 TWh.
Now if we could switch the system over to 100% EVs this year (to make the math easier), let's assume we can replace gasoline containing 100 TWh with 20 TWh of electricity. The capacity for this generation comes from our existing fossil fuel plants, which were in the process of shutting down.
Our consumption is now:
* 120 TWh electricity
Generated via:
* 20 TWh from renewables, growing by 10 TWh a year
* 100 TWh from fossil fuels, shrinking by 10 TWh a year
This alternate system will reach 100% renewable consumption after 10 years, having consumed 100 + 90 + 80 ... = 550 TWh of electricity generated via fossil fuels.
Even on an aggressive renewable ramp (which should be more favorable than reality), the addition of load from EVs has caused 52% more consumption of electricity from fossil fuels over the course of the ramp. This is still a significant reduction in carbon emissions, as the power plants burning fossil fuels are more efficient, and it's worth doing. But it is not correct to say that the EVs are powered in part by renewables until near the end of the ramp. Any amount of renewable energy you feed the EVs is simply being taken from elsewhere in the grid.
Now, you could ramp up renewables more quickly to make up the shortfall, but you could have done that anyway. The only real connection they have is that EVs can dispatch demand and even send power back in to the grid from their batteries, in order to allow the grid to remain stable as more intermittent sources of power are added to the grid. In places where wind and solar have caused an excess of energy, like Germany on occasion as discussed by a sibling commenter, or at times in my own Australia, you can start to attribute that otherwise wasted energy to fueling EVs.
Also given solar's growth and the time it will take for most cars to be electric there's plenty of room for more solar production. California now requires solar on all new homes, and it's getting ever more price effective to use renewables. Seems like I see a few stories a week about a coal, NG, or similar peaker plant being cancelled, or decomissioned in favor of battery storage, solar, or both... for purely economic reasons.
A 75kw battery in a tesla gives you a range of 310 miles or so. So that's 4 miles or so per kw. So if I install the smallest Tesla solar system (4kw for $8,000) and being in central California I get a fair bit of sun. Should easily make 15-20kwh in the winter, and a fair bit more in the summer. That's 80 ish miles a day in the winter, and more in the summer. I drive about 30 miles a day on average.
So with a 8kw solar system I'd likely handle my driving needs and put a big dent in my other power needs. Tesla's new solar pricing puts it around $2.00 a watt installed. $16,000 isn't cheap, but our power bill isn't cheap either, especially in the summer.
As a nice bonus solar panels noticeably decrease the heat load in the attic, saving airconditioning costs. Amusingly solar panels over parking lots (so they provide shade) actually save a fair amount of gas. The huge win is when everyone runs their AC flat out for 15 minutes when they get into their 130F cars, if their car is closer to ambient they spend much less gas on the AC.
While solar does contribute to the "duck" shaped power production curve, cars typically spend the vast majority of their time parked, and can be programmed to use power whenever there is a surplus/whenever the price is lowest. So while electric cars can consume large amounts of power, they generally aren't picky on when they get it. At least for home users they typically schedule charging for whatever time the cheapest rates start.
I am imagining most cars will be plugged in at night when there is no solar energy produced,do they imply you can buffer energy in the cars battery and you can extract some if is needed or that you can charge it in smart ways, like charge slower if the grid is not at full capacity.
Are there disadvantages for the battery life or charging time?
Additionally even on those top 1% days (3.5 days a year) there's likely only a few hours where the load is near max.
So if say 1M (2% or so of all cars) cars in a country like Germany would contribute say 25% of their capacity just 3-4 days a year it could make a significant difference and make the power grid more reliable and allow the least efficient peaker plants to be decommissioned.
Even over a decade of use, electric car owners aren't going to notice 25% of their battery being used 3-4 times a year.
So instead of charging, the grid is able to "buy" electricity from your battery during stress times (say maybe during lunch hour or something).
You end up having the grid having access to all electric car's battery when not needed.
As long as we stay in optimal operating envelope for batteries (no full charge/discharge with large currents, no temperature extremes), there is no downside for battery life.
These intermediate steps are required to setup the logistics and economies of scale for a future when our primary energy source is a cleaner alternative.
This economy isn't new. Public transport, much of it electrified already, is the very definition of economy of scale. It will trade some comfort and convenience for increased efficiency and lower cost (not to mention some hefty side benefits like less congestion and reclaiming some land in cities). It could also free up city traffic and allow reclaiming some of the land. It's also not very popular with people who can afford an EV today which leads me to believe this is only about comfort and convenience at the budget you can afford. For some people this leads to an EV, for others to an ICE.
It's one thing for a tech or green website to dispel that narrative but japonik is a fairly hardcore car enthusiast/moterhead site.
* It used outdated NEDC tests instead of WLTP numbers. (Diesel) car makers are known to have cheated NEDC tests for decades, using corrected WLTP numbers changes the whole story.
* It exaggerated the CO2 emissions for production of batteries, Tesla's Gigafactory emits 2.6x less CO2 per kWh than assumed.
* It assumed a battery lifespan of just 150k km. Tesla's rated battery lifespan is over 2M km, so taking 300k as very conservative number changes the calculation significantly.
* It assumed an energy mix of today, instead of an increasing share of renewable energy in the future.
Using corrected data, the Tesla emits actually 63% less CO2 instead of 11-28% more.
This is probably worth top billing. Even if electric vehicles were to produce more pollution _today_, they would still be a positive in that it would move a large part of the pollution problem upstream, where we have many more strategies available to solve it. Not entirely unlike an abstraction layer that produces worse performance today but enables performance-optimising refactoring tomorrow.
It's probably not quite so cut-and dried. A gigafactory building solar to produce it's own energy certainly seems like it should get a steep discount in emissions. But where do we draw the line? I buy wind power. Does that mean it no longer matters how much power I use? That doesn't seem reasonable, either.
https://api.watttime.org
If electricity supplied to the grid is 50% wind, and 50% coal. You could sell 50% of your customers 100% green electricity, or sell 50% green electricity to all of your customers.
The former allows customer to put their money where their mouth is, and directly support the green energy build out. The latter may be more suitable for govt mandated targets.
The only thing that's unreasonable is counting green electricity twice.
Yes, fossil fuels should be phased out, however we should still continue research to make Diesel and Petrol more efficient and clean. A large proportion of the world still can't afford a car let alone an electric one, those that do buy secondhand imports from the Western world (5-10 years old).
Equally logistics will be reliant on ICE for many years to come, so focusing on efficiency and reducing those emissions.
Stop bashing either technology and focus on improving them together!
What I don't know is how quickly this future will come, and whether CNG/LNG (to which engines of cars already in use can easily be converted) is the right thing for the next 10 years until electric vehicles are cheap, and charging and range aren't a problem anymore.
LNG/CNG burns much cleaner than diesel/gas and it is easier to refill than to recharge. As bonus, refitted engines retain the ability to run on gas if needed.
It was a failed experiment. It never took off. Already electric cars have better infrastructure and higher uptake and it isn't as if governments are fleet buying electric vehicles for councils/utilities to use. They had been doing that with the LNG/CNG things several decades ago, and building some refilling infrastructure in depots.
When you compare the success of diesel in the European market for small cars you can see a change of fuel is possible. Diesel isn't as cheap as it once was but it still commands a large part of the European market.
I think we need to look to China and what they are doing. It is full steam ahead for electric. The diesel and petrol cars will simply get replaced with new vehicles, there won't be any conversion to LNG/CNG.
We get the full Musk vision of robot taxi cars that do their fleet thing removing the need for car parks and making roads safe to even the lamest squirrel, but the real danger to the automotive status quo is affordable Chinese electric cars that pass the safety tests and are nice to be in just because they are electric. We have had the market changed before with Volkswagen and the Japanese cars coming along and actually being what people wanted, despite being alien to the established industry.
Most cars you see reviewed are refreshes of the existing conventional ICE models, they have updated styling and updated infotainment systems with a revised version of the same platform. Despite the failings, Tesla are 7 years ahead in redefining the automobile product. The incumbents are not really trying, they are just running these ICE refresh vehicles. The market isn't going to be disrupted by them.
Meanwhile, in China they have 5 and 10 year plans to dominate the automotive trade with fully electric cars. Plus the incentives in their domestic market make things possible at scale. Much like how the VW came along with a better value proposition the same can happen with Chinese electric cars. If the payments are easy and the warranty lasts forever with the running costs much lower than ICE then the market for second hand ICE cars will be reduced to scrap value. As soon as it comes to replacing a part such as a bolt buried deep in the transmission somewhere it becomes more sensible to scrap the thing.
EDIT: freight trains are for the most part electric, they just carry their own diesel-powered power plants with them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train
H.W. Sinn has made a range of presentations (you can find them on youtube if you understand German) where he tries to show how reneweables are infeasible. Also there, he has the pattern to use slightly out of date numbers as basis of his calculations. I actually have met C. Buchal at university, but that is quite some time ago. He is a really nice guy and as a physicist he should have spotted the shortcomings of this publication. But from what I have read, he is working on synthetic fuels, so that might explain the angle.
And since diesel use in transportation is not included in ETS, there is an even bigger impact of switching from diesel to EV: you stop burning fossil fuel in your car and the electricity you use will crowd out emissions elsewhere.
Can you imagine ships taking months to cross Atlantic? Can you imagine horse being used for delivery?
As Dr Elliot Fishman said when Dominos announced pizza delivery by self-driving cars: "If the answer is a 1500kg ton car to deliver a 0.9kg pizza, you're not giving the problem your full attention". - https://twitter.com/ElliotFishman/status/907698051589869568
[1] https://electrek.co/2019/04/10/p1-quadricycle-e-cargo-bike/
- less frequent shopping, delivered in a more efficient way, than one family car at a time
- improvements in public transport to reduce one-person drives
- more remote work, removing daily commuters
I really don't see why not.
> Can you imagine ships taking months to cross Atlantic? Can you imagine horse being used for delivery?
Yes I can. I can also imagine less shipping by producing more stuff locally.
> Can you imagine horse being used for delivery?
No, but I can imagine deliveries to be much more efficient than they are today. Just for one anecdotal example, last week I ordered two memory modules for a NAS, they arrived in two different shipments. Even a moments' reflection would have shown the ridiculousness of partial shipments, for one that particular NAS needs its memory incremented in double banks, for another, you'd have to do two upgrades even if it worked. So two different DHL trucks had to drive a significant distance in order to deliver two very small (less than 30 grams each) devices. The inefficiency there is staggering.
Every option being "pointless" until it's the absolute perfect universal best solution is a great excuse for never doing anything.
A very large percentage of the jobs out there could be done just as effective from home as from an office.
Sounds interesting. What was this thing and the use cases?
I really hope all these German carmakers become the next Kodak.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/5/18296540/european-commissi...